Bachmann pretty dim on bulbs

[mwb970]

Bachmann pretty dim on bulbs by Dick Polman
(Columbia Daily Tribune, April 5, 2011)

Turns out, (Michele Bachmann) is upset the federal government, starting next winter, will require the manufacture of light bulbs far more energy-efficient than the traditional incandescents. She wants to repeal the recently enacted law that puts Big Brother under your lamp shade.

“The government has no business telling an individual what kind of light bulb to buy,” she declares, but as she continues to imply that this law is all Obama’s doing, here’s the fun part she always leaves out: The law was passed in 2007 with strong bipartisan congressional support — including 39 Republican senators — and it was signed by President George W. Bush.

So this is no liberal “nanny-state” conspiracy. In reality, this law officially acknowledges that saving energy is a patriotic act and that new-technology bulbs will use 25 percent to 30 percent less energy than current incandescents, save the average household as much as $200 a year in energy costs and sharply cut power-plant pollution — thereby lessening the greenhouse-gas emissions that contribute to global warming.

But such empiricism doesn’t fly with Bachmann because she doesn’t believe humans contribute to global warming — “voodoo,” she calls it. Fortunately for her, that position puts her in sync with the conservatives who will kick off the Republican primary season next winter in Iowa and New Hampshire. They’re undoubtedly more than happy to believe Barack Obama is the president who inked the deal to curb their light bulb freedom.

Is this woman for real?

[RKP5637]

1. She's a wacko! ... but, I could see this happening, if the average cost per

household goes down $200/yr, I would not be surprised to see electric bills go up by $200/yr. No utility is going to leave spare change in the consumers' pocket.

[marmar]

2. Even if they had left out 'on bulbs' the headline would have been accurate.

nt

[Somawas]

3. She's the best Republican in Congress. Only Louie Gohmert can

come close to her for sheer bugfuckery.

[mwb970]

5. Bachmann seems to have level after level of stupidity.

In this case, she accuses Obama and the "nanny state" of a republican-supported initiative signed by bush, and on top of that the object of her scorn is actually a good thing! (It's good for consumers, the industry and the environment, so of course she is dead set against it.) Then there's the Edison miscue and the idea that a hundred-year-old invention need not, indeed cannot and must not be improved on in any way. Not only that, her beloved incandescent bulbs are not actually banned as she says; they just have to be made more efficient.

Even Sarah Palin seems to have only two levels of stupid: the things she says and whatever petty vendetta underlies her words. Bachmann offers a deeper, more extensive kind of stupidity that Palin can only dream of.

[InternalDialogue]

6. That's a distinction that needs to be brought up every time this trope gets trotted out

There's no ban on incandescents. There's an efficiency requirement. If someone loves incandescent bulbs so much they can't stand to see them replaced with CFLs or LEDs, then they can figure out how to improve incandescent efficiency to meet the requirements. No different than industry standards in any other part of our lives.

[PatSeg]

10. It really doesn't matter though

The people she's appealing to are every bit as stupid as she is and they'll believe anything she's says.

[mwb970]

15. Did you catch her on the government shutdown recently?

She said "republicans don't want the government to shut down", although she could barely be heard over the chants of "Shut 'er down! Shut 'er down!" from her audience. (Many had signs with similar sentiments.)

I realize that her braindead followers will believe everything she says, as you mentioned. But will they believe her that "republicans don't want the government to shut down" even as THEY THEMSELVES are shouting "Shut 'er down" at her?

My god. How deep does this dysfunction go?

:shrug:

[PatSeg]

16. Deeper evidently than I can imagine

and I have a very vivid imagination. Either I've never seen anything like this before or I've managed to block the memory. No, actually I think it is because such oddballs in the past never got the kind of media coverage that they get today and they are taking advantage of it. Who doesn't want to be on TV all the time??? "Whoopee, look at me, I'm on TV!"

Oh and as I was typing this, in the background Contessa Brewer and Jonathan Capehart are talking about Obama's birth certificate and idiot Donald Trump. If the media didn't talk about it all the time, then these people would shut the hell up.

[jakeXT]

4. There is backlash in Euroland

In response, many Germans have stockpiled conventional light bulbs in silent protest. They feel the ban on conventional light bulbs makes no sense -- and they're right. The energy-saving bulb is a pretty dirty affair if one takes a closer look at the production process. Eighty percent of the bulbs are made in China where safety standards are so lax that many workers suffer from mercury poisoning. In Germany, the bulbs are classified as special waste and the poisonous substance they contain has to be dumped in underground sites.

