CleanTechnica is the #1 cleantech-focused
website
 in the world.


Energy Efficiency 3036254720_052d0020cc

Published on February 24th, 2011 | by Tim Tyler

269

Presidential Candidate Ron Paul Takes On Hard Issue, Light Bulbs!

Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

February 24th, 2011 by
 

Ever heard the saying “bright as a burnt out light bulb?” Well, it seems that Ron Paul and about 20 other GOP House members seem to have nothing else to do but to take on the hard issues that are addressing this country, and with so many problems to choose from, they have decided to take on the biggest threat first.

Ron Paul and his GOP buddies want to repeal the phaseout of the incandescent light bulbs that’s suppose to start next year.

Ironically,  GOP President George W. Bush signed the bill into law to phase out incandesent bulbs in 2007. Chief sponsors were Reps. Jane Harman, D-Calif., and Fred Upton, R-Mich., who now chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Freedom Action, “a web-based group founded in 2009 by political activists at the Center for Competitive Enterprise,” thinks the ban oversteps government’s role in energy-efficiency and energy stability, USA TODAY reports.

“The light bulb ban is an outrageous government limitation on consumer choice and intrusion into the home of every American,” Myron Ebell, the group’s director said in a statement. “There is overwhelming public support that spans the political spectrum for repealing the ban on incandescent light bulbs.”

Really?

USA TODAY actually found that most Americans support this incandescent light bulb phase out.

“Nearly three of four U.S. adults, or 71%, say they have replaced standard light bulbs in their home over the past few years with compact fluorescent lamps or LEDs (light emitting diodes) and 84% say they are ‘very satisfied’ or ‘satisfied’ with the alternatives,” a survey of over 1,000 U.S. adults found.

Manufacturers will no longer be able to make the 100-watt Thomas Edison bulb after Jan. 1, 2012, followed by the 75-watt version in Jan. 2013 and the the 60- and 40-watt bulbs in Jan. 2014.

Most power companies are encouraging customers to use the more efficient compact fluorescent lamps or CFLs, since the grids in the United States are being strained above their capacity. I guess if Ron Paul would somehow become president, then we could expect to see more of these useless repeals.

“Waste is worse than loss. The time is coming when every person who lays claim to ability will keep the question of waste before him constantly. The scope of thrift is limitless,”  Thomas Edison said. Hint, hint..

Read More: USA Today

Photo Credit: zetson via Flickr

Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.

Print Friendly

Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

Tags: , , , , , , ,


About the Author

Holds an electronic's engineering degree and is working toward a second degree in IT/web development. Enjoy's renewable energy topic's and has a passion for the environment. Part time writer and web developer, full time husband and father.



  • Pingback: Broken-Hearted Lawmakers Just Can’t Quit Incandescent Light Bulbs – CleanTechnica: Cleantech innovation news and views

  • Pingback: Philips Gets the Last Laugh on Light Bulb Wars – CleanTechnica: Cleantech innovation news and views

  • Pingback: LED Light Manufacturer Brings New Green Jobs to Texas – CleanTechnica: Cleantech innovation news and views

  • Matt

    Hi Zachary,
    Here are the facts in a nutshell. If you do not agree with this logic, you should be prepared to live in a country where people are willing to fight for reason.

    If 70% of the US population are happy with CF bulbs then, in theory, they’d be buying them. What this law impedes is the manufacture of light bulbs for a minority of people who want them. Somewhere there’s a girl with an easybake oven, somewhere there’s a guy with a dimmer switch (CF’s don’t work with dimmers), somewhere there’s a designer who doesn’t like the look of CF’s, somewhere there’s a recording studio that can’t have the ballast in the CF’s near their microphones.

    Ultimately, there are tons of reasons why people might need a regular light bulb. And if there weren’t, who are you? Who is the government, to tell a factory to shut down? Who are you to tell someone what to buy? Who are you to tell someone what they can do with electricity they pay for? What sort of deal was struck with people who make CF’s? It’s wrong. You’re wrong. The discussion is appreciated.

    • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

      Matt, i completely disagree with you. & have responded to these issues dozens of times now.

    • Dcard88

      CF’s have been dimmable for more than 5 years. You should get out more. LED’s are not noisy. CF’s are cheap and LED’s are getting cheaper. By the end of 2013, LED’s will go in ALL new housing designs. Getting rid of incandescents is one of the easiest calls ever made.

  • Aaron

    From the looks of it Zackary, the main issue here is not the light bulb, but whether or not the government’s responsibility is to protect us from ourselves. My belief is if the trend is to phase out the incandescent, then why bother banning them? Why take away another freedom of choice? If nobody wants them and nobody uses them, then there is no need to ban them. However, there is still a significant demand for them, and thus a reason to keep supplying them. Give people the freedom to choose.

    If the point is to protect us from ourselves, then I have to ask, at what point do we draw the line? Where does the role of the government to protect us from ourselves stop and the responsibility of ourselves to protect ourselves start? Hypothetically, we would all be safer with more cops preventing crimes. Should the government not hire a cop to be at every house? If we wish not to be put on life support in the event of a coma, should the government refuse us that right and force us to be put on life support, in the event that we -may- be restored to health? Thousands of people die in car accidents every year, why not ban cars? We have bicycles and public transportation after all.Many diseases are spread through sex. How about banning pre-marital sex?

    If it is the government’s role to protect us from ourselves, then there is no end to the level of freedoms that can be taken away from us in order to protect ourselves.

    I for one don’t believe we need to be protected in such ways. We are intelligent creatures and can decide for ourselves what to do with our bodies and way of life. If what we do does not harm or bother other peoples’ fundamental rights to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness, then who cares? Live and let be.

    • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

      Aaron, your statement at the end as to when the govt can step in is directly in line with what i was talking about. “If what we do does not harm or bother other peoples’ fundamental rights to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness, then who cares?” Our use of coal and other fossil fuels is directly harming people and even causing their death NOW (this is why such measures are needed)

  • WV Treehugger

    It’s disheartening enough that rejection of climate science has become a benchmark of Republicans’ ideology. It adds insult to injury to see how quickly the party’s perspective is regressing.It was, after all, literally just a few years ago that plenty of Republicans were willing to take the threat and the science seriously. GOP presidential candidates like John McCain and Mike Huckabee not only acknowledged climate change, they both endorsed cap-and-trade plans. Rank-and-file Republican voters, by and large, believed what the mainstream believed when it came to climate science.
    A new report from the Pew Research Center shows what we probably could have guessed: conservatives in America reject evidence of global warming. But Pew study also raises an important related point: it didn’t use to be this way.Pew found that a 53% majority of self-identified Republicans believe there is no solid evidence the earth is warming. Among “Tea Party” Republicans, the results were even worse, with 70% concluding that the climate science is wrong. This isn’t exactly surprising.

    Disbelief in global warming in the GOP is a recent occurrence. Just a few years ago, in 2007, a 62%-majority of Republicans said there is solid evidence of global warming, while less than a third (31%) said there is no solid evidence. Currently, just 38% of Republicans say there is solid evidence the earth is warming, and only 16% say that warming is caused by human activity. In 2007, three-in-ten Republicans said global warming was the result of human activity.

    In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, incoming energy chair Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) joined Americans For Prosperity (AFP) president Tim Phillips, a global warming denier, to support the lawsuits by global warming polluters against climate rules. One of the companies leading the charge against the Environmental Protection Agency’s greenhouse gas endangerment finding is Koch Industries, the private pollution giant whose billionaire owners have been directing the Tea Party movement through its AFP front group.

    Upton once considered a “moderate on environmental issues,” but has worked hard to refashion himself as a hard-right defender of pollution in recent months. Some Tea Party groups tried to block Upton from taking the gavel of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, attacking his past support for energy-efficient light bulbs. Upton previously claimed that “climate change is a serious problem” and that “the world will be better off” if we reduced carbon emissions. However, in the course of the past two years — as he received $20,000 from Koch Industries — Upton has shifted to oppose not only cap-and-trade legislation but any form of limits on climate pollution whatsoever, instead supporting investigations against climate scientists and lawsuits against the EPA and its supposed “unconstitutional power grab that will kill millions of jobs.”

    Look how far the GOP has regressed in just over a year. I don’t think you will find a single Republican saying anything about Climate Change these days. They have successfully brainwashed all their Fox-heads and Rush-heads to fall in line with the corporate overlords, Koch Industries. Lock-step everyone, lock-step.

  • John

    I can’t wait until government decides that Zachary is too stupid to live in a community. And then, government makes a law that people like Zachary have to live in isolation for the “good” of the society.

    • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

      nice. thank you for implying that i am a criminal or mentally insane

  • Bradley

    This is not about light bulbs, but about an overreach of federal power.

  • Sal
  • Justin Moe

    The government has no right to tell anyone what they can or cannot buy. I though it was a FREE country, obviously not. Revolution 2012 Baby, get your guns and lets go to town.

    • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

      technically, it’s not about what one can buy, it’s about what can be manufactured (i think).

      either way, though, yes, the govt can tell us what we can or cannot buy (think about drugs, certain weapons, and things that cause considerable damage to the natural environments we rely on)

      • Aaron

        The government only currently does so illegally. That is, the power to ban drugs or weapons is not in the Constitution. Think about prohibition. It took a constitution amendment to ban alcohol, which was the correct method to ban something. Now, our congress deliberately ignores that respect for the Constitution. If it is the will of the American people to allow its government to decided what people can and cannot buy or consume, why not amend the Constitution so that it specifically states such?

  • Nick Stone

    I am one of those people who have replaced all of the incandescent bulbs in my house with either CFL’s or LED’s (depending on the lighting requirements of each area), but I can’t, in good conscience, subscribe to the collectivist notion that Big Brother has the wisdom or the altruistic inspired motivations that should be required to leverage the commerce clause in such a heinous manner.

    I am perfectly capable of deciding what is best for my particular situation, but I can’t presume to speak for my neighbors. What made fiscal and practical sense for me will not, by necessity, make sense for anyone else.

    All the excessive cock-a-hoop from the leftist lemmings about their self proclaimed sagaciousness and intellectually superiority is obviously nothing more than superfluous drivel.

    • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

      Nick, we’ve covered all these arguments repeatedly by now. look at the responses below.

      • wjv

        The government did it wrong. It makes no sense to ban a particular type of technology. It will cause problems when a breakthrough makes an incandescent based lamp technology as efficient or more so than CFL’s or LEDs.

        What they should have done is just make a minimum threshold of lumens per watt for lighting products in order to be sold in the US. In this situation something around 25 lumens per watt would take most incandescents out of play, but leave in CFL and LED tech.

        Policy makers usually don’t completely think through all the consequences of their legislation.

        • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

          i agree with your commentary here. thanks for the contribution. however, i don’t think there will ever be an incandescent breakthrough that can bring the technology up to par with CFLs or fast-improving LEDs

        • John

          wjv – This is pretty much exactly how most of the regulations are put. For example, California is aiming to establish a minimum standard of 25 lumens per watt by 2013 and 60 lumens per watt by 2018. U.S. Federal legislation will require general-purpose bulbs to produce at least 45 lumens per watt (similar to current CFLs) by 2020.

  • dddienst

    Sorry but wrong is wrong and this phase out is wrong the federal government does not have the authority under the constitution to ban the light bulb only stop its sale across state lines.

    To regulate (make regular) the trade between the states.

    • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

      covered this repeatedly by now, check out the comments below

  • http://nymarts.com NYM Arts

    Actually, incandescent bulbs are the heart of the Antique Lighting and Restoration businesses. 70 percent of the antique lamps are styled around the profile of these bulbs. Chandeliers are especially negatively affected by the new lighting technology. The “Candle Bulb” profile is the Most important one to preserve (15 & 25 watt), and the “Edison Bulb” as well. The bulb contributes to the value of the lamp.
    We must have BOTH old and new style bulbs available. Choice is the American way.

    • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

      notice the quote by Edison above?

      seriously, there’s a time when inefficiency and pollution has to go. let’s not get TOO stuck in the past on this

  • lighthouse

    ..and a Rasmussen poll showed the opposite..
    in fairness it has also to do with the way the the question is framed.

    The ban is Wrong – but not just because of bad CFLs:

    The pro-ban people then just keep saying:
    “New lights are better, we are not banning incandescents, Halogen
    incandescents will be allowed”…etc

    All lights have their advantages including ordinary simple incandescents
    compared to “efficient” halogen types: Their ban is not like a normal
    ban on unsafe products, like lead paint, but simply to reduce electricity use:

    Yet people choose to pay for their electricity, of which there is no future shortage (rather the opposite, from all developments going on, including
    low-emission renewable/nuclear energy etc!)

    Why society energy savings are not there anyway:
    http://ceolas.net/#li171x
    with US Dept of Energy own references = Under 1% American energy
    savings from energy efficiency regulations on incandescent lights
    .

    • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

      again, the issue is not about a shortage of electricity, it’s about environmental protection that is needed to ensure a livable climate. it is a simple phase out that will have clear environmental benefits, don’t freak out

      • Robert F. Valdez

        No this is not about protecting the environmen nor the environment. This is about writing endless laws to topple American business so that Americans are poor helpless sheep. This is nothing less than part of an attempt to weaken America so that marxists like the one in the president’s office now can loot the country and no one with any real money power can deal with him. Communist MO is to topple those in legitamate power in hopes that one of their own can seize power. These laws will not stop here, there will always be one more reason to reduce Americans to living in huts.

        • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

          energy efficiency legislation is good for business. truthfully

  • Pingback: One Sailor Beefs About Lights, Navy Responds with New High Efficiency LED Technology – CleanTechnica: Cleantech innovation news and views

  • John

    Zachary Shahan, it is not necessary to answer back every single post.

    It doesn’t help your argument. You just come over as an obsessive lunatic in a minority of one.

    Let others have their say. The readership is smart enough to disagree without your incessant and repetitive interjections.

    State your point of view succinctly and clearly, and then shut the f up.

    • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

      John,

      I got a flood of comments all saying the same thing. I am sorry, but I not going to leave a faulty opinion sitting at a 40:1 ratio because we all of a sudden got a swarm of Ron Paul lovers coming in from Google (apparently just search “Ron Paul” in their free time. i appreciate your concern for how people perceive me, but hope you will let me moderate the comments on this blog the way i think is beneficial for any readers interested in these issues.

      if i come to a blog with 100 comments, i am probably not going to read every one, but if i read one comment, i am definitely likely to read the thread of replies that follows. if there is no reply to a comment debunking it, it looks as though it has been accepted

  • AustinDave

    such a crazy concept, not forcing people to use toxic products. The US government will never stand for this and will no doubt have all their union freind out in full force on this one. RP 2012

  • oed ronne

    incandescent light bulbs rule

  • Brent

    I can’t wait until the class action lawsuits start over the fact that we were forced to switch to CFLs but were never told how to properly handle a broken bulb which contains mercury or when our ground water is contaminated due to improper disposal. Check the EPA website on proper disposal and clean up of the CFL bulbs for yourself. This will cause problems in the future.