Furthermore, the new bulbs don't live up to their promise regarding energy efficiency either. When the magazine Ökotest tested an array of the bulbs recently, half of them didn't last longer than 6,000 hours, well below EU estimates of 10,000 hours, Indeed, it was found that the larger estimate applies only to continuous use. Switching the new bulbs on and off, it would seem, isn't good for them.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,751469-5,00.html

[mwb970]

7. And yet, there is this result from Popular Mechanics, here in America...

The Best Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs: PM Lab Test
(Popular Mechanics, May 1, 2007)

Now, a new Compact Fluorescent Light (CFL) revolution is at hand. Retail giants are pushing hard for the bulbs -- Wal-Mart hopes to sell 100 million CFLs by the end of the year. In California, a legislator recently proposed banning the sale of incandescent light bulbs in the state by 2012. All the old benefits of CFLs are still significant -- more so, in fact. They can use less than one-third the electricity of incandescent bulbs of equivalent brightness and last up to nine years. The new bulbs are smaller and far cheaper (about $5 each) than their predecessors, and more powerful than ever. Top-end 24-watt bulbs promise brightness equivalent to that of a 150-watt incandescent.

Still, when it comes to illuminating your home, brightness isn't everything. Can CFLs match the light quality of the energy-wasting incandescents we know and love?

Popular Mechanics designed a test pitting seven common CFLs against a 75-watt incandescent bulb. To gather objective data, we used a Konica Minolta CL-200 chroma meter to measure color temperature and brightness, and a Watts up? Pro ammeter to track power consumption. Our subjective data came from a double-blind test with three PM staffers and Jesse Smith, a lighting expert from Parsons The New School for Design, in Manhattan. We put our participants in a color-neutral room and asked them to examine colorful objects, faces and reading material, then rate the bulbs' performance.

The results surprised us. Even though the incandescent bulb measured slightly brighter than the equivalent CFLs, our subjects didn't see any dramatic difference in brightness. And here was the real shocker: When it came to the overall quality of the light, all the CFLs scored higher than our incandescent control bulb. In other words, the new fluorescent bulbs aren't just better for both your wallet and the environment, they produce better light.

CFLs have been further improved in the four years since this test. Maybe they aren't as bad as some people think?

[MedicalAdmin]

8. About the only good thing that can be said about CFL's is ...

... that they are more energy efficient than incandencents. At our clinic, due to some health concerns, we recommend the LED's whenever possible for patients because they are much more efficient, cost is coming down, and because they don't shed ambient energy like CFB's. Of course this advice is self selected for a population of people who have health issues complicated by ambient energy such as wireless routers and CFB's. It's not a major issue for some people. It is for others.

Besides LED's are like 10 times more efficient than CFB's. That's what sold me. ALmost no heat. Miniscule energy usage. Long lasting. And the price is dropping. What's not to like.



Ohhh. Regarding Bachmann. She's my rep and I've met her. She really is that stupid. If she wasn't in a district that was gerrymandered up the a$$, she wouldn't have a seat. Trust me when I say that it Jeebus H. Christ II couldn't get elected in that district unless he was a frothing GOP supply sider.

[mwooldri]

9. Not the only House Republican a bit dim on lightbulbs I'm afraid.

http://www.news-record.com/content/2011/01/11/article/coble_seeks_repeal_light_bulb_standard

And I just learned - he has joined the Tea Party caucus :cry: - because he works well for his constituents with individual cases but to join the Tea Party ... sorry Howard :(

[mwooldri]

11. since I ran out of edit: Coble voted against the entire Energy Independence Act. nt

[1monster]

12. I changed to compact fluorescent bulbs about seven to ten years ago and

found a $20 reduction on my electric bill the first month I had them. And the cost of electric power has gone up considerably since then. The complact fluorescent bulbs last significantly longer than incandescents; I've changed the first fluorescent bulb I used once in these years. Some are still working after seven years.

The only thing I worry about is how to dispose of them. There are so many steps, one practically needs a text book, and what to do when the cats knock over a lamp breaking the bulb... Is my family, including the furry, four-legged ones, in danger of being poisoned by mercury? :scared:

[NothingRight]

14. Mercury Fears Overplayed

I agree that the disposal of them is annoying, but the Mercury fear is a bit overplayed. You probably have a better chance of mercury poisoning if you eat a lot of tuna.

Now, if it is broken and you are cut and some of the mercury is absorbed directly, okay maybe a little better chance than the tuna, but despite the conservative reports to the contrary, you will be okay.

We switched our house a few years back as well, and we have yet to replace a single bulb. I look forward to the improvement in color and technology so that disposal becomes easier (although not having to dispose of them at all has been pretty easy).

Cheers!!

[NothingRight]

13. The Double Standard is nauseating

Perhaps if the dimwits like Bachmann don't like the government stepping in to try and raise standards in our nation they should give back their air bags, seat belts, etc.

I personally believe we hire legislators to help look out for the public interest. We may disagree with the approach, but it is their job. If for some reason it is determined later that the push to more energy efficient bulbs creates a new problem, legislation can be drafted to address that problem as well.

Bachmann and her corporate apologists believe that the only good ideas come from corporations, and while the idea for an air bag was developed by a private corporation, the standard for safety in vehicles that led to the idea was established by regulation.

There is no freedom without responsibility.

http://wp.me/p1mIkk-ad