  • http://imjimmy.com ImJimmy

    This is simple. The Constitution of the United States gives absolutely no authority to the federal government to tell people what light bulbs they can and can not use. I agree we shouldn’t use them. Most of the country agrees we shouldn’t use them. But the federal government does not get to tell us that we can not use them. If your state or local government decides you can’t buy/sell them within your state, that is fine and perhaps even wise. I realize this issue is minor in the grand scheme of things, but this is far from the only piece of legislation that I and Congressman Paul would seek to repeal on constitutional grounds. For those of you who don’t understand this, this country out performed everyone else in the world largely because it dispersed power rather than centralizing it and when you repeat the mistakes of past empires and criticize those who warn against it, you do yourself and the rest of the world a disservice.

    • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

      ImJimmy, your claims as to how the U.S. rose to prominence and the role the U.S. govt should play in protecting our environment are HIGHLY debatable.

  • Grant in Texas

    Australia has already outlawed incandescent bulbs and Canada is giving their citizens until 2012. If every American home replaced just one incandescent light bulb with a CFU bulb that’s earned the ENERGY STAR, we would save enough energy to light 3 million homes for a year, would save about $600 million in annual energy costs, and prevent 9 billion pounds of greenhouse gas emissions per year, equivalent to those from about 800,000 cars.

    http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=find_a_product.showProductGroup&pgw_code=LB

    CFL bulbs should be disposed of at hazardous waste depots (where the mercury can also be recycled), not placed in regular garbage. So maybe the government should make such sites readily available. We can say the same for cell phones, batteries, computers, etc. I take these items to my local Best Buy where they have a recycle bin, but after changing out every bulb in my home (including outdoor security lights) to CFL three years ago, I haven’t had any burn out as yet.

    The amount of mercury in one CFL bulb is only 5mg compared with 500mg of mercury found in a rectal thermometer that mothers will use on their infants. A minuscule amount but still should be deposed of safely.

    • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

      thanks for all the extra info, Grant. especially the bit at the end

  • Ron paul 2012

    Also the journalist who wrote this article quotes, “Ron Paul is taking on the hard issues, light bulbs” where were you yesterday when gas spiked over $100 a barrel and Obama had no comment on that but did have something to say about gay marriage!? Social issues will not fix the economy. Ron Paul revolution!

  • Ron paul 2012

    I agree with the repeal, this is a government plot to fill G.E.’s pocket. Back door deals need to stop. Go Ron Paul!

    • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

      don’t think so. thank you for yet another pep rally cheer

    • wjv

      This definitely was not a favorable piece of legislation for GE. I worked there til 2007 and when this was in the pipeline, management was complaining about it. They had to initiate plant shut downs for incandescent plants all over the US.

      GE was the market leader in incandescent lamp sales. Phillips (a dutch company) was (and still is) the market leader of CFL sales, which were big but smaller than incandescent. Now GE, a former market leader in lighting technology, is playing catch up with Phillips and Sylvania.

      • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

        thanks for the inside GE update (which i’m sure people jumped on purely for political reasons)

  • edhelmstetter

    i`m sorry but people like the author of this piece who go out of their way in lame attempts to smear ron paul are fools and they shouldn`t be allowed at the big table to debate the issues

  • Richard in Virginia

    Some fools obviously thought it was important enough to take on the monumentally important issue of preventing Americans from making a voluntary decision what to buy, didn’t they? It seems freedom means little to you as long as your values are not at issue.

    • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

      Richard, we’ve covered this dozens of times by now. look around in the comments. govt has a role in protecting us from ourselves

  • James J Aragon

    I thought lefties were pro environment. Don’t CFLs come with the risk of mercury dust contamination when broken?

    • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

      we’ve covered this repeatedly, James. the mercury not emitted from coal power plants due to the energy savings far outweigh the mercury in CFLs, which can very easily be disposed of safely and even recycled.

  • Justin

    If this USA Today poll is accurate then it will be exactly along the lines of what Dr. Paul is trying to fight for. The free market and consumer choice will prevail. If the consumers choose to buy the new light bulb over the old one then the people have spoken and the companies will start manufacturing the new bulb and will phase out the old ones. Gov’t doesn’t need to step in to handle this, the market will dictate what the consumer wishes to buy.

    • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

      we’ve covered this repeatedly, Justin. the phase out will help make this process happen faster, which will benefit nearly everyone

      • Justin

        Zach, if it was covered I do not care. I’m not going to scroll through 200+ posts to see if someone already posted something along the lines of my opinion. The phase you speak of and advocate is not the phase out I wish to see prevail. The phase out you want is to have the Federal Gov’t come and tell me how to live because they know how to live my life and take care of me better than I do. I don’t subscribe to that type of philosophy. I have no problem with the new bulbs but I’d rather see the market and consumer choice doing the phasing out and not big brother.

        • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

          Justin, dozens upon dozens of people expressed your opinion. & i responded so many times that they started trashing me for “copy & pasting.” YOu don’t have to scroll through 200 comments. read 5 & you’ll probably see responses to you concerns.

  • Chris Swanson

    Turns out that the long life everybody is talking about comes under very strict rules, under ideal energy flow and usage . One of those rules is to keep the bulbs on for at least 15 minutes after turning them on…so CFL bulbs are not recommended for situations when they are flipped on and off very often and are not kept on for at least 15 min. I found out first hand that under those circumstances the CFL bulbs last less then the regular incandescent lights.

    • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

      Chris, you must have been flipping them off and on obsessively, bcs I have used them for years without them dying nearly at the rate of incandescents. the energy savings, even if you do not use them in the most ideal way are surely still considerable. do you have any information proving otherwise?

      • Wayne Williamson

        Chris…I’ve replace all the lights that are on for a few minutes with cf(over the last couple of years) and the only one so far I’ve had to replace was the front lamppost(sp) about 5 years ago…looking to start over again with leds as the existing ones burn out.

  • Robert F. Valdez

    One more thing, I don’t care if 70+ percent people think phasing out incandecent light bulbs and it should not matter. WE live in a REPUBLIC form of government, not a DEMOCRACY. The Constitution is supreme, not the opinions of a majority of Publicly educated goons. Democracy is a MOBOCRACY. Usually it’s the temorary form of government that exists before something much worse takes over. Democracy is what existed in Germany right before Hitler took over. Democracy is MOB RULE. So go ahead and join the crowd, but don’t come crying to me when the goons come to shut down whatever you do for a living.

    —ROBERT VALDEZ
    HOUSTON, TEXAS

  • Robert Valdez

    The govt. should NOT have the right to outlaw ordinary light bulbs. The free market can determine what bulbs to make and what bulbs to buy.

    There are numerous applications for lighting and good reason for using different technologies. For example: ordinary light bulbs are used by motor controller technicians as a substitute for motors in testing. No other light bulb technology can be used in this instance.

    Each type of lighting technology has its own types of pluses and minuses. If you want to demand that one type of light bulb be banned then do it at a state level and screw your own state up. You are free to breath in the mercury yourself. But don’t be poisoning me with your US MANDATED first hand poison.

    —ROBERT VALDEZ
    HOUSTON, TEXAS

    • George

      Robert, here’s to states’ rights! I am quite libertarian on the federal level, but I don’t mind so much these sorts of things happening on the state level, as long as I can move to another state.

    • Jivy johnson

      “You are free to breath in the mercury yourself. But don’t be poisoning me with your US MANDATED first hand poison.”

      Your Edison bulbs are likely powered by coal fired plants which generate much more pollution than CFL’s. Besides if you dispose of your CFL’s properly the mercury is not an issue.

      In a few years LED light bulbs will be cheap enough for mass adoption:

      http://www.ecodirect.com/LED-Lights-s/97.htm

  • P. Turner

    haha Why should the government be able to tell people what type of light bulbs they can and cant but. People who think that is a proper role for government should leave america because their ideas are a danger to a free society. so please leave.

    • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

      P. Turner, if the U.S. was built on your ideals it would have been a waste dump and would never have risen to the prominence it has.

      • Chris Swanson

        Care to explain that outright alarmist lie based on nothing?

        • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

          yes, Chris, i’m preparing a dissertation on it. i will deliver it to your front door for you when it is finished. & then i will do the same for every other simple issue out there that too many people can’t understand

      • Manigandan Velumani

        Z. Shahan,
        As a libertarian, I have no rights to condemn you condemning P.Turner’s comment. But my point of view on this debate is that. If you guys in the USA have a sound currency and the currency is tied to all the resources in this world, the way it ought to be, then these kinds of problems won’t exist. Imagine if the no renewable energy sources weren’t subsidized as much as they are today, then the energy prices would go up and the person being able to drive the most efficiency in a RENEWABLE source of energy will get a level playing field and the people will see the world moving towards a just system where the currency means real wealth. Monetary skeptics still say that money itself leads to accumulation of wealth en-masse and create artificial interdependency…
        But in a good and healthy free market economy, there would be competition to substitute the void which in turn forces the conspired businessman to come to terms with the market.
        Well RON PAUL still opposes paper money in his ideal world which would bring much more clarity to manage resources.

        • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

          Manigandan Velumani,

          The problem here is that there is no possibility of a truly “free market” in the real world. Theoretically, we can create one, but not in reality.

      • John McAvene

        Prominence?!?!?!? PROMINENCE! WERE 14 TRILLION IN DEBT BASICALLY OWNED BY CHINA AND ARE IN A WAR FOR OIL, PRETTY MUCH EVERY COUNTRY HATES US, OUR CONSTITUTION IS BEING SHREDDED AS WE SPEAK AND YOUR SAYING PROMINENCE, WOW you are so uneducated its scary!

        • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

          Yes, it is John. And where are we falling from? From the bottom? No. I guess you missed the point, which is the level we had risen to (with strong governmental influence & policies).

  • Brian

    Well considering they have ignored all the major issues in washington that ron paul has been talking about maybe he thought he would start with something small!!
    Of course standing out for the right of the people to buy a product would be to difficult for most of washington someone has to do it. How in the heck it pass in the first place.

  • http://wvoutpost.com WV Treehugger

    First of all I would like to say. The TEA PARTY is nothing but a bunch of pathetic losers. Two years ago you guys were praising Sarah Palin saying she was going to be the best thing for the USA since Apple pie and Baseball.

    Now because some idiot draws a straw and that straw has Ron Paul’s name on it, “He’s the new savior of the USA.”

    Can you not pick one person and go with it? Good Lord who’s next in the line up of losers.. GLENN BECK/HANNITY ticket? He would be a great leader for your movement. He’s dumb, uneducated, drunk/drughead, pill popper and a commie socialist in disguse. Fits every single TEA PARTY member profile so far.

    Talk about not wanting big Gov? OMG, what the HELL do you think the GOP is doing in washington as we speak? Oh no I forgot they are vacationing at the moment. I meant when they ALL (Repub’s too not just Dems) got back from vacation. Spending “YOUR TAX DOLLARS” for Gulf games, while the USA falls apart.

    After they get done getting their spray on tans and spa treatments. They are going to cut our “SOLDIERS” funding! You TEA PARTY people do remember the Soldiers don’t you?

    “THE MEN AND WOMEN DYING IN OTHER COUNTRIES DEFENDING YOUR RIGHT TO BE STUPID IN THE USA” (hint…they where camo and get blown to hell on a daily basis.)

    The freaking Lawmakers or the President have nothing what-so-ever to do with our FREEDOM they just make stupid laws. Our MEN/WOMEN fight for our FREEDOM.

    If you want to complain about a stupid light bulb, at least post like your smarter than one! Okay?

    • WeB

      You better read up more on the issues that Ron Paul supports when you group him with the standard GOP of today. That just shows your ignorance. Our men/women do fight for our freedom and for whatever other reason is asked of them, whether they agree with it or not. Tell me why Ron Paul was said to receive more donations from active duty military during the 2008 campaign than any other candidate?

    • Manigandan Velumani

      Ron Paul has great respect for your countrymen who serve overseas.
      He wants them to be safe and feels that they are better off defending the USA borders.
      You might call me anti america who wants the soldiers to leave the gulf and other countries.
      But in reality, I just try to learn from everywhere and my buck stopped with RON PAUL.
      RON PAUL dismisses Sarah Palin in a jiffy.
      He says that he is not surprised that she has started to agree with RON Paul on certain issues like the constitution because its natural that people would read these signs when there is a disaster. But he insisted that he would have been impressed if Sarah Palin really had supported him before all the crises started…
      Well its easy to hate someone once you know their mistakes.
      But, it might be hard to like someone once you hate them.
      So you don’t really need to repent that you don’t like RON PAUL yet. You have the right to your opinion.
      Thankyou.

    • AustinDave

      I heard that people were being paid to post comments but never bought it till now. If you think that some will lay down and be had by your bs rhetoric you are totally right, but if you think that you will change the meaning of freedom you will be disappointed. Nobody got more votes from the military last time around then Ron Paul. They understand more than anyone that the price paid By Americans to give the banks(Rothschilds)world dominance is nothing short of fraud. So now what , you gonna change your stance and call our military Un-American. Are you Mitt himself? Maybe Newt. Nobody is gobbling up your crap. No other politician has ever been so consistently pro-freedom and voted in line to the oath of office than RP. I bet Lucifer wants whatever you were given back, though I’m sure it wasn’t much.

      • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

        wow, AustinDave, so many assumptions, so many mistakes. i’ll leave the rambling about your love for RP off the table (no point in trying to convince someone to go against their love), but very directly replying to your absurd assumption that WV Treehugger is paid to comment, I can assure you 100% that no one is paid to do such a thing on this site or on our network.

    • Drewbie

      You have never listen to ron paul talk…. hannity and beck are not like paul….. if you want to belive that lie… it’s your right. im just asking that you actually go and watch some videos of ron paul talk… maybe check out his reading list… and lets have a real discussion…..

      No they fight to ensure stability in the middle east so we can keep buying oil….

      For christ sake, do you think we should be policing the globe

      AT THE COST OF AMERICAN LIVES

      Afghanastan is going to take away our freedom?

      No they won’t and no one will ever take my freedom

      You think that the government is just peachy now cause we got Barak now?

      WAKE UP AND SMELL THE CORPSES
      They have go you under there thumb…
      i bet your to Scared to head over to youtube right now and type in ron paul.

  • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

    I responded to a lot of the comments below already, but there’s one thing i left out, for all those who didn’t seem to catch it.

    this part: “USA TODAY actually found that most Americans support this incandescent light bulb phase out.

    ‘Nearly three of four U.S. adults, or 71%, say they have replaced standard light bulbs in their home over the past few years with compact fluorescent lamps or LEDs (light emitting diodes) and 84% say they are ‘very satisfied’ or ‘satisfied’ with the alternatives,’ a survey of over 1,000 U.S. adults found.”

    is in response to this quote: “There is overwhelming public support that spans the political spectrum for repealing the ban on incandescent light bulbs.”

    the public support is not the issue. the issue is that it is the govt’s right & responsibility to protect us from ourselves, and that is what this legislation is doing.

    i know, i’m not going to convince all you Ron Paul lovers.

    believe it or not, the U.S. was built on strong govt policies protecting our air and water. if you don’t appreciate that and don’t want such policies to continue, consider moving to another country where there is no govt (if you can find one) or very little govt protection & see how things go

    • George

      Toilet paper:

      The “free market” has its limitations and failures. Economics 101 can tell you that. People use too much toilet paper. It’s hurting the environment. We need to protect our environment so we can live healthier, higher quality lives (ever heard of “the tragedy of the commons”?) is one area in which the government needs to step in.

      Reduced toilet paper usage makes a huge difference and decreasing its usage is purposeful and needed.

      Gum:

      There’s too much gum on the sidewalk. It’s hurting the environment. Protecting our environment so we live healthier, higher quality lives (ever heard of “the tragedy of the comons”?) is one area in which government needs to step in.

      Nasty-tasting biodegradable bubble gums make a huge difference and increasing their usage with this type of legislation is purposeful and needed.

      “the public support is not the issue. the issue is that it is the govt’s right & responsibility to protect us from ourselves”

      Zachary Shahan, if I were the government, I’d tell you to get off the internet before you hurt yourself. And yes, public support IS an issue in a government that is OF the people and FOR the people.

      Communism, the opposite of the “free market,” also has its limitations and failures. Didn’t Economics 101 tell you that?

      • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

        hmm, George, i think it’s clear your not looking to discuss the issue as a reasonable person.

        as far as the support of the public being important, again, take a look at the support for this phase out

        • George

          If you want to defend your position, don’t shrug off my post as being unreasonable. I respond to silliness with more silliness, yes. But behind the sarcasm there is still an argument. Don’t you see it? You are welcome to riposte!

          I see no statistics pertaining to the public’s support for this. I see that 71% of a group of people polled have switched to fluorescents or LEDs, and of them, 84% are satisfied with the alternatives. Had I been polled, I would have contributed to both of those numbers. I use fluorescent lights and I am satisfied with them. But I am adamantly against the government making the decision for me.

          Still, those statistics do not represent the public’s support for the ban. And while I can’t seem to find any polls addressing that, I would imagine most people share similar opinions to my own.

          • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

            but would you claim that most people support you, without any such evidence? i hope not

      • http://wvoutpost.com WV Treehugger

        Try clicking Zach’s bio, you will see that he has more education in his big toe than the whole TEA PARTY movement combined!

        Zach is a very kind, caring, loving HUMAN being. Zach stands up and fights for the rights of the abused, hungry and mistreated people of the world. The world needs more people like Zach.

        • Chris Swanson

          I bet Zach believes in environmental myth of overpopulation too…what a nice guy. Genocide..war..forced sterilizations? What’s his choice…John Holdren has his own ideas. People like Zach are what is wrong with the world

          • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

            Thank You, Chris, for making numerous assumptions and attacks on me based on nothing.

        • I DOUBT IT

          LOL hitler EDUCATED the youth too.

          Do be foolish. You don’t know the tea party, because you can’t…. but our two mostly highly valued people are both Doctors… and Zach is will just Zach…. I’d say LOL.

          • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

            I DOUBT IT: if we made our decisions based on the choices of people with doctorates, yes, i think we’d be much better off. that the Tea Party (which is led by oil and coal billionaires) has a couple such people in its ranks sure as all get out doesn’t mean critical thinking is what is leading the frenzy

      • Manigandan Velumani

        Again, the problem is that we are not taking into account about all the natural resources. If USA is depleting its natural resources for toilet paper, then it would question its activities. But if foreign govts are being corrupted into prostituting their forests, then these kind of exploitations will exist. If real currency represented the real value of American forests, then it would very expensive to buy toilet papers. Then people who spend so much, would definitely care for the money they spend and they will definitely count their usage of those papers.
        The current system would do fine though, just as it has survived so long. But don’t forget that everything in this world is interdependent and there would be a natural disaster which will eventually bring questions for mankind.
        AS for the RON PAUL bashing people, I think they want to thrust their opinion on us just as they want to thrust their laws on you USA citizens.

        They say that the world is going to end in 2012. Did they mean that the current American and world conspiracies would project itself as the collapse of the dollar and rewrite the rules of how the world runs itself, once again???
        I wonder if RON PAUL is the guy through which GOD would establish his/her influences in saving people.
        I not a believer of god. I just wrote that line to irritate the other guys who are averse to RON PAUL… lol… ciao…

        • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

          Wow, a lot of assumptions and claims here. & rambling…

    • Blonduxo

      Zach: please go read you Constitution which defines the proper role of government.

      It is not to the govt’s right & responsibility to protect us from ourselves.

      The proper role of government is to secure the rights and freedoms of individual citizens. The powers entrusted to the government by the people are limited and enumerated thus: power of impeachment, power to originate tax bills (resides wholly in the house), lay and collect taxes, pay debts, borrow money, regulate foreign commerce and commerce between the states, make laws regarding naturalization, bankruptcies, coin money, establish post offices and roads, grant copy rites and patents, appoint lower courts, punish piracy, declare war, raise armies, navies, militias, and legislate over Washington D.C. directly.

      What you describe is a nanny state with no personal freedom.

      You are in the wrong country.

      • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

        Blonduxo, find me a top-quality country where the govt doesn’t protect the ecological resources companies and the public would trash if it wasn’t for their intervention. the top countries in the world all protect these resources. as the U.S. drifts in this responsibility, we fall more and more in quality of life

    • Matt

      Since when is this country a democracy? I thought that it was a republic. Let’s put it all on the table for that matter. Let’s see how the public would vote on things like gay rights, marijuana, whether or not we invade Iran, etc. Then make it law.

      The mob is not supposed to vote on anything other than their representatives. People vote by the dollar. What’s best is paid for. What’s worst goes bankrupt. Leave people’s rights out of the voting booths.

      • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

        it’s not about people’s rights. it’s about phasing out the manufacturing of an outdated, environmentally harmful product. if we made all our decisions based completely off of what an individual will buy if it is artificially cheap (the environmental impact is not taken into account), we’d be more screwed than ever

  • M. Nolan

    I swithched my edisons to cfls 3 years ago, if you would have asked me that first year, I would have said that I noticed a few bucks savings on my electric bill, and the light wasn’t as good ~ but overall I didn’t hate them. When these guaranteed for 5 years CFL’s had over a 50% fail rate in the second year, and the rest of the bulbs dimmed to the point that I might as well be using candles to read, I changed my view on them. The bulbs are crap, and I’ll use edisons until there’s something better, if i have to draw the tungsten and blow the glass myself.
    Never mind that the mercury in the bulbs is going to accumulate in landfills ’till some day in the next decade or two this “disaster” will become known to the “green” movement and we will begin efforts to remove it that will cost more, and waste more resources than all the CFLs in the world will ever be able to save over their lifetimes.
    Once again the green movement fails to provide what they claim, and in actuallity will cause more damage than if they had stayed home and smoked a bowl. Who knows, maybe I’ll take a shot at making a billion on the light bulb black market that these idiot stoners are going to create.

    • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

      i don’t know where you got your CFLs, i’ve been using them for years and have had no such experiences. you see these claims out there, but I have never known an actual person in real life who had such issues.

      the mercury pollution (not to mention other pollution) that is cut from not having to produce as much electricity from coal is much greater than the pollution added. in the end, these ARE Green. sorry to burst your bubble on it

      • D. Montgomery

        Your not bursting anyone’s bubble here. Back in 2007 when I was ignorant of the downside of c.f.l.s my opinion was similar to yours Zack. I switched to C.f.l.s around 4 years ago. I have young children that turn lights off and on all the time. C.f.l.s are not built for this type of use. I have replaced some of these bulbs at least four times now. In the process of changing out 30+ bulbs 2 – 4 times in the last four years I have broken a few, thus exposing my young family to low levels of Mercury. I am done with c.f.l.s! I am going to start buying the $30.00 L.e.d. bulbs by the case and replace my c.f.l.s as they burn out. The c.f.l.s have cost me exponentially more than I could have possibly saved. I just wish I would have bought L.e.d.s in the first place. I’m not totally convinced l.e.d.s are the answer either but it’s worth a shot.

        • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

          I’m all for the LEDs! Go for it.

          I, personally, have been using CFLs for years as well, am obsessive about turning lights off (so, also turning lights on and off a lot), and have not had these issues. Sorry if you have.

          I think LEDs are the lights of the future.. but will be nicer when costs come down a bit.

      • steve

        So your blog here isn’t real life?

        • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

          there are a lot of trolls and liars out there. i’m talking about a person i have seen in the real world and personally knew, of course

  • charles norman

    Why should the government have the ability to ban the sale of a product? This can only lead to worse things, and as a strict constitutionalist Mr. Ron Paul sees no reason that the government should be involved in banning an item that poses no threat or harm to society.

    On top of this, in your own article you admit the huge popularity of the new lightbulbs without banning the old ones, which is showing that government indeed should not be required to ban certain items, as the free market is taking over, and surely this consumer trend would no doubt lead to the demise of older lightbulbs simply through supply and demand.

    Also, your article fails to take into account that these new lightbulbs could actually turn out to be more costly to the environment due to what must be done with them (or what is in them) when they finally burn out.

    Kind of the same problem with electric cars, yea they sure do great and save the environment…until you need to get rid of a 500 lb. battery…

    • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

      these points have all been responded to already.

      these bulbs to pose a significant harm to society.

      the govt’s role is specifically to protect the public. “the tragedy of the commons” is a real problem.

      the environmental benefits of these light bulbs (& EVs) far outweigh the costs.

      • Candance

        What about the mercury that is going into our ground water ????
        You would have to be an idiot to believe that people are actually taking them to be disposed of correctly.
        I have yet to find a place in my area to get rid of them.

        • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

          Candace, it really isn’t so hard to find places to dispose of them. Have you actually bought these light bulbs and tried to find places to do so? Where do you live?

          & regards to the mercury, as repeated many times by now, much more mercury is being emitted by having to produce more electricity from coal. also, not Grant’s response above regarding the mercury in these bulbs compared to the mercury in thermometers.

    • Manigandan Velumani

      Isn’t it funny that anti RONPAUL people just dismiss our points of view by trying to act clever whenever they please??? Look at the comment. “Those points have all been responded already” , “these bulbs to pose a significant harm to society” vs “the environmental benefits of these light bulbs (& EVs) far outweigh the costs”…
      Do they realize that if money is not tied on to the environment in the right way, then its still going to be a disaster no matter what???

      • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

        Maniganda, truthfully, i’m not sure what point you are trying to make here. energy efficiency is good for the environment and the economy.

  • Name (required)

    i do not like the new mercury bulbs, besides being a health hazard (check out what you have to do if one breaks!) the bulbs give me a headache. the incandescents have served us well for 100 years, and you do not have to evacuate your home if one breaks.

  • Sal

    Mark.
    Can you find out why they want to repeal the phaseout? I haven’t heard why they want to repeal the phaseout, but these new bulbs cost more to make and must be recycled properly. When not recycled properly (most of the time), they create more environmental problems (they’re more toxic to the earth). I love innovation, but NOT at the cost of destroying more of the planet.

    • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

      Sal, studies have repeatedly shown that the environmental benefits of these bulbs far outweigh the costs. i don’t know how old the CFL bulbs you are talking about are, but the newer versions should not create such problems.

      • sal

        Thanks. But the real question is WHY?
        Why do they want to repeal the phaseout? What are their arguements? Maybe if we knew why, we could discuss both sides.

      • Sal

        I’ll try again……
        WHY do they want to repeal the phaseout? What are their arguements?
        Thanks in advance for the info. If you wouldn’t mind citing the proposed repeal, that would be most helpful.

  • Brad Fleming

    Mark

    You say Ron Paul must have nothing better to do than pick a fight with the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

    Well let’s see… what other trivial shenanigans has Dr. Paul been up to lately?

    He’s sponsored or co-sponsored the Social Security Preservation Act, the Senior’s Health Care Freedom Act, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act, the Identity Theft Prevention Act, the Prescription Drug Affordability Act, the Senior Citizens Tax Elimination Act, the Social Security Beneficiary Tax Reduction Act…and coming soon a new Bill to Withdraw the Troops from Afghanistan…

    …And that’s just the work he’s done in 2011, what have you done in the last 2 months?

    Frankly, I’m amazed that Dr. Paul had time to work this into his schedule, but I understand why he did.

    Your position, bought and paid for by lobbying interests, fails to recognize that Dr. Paul is not addressing this issue on the basis of which technology is better for the environment, or even what the majority of Americans (71%) say they want.

    He’s addressing this issue on behalf of some basic constitutional rights concerning personal liberty and freedom…He’s the guy standing up for the other 30% when nobody else will.

    Have you noticed that throughout my entire comment the reference to “CFLs” was not mentioned once until now. That’s because the specifics are not important…you’re missing the big picture and the most important point…

    …IT’S NONE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS DAMN BUSINESS WHICH LIGHT BULB I CHOOSE TO PURCHASE AND USE AND MY HOME!

    On a Side Note:

    I love some of the innovative new products available today and on the horizon. Most of the bulbs in my house are CFL’s. I’m not basing my response on my personal opinion or preference, I’m basing it on the rights of the 1/3 of the population that wants to have a choice.

    If the Power Companies want to offer incentives for me to use the CFL’s, then fine, I support that. If Home Depot or Lowes wants to offer rebates, then fine, I support that.
    I support the free market approach to a cleaner source of energy.

    A cleaner, more efficient, more cost effective technology will always win out, just let the free market function and get the government out of the way.

    • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

      Brad, it is the govt’s business.

      the “free market” has its limitations and failures. government has a purpose. Economics 101 can tell you that. protecting our environment so we live healthier, higher quality lives (ever heard of “the tragedy of the commons”?) is one area in which government needs to step in.

      CFLs make a huge difference and increasing their usage with this type of legislation is purposeful and needed, which is why it was passed.

      • zzzzz

        “the “free market” has its limitations and failures.”

        Translated: “Freedom has limits and failures! The government doesn’t and shouldn’t! The government is our daddy, ya’ll! The government is our God! Al Gore is our savior!”

        • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

          the free market is not equivalent to freedom at all. for the rest of it, maybe it’s time to take your medicine?..

          • zzzzz

            Omg…

            FREE = FREEDOM; freedom within the marketplace, it is a necessity, if you’re going to have a “Free Market”.

            If you can’t understand that much, that very basic and elementary philosophy, you should quit talking about the subject, right now, then you should take yourself back to kindergarten and start your entire education over again.

            Two human beings should have the capacity [FREEDOM] to create any contract between themselves, without government interference, especially when their contract doesn’t violate the property rights of others.

            What’s more, fighting a war against environmental degradation, using lies and manipulation, whilst you simultaneously support a President who drops bombs laced with Depleted Uranium on cities packed with innocent civilians — that act will never embarrass Ron Paul supporters or Ron Paul into submission. In fact, you’re absolutely LOOONY if you truly believe that that political strategy will benefit. You may gain traffic, but you won’t gain the heart, so you will lose that traffic when they grow bored with trying to correct your shortcomings.

          • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

            zzzzz: don’t get locked into semantics. “free trade” does not equal freedom. the “free market” does not equal freedom. it is not an actual possibility as it is specifically defined and as a pseudo-free market it creates serious limitations and failures.

            as for the off-topic rambling, you are making a lot of assumptions here that are not necessarily true

          • Rory

            Zachary,

            Like most Statists you choose to change the conversation to name calling “maybe it’s time to take your medicine?..” Because you cant handle anyone who has an intelligent view point or rebuttal to your pro-government argument. Is it wrong to want to live in a truly free country where the government doesnt get involved with which light bulbs I choose? We are not discussing huge amounts of industrial toxic waste regulation here. We are talking about what kind of light bulbs I can use in my house. Why dont we let people decide on the free market system. If people dont want these bulbs then no one will sell them. Supply and demand thats the free market Zach.

          • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

            Rory, i’m sorry, but the verbal yelling and hysteria imitation above (“Freedom has limits and failures! The government doesn’t and shouldn’t! The government is our daddy, ya’ll! The government is our God! Al Gore is our savior!”) warranted a simple chuckle and joke

        • Manigandan Velumani

          They say that we didn’t study economics 101.
          They ask us to take our medicine.
          They say that only they are right.
          They only ridicule our point of views.
          Ultimately they never wanna educate us into wellness.

          REALITY IS,
          incandescent tech is prevalent more prevalent.
          It uses tungeston and nitrogen.
          vs
          CFLs are all patented.
          Owned by big corpos…
          Ask them to sacrifice their patent earnings, I will openly support its advantages…
          I also personally believe that copyrights n patents are a scam.
          you can invent a product and name it in the way you want it to be. Set the standards and the way it ought to be produced.
          If competitor produces same thing, he still has to go with your name. If he does a better job, then you get to copy his work in the right way.
          Creates wealth… Has enough competition.
          Local demands met by local companies.
          USA jobs don’t come here to INDIA and create sudden wealthy punks…

          • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

            i am all with you on patents & copyrights. but the scientists who have studied these bulbs and clearly stated their benefits are not part of these corporations and benefiting from such things. don’t let ideology blur your vision of technical issues.

    • http://wvoutpost.com WV Treehugger

      What has Mark done? Hum gee let’s see…..Mark is a Photographer and has raised over $3.4 million dollars for Vol. Fire Dept’s in his community. Helped restock area food banks, supply safety equipment for Police Firefighter’s and Emt’s.

      Help raise over $500,00 for daycare’s. Raised $45,000 for a local church to build a community center for children.

      So the next time you want to trash talk someone on there “GOD” given right to free speech, may want to rethink. You never know, Mark may have helped buy the equipment to save your life! Who’d thunk it a Dem. helped save your life! OMG! Can’t have that now can we.

      The “TEA PARTY” way of thinking is if you don’t kiss the KOCH brother’s butt and worship Sarah Palin, then you don’t deserve to be in the USA!

      Like it or not, the USA is and will continue to be a free nation with a 3 party system. We will not back down from the “TEA PARTY” movement! You idiot’s will not take over our country. No matter how bad the “KOCH” commies want too.

      Koch industries started out with the help of Stalin, a Socialist commie. You so called Freedom fighter’s need to research the people you fight so hard to defend. You are doing nothing but selling out your country and your Freedom to Big Gov. loving commies.

      Hey you guys better hurry it’s almost Beck time. You better check in and see how you all need to think and speak tommrow. Never know he may have some more Hitler info for you to follow, or a cute little puppet show. ROFL. He should get some colored chalk, would look better on youtube. That’s about the only place he’s watched these days or on comic show’s.

    • Dem

      ROFL, so what your saying is Dr. Paul, (lol) has a total of 30% of the vote? Now that’s a high rate, he can win with that kinda backing. ROFLMAO. 30% HE DON’T HAVE A CHANCE IN HELL!

  • Ambrose

    Yes, on the surface it may appear very strange for congress to consider such a proposal.

    In defence of the 21 sponsors fo the bill, it is beside the fact that they are talking about lightbulbs, the issue here is with the federal government telling consumers what they can use and manufacturers what they can produce.

    You rightly point out that “Nearly three of four U.S. adults, or 71%, say they have replaced standard light bulbs in their home over the past few years”… in this case, then why have a law about it? athe market seems to be taking care of this issue anyway.

    • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

      Ambrose, bcs the light bulbs need to go. the “free market” has its limitations and failures. government has a purpose. Economics 101 can tell you that. protecting our environment so we live healthier, higher quality lives (ever heard of “the tragedy of the commons”?) is one area in which government needs to step in.

      CFLs make a huge difference and increasing their usage with this type of legislation is purposeful and needed, which is why it was passed.

      • Joe

        Eco-fascism 101 brought to you by Zachary Shahan

  • Michael R

    71% of people support the phase out?????? NO WAY! 71% of people couldn’t point out Russia on a map. 71% of people don’t know the difference between a carb a protein and a fat. 71% of people haven’t read more than 1 novel in the last year. 71% of German’s supported Hitler.

    What makes you think the common American knows anything about constitutional rights and how we are to respect them?

    Thank God for Ron Paul.

    • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

      Michael, see my comment at the top. the quote concerning public support was just a response to the quote claiming the need & support for the repeal

    • http://wvoutpost.com WV Treehugger

      Your right about the Russia part, hell Sarah Palin thinks it’s in her front yard and N. korea is our ally.

      And the KOCH brother’s got there start from Stalin. In case you didn’t know they are the #1 funder’s of your sweet little Ronnie boy’s campaign. COMMIES FUND YOUR PARTY!!!!! IDIOT’S.

      Thank God? Do the TEA PARTY MEMBER’S even know who God is? You say you are christian based God fearing and Loving people. Yet you spew hate toward everything and everyone. I have a news flash for ya! JESUS CHRIST died for all people, in every country of every Faith and walk of life. Yes even those dang Mexican’s and Gays. He didn’t die for the rich, back stabbing, hate speech giving REPUB’s.

      • Joe

        Wow…so much hate…you still believe in the false left right paradigm don’t you? sad really

      • Drewbie

        The number one contributer to DOCTOR PAUL, is concerned Americans, Ron Paul wants to bring our troops home, and end the Impire of 900 bases in over 130 countries…. He’s the Liberty candidate, He belives, like i do, ALL MEN WERE CREATED EQUAL, and America Doesn’t have the right to force our views around the world…. “What if Christanity actually teaches peace” – Ron Paul on the floor of the house. Not to be rude but have you ever even listened to RON PAUL himself speak?

  • shawn

    If everyone is so happy with the bulbs then why do we need a ban? If I buy the bulb and I buy the power then why does the government need to police the market? Ron Paul 2012

    • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

      shawn, bcs, believe it or not, sometimes we are a little slow (even us Americans…). & there is, of course, the well-known tragedy of the commons

      • BWM

        Have you ever read the tragedy of the commons? You reference it as if you get a royalty check every time it’s mentioned.It is a parable extolling the virtues of private property rights and freedom of CHOICE! NOT government intervention.

        • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

          BWM, there was a clear, pointed message in my message of this simple issue,.. sorry that you missed it. no, i get no royalty checks

      • Chris

        The tragedy of the commons exists because government exists. No government, no commons. In a real free market, absent all governemnt, there are no commons. Everything is privately owned. Google Walter Block environmentalism.

        • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

          what a wonderful world that would be. Wow

    • http://wvoutpost.com WV Treehugger

      You may want to contact your X Prez on that one, he signed the dang bill to begin with!

      OBAMA 2012!

      • Dave

        Another one who still believes in the false left right paradigm…

  • charles ranalli

    your ecological orientation predicts that you would be irked by Ron Paul’s action in this regard. it also predicts that you couldn’t care less about the constitution and its limitations on the powers of the federal government. compact fluorescent bulbs may or may not be a great idea but federal intrusion into my life is a very bad idea.
    charles ranalli
    albuquerque

    • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

      the govt has one clear role if no other, to protect the public, even from itself. it must step in on environmental matters bcs the free market doesn’t properly account for the environment or public health.

  • Paul

    Ron Paul has many important things to do, including clamping down on the Fed, dealing with the money supply, and all issues dealing with personal liberty and he’s doing them.

    Look kids, it’s very simple. Ron Paul is all about personal liberty and freedom, and is against the government telling you what you can and can’t do.

    Interestingly there seems to be some who feel that they want a “nanny state.” Many of us don’t.

    Take a serious look into Ron Paul and his policies. Maybe the “light-bulb” will click on for you…

    • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

      the “free market” has its limitations and failures. government has a purpose. Economics 101 can tell you that. protecting our environment so we live healthier, higher quality lives (ever heard of “the tragedy of the commons”?) is one area in which government needs to step in.

      CFLs make a huge difference and increasing their usage with this type of legislation is purposeful and needed, which is why it was passed.

  • Liberty Lover

    If 71% of adults prefer Subway over Burger King, should we ban Burger King?

    • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

      no, but if 71% of people thought we should phase out Burger King, it might not be a bad idea

      • Drewbie

        Against the rights of the Owner Operators to Own and run a buisness of there choosing. Let’s just have one resturant.. called the RED STAR…every one eats the samething in scilence EVERY NIGHT

        • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

          Drewbie, thank you for warping my response to make it something completely different from what i said. great service to society

  • NIAR LEGNAR

    YOU MUST BE REALLY SEARCHING FOR SOMETHING TO NOT LIKE ABOUT RON PAUL TO WRITE AN ARTICLE LIKE THIS. ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF PEOPLE WHO DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE FREE MARKET. LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE HOW TO IMPROVE THEIR LIVES, AND GOVERNMENT QUIT WASTING OUR TIME.

    • http://wvoutpost.com Mark Tyler

      No, actually I didn’t have to search hard at all. If you are for globalization and one world government then Ron Paul is the guy for you. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

      • handyman96792

        Mark Tyler, are you in High School?

        • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

          why would you think so? bcs you don’t like his opinion or insight?

      • D. Montgomery

        Wow.. Do you guys ever read anything that does not necessarily fit into your preconceived notions with some semblance of an open mind so that you may form an objective opinion regarding the subject at hand? Nothing but the bit about opinions in the above statement is even remotely true, I believe you know it, yet you spew it as fact.

      • Paul

        Ron Paul is the antithesis of one world government and globalization. You clearly have no grasp of his policies.

      • niar legnar

        lets see: Ron Paul is against the U.N.!
        Against Federal Reserve!
        Against Federal Gov overstepping state rights!
        Against these unjust wars!
        Against the patriot act!
        Against the growing police state!
        and he is ONE WORLD GOV guy? you must be lost MARK. The elites fear him!

      • Drewbie

        WHAT?!? there is 900 military bases in over 130 countries….. NAFTA…. UN….. WE ARE GLOBALIZED….. Ron Paul would seek to end all of those things… your staments beg the question… Where do you get your facts?

  • Rik

    Thank you, Ron Paul, for once again pointing out when government goes too far.

    Is everything about LED’s better than incandescent? Yes. Should the government be able to force you to use them? No.

    Is everything about not-smoking better than smoking? Yes. Should the government be able to force you to stop smoking? No.

    End of story.

    • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

      the government is responsible for protecting the commons, the natural resources we rely on and abuse due to what is well known as “the tragedy of the commons.” protecting ourselves from tremendous climate change and pollution is the federal government’s responsibility.

      • handyman96792

        The why is our government privatizing our water supply?

      • Matt

        Who is John Galt? Hehe. Textbook.

    • niar legnar

      well said RIK!

  • Sean McBride

    Mark Tyler wrote: “…seem to have nothing else to do but to take on the hard issues that are addressing this country, and with so many problems to choose from, they have decided to take on the biggest threat first.”

    Mark, if you think that opposition to a light bulb phase-out constitutes evidence that Ron Paul has nothing else to do or that he thinks this is the greatest threat to our country, then you need to start paying attention. Just a cursory glance at news headlines would show you that ending the wars, investigating corruptions within our monetary system, and preserving our individual liberties are at the top of Congressman Paul’s “to do” list.

    Wake up.

  • CaptC

    Ron Paul is right – the free market not the government should decide which light bulbs are best.

    • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

      as stated above, the “free market” has its limitations and failures. Economics 101 can tell you that. protecting our environment so we live healthier, higher quality lives is one area in which government needs to step in.

  • eric

    and i guess you have nothing more important to write about

    • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

      repealing approved legislation that would do no one any good is wasting time. trying to protect that legislation, which will greatly benefit all of us (you included) is not.

  • Matt

    Why not let the people choose which bulbs to buy? If compact florescent bulbs use less energy and pay for themselves in the long-run, why not let the market phase out incandescent bulbs?

    Naw. Forget it. I was thinking the other day about how soda, cheese and cigarettes cause unnecessary pressure on our already overburdened medical system; much in the same way light bulbs do on our overburdened electrical grids. We should also get the government to ban these things for the greater good of the people.

    • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

      as stated above, the “free market” has its limitations and failures. Economics 101 can tell you that. protecting our environment so we live healthier, higher quality lives (ever heard of “the tragedy of the commons”?) is one area in which government needs to step in.

      • handyman96792

        Do you have anything of value to add to this conversation?

        • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

          i actually responded to a point and deepened the content. & you?

          • Drewbie

            The same RED point over and over deepens nothing.

          • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

            Drewbie, i’m not going to leave a false claim sitting as accepted on our site. sorry

      • Matt

        “Tragedy of the Commons” Electricity and the electrical grid are not natural resources which people can squander. You’re starting your point off with a red herring. Electricity is provided by private corporations to people who are able to pay for it. The more one uses, the more it costs. The more it costs, the more inclined people would be to buy energy efficient bulbs. The market is self regulating. Central planning cannot emulate that.

        Ultimately, people do not have a right to electricity. It is paid for by someone. If I pay for it, why couldn’t I use it to light a bulb? Are you in favor of laws which would limit the amount of time I could leave a light on?

        • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

          Wow, do you realize what the burning of electricity using coal power does to the environment?

          You’ve missed the whole point

          • Matt

            Boy did you dodge my question. Doesn’t everyone use electricity? So how it that a tragedy of the commons? If laws which conserve electricity need to be made for the greater good of all, why start at light bulbs? Why not outlaw electric heaters? Could we make a law that limits air conditioner usage?

            I can’t wait for laws that tell people how much water to use when bathing or how much food to eat or how many smiles one could perform.

          • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

            Matt, if it isn’t clear yet, the commons we are referring to is not electricity. it is the air, water, and a livable climate.

            As Aaron stated above, “If what we do does not harm or bother other peoples’ fundamental rights to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness, then who cares?” Our use of coal and other fossil fuels is directly harming people and even causing their death NOW (this is why such measures are needed)

          • Matt

            What do light bulb have to do with coal burning power plants? Electricity is electricity. You should back laws against coal buring power plants, not light bulbs. You dodge a lot of questions. That is the Democrat MO. If I buy electricity, isn’t it my right to consume it how I please?

            Ultimately, the government has no place on this issue, and if it does, then what are we going to do when they ban electric clothes driers, stoves, TV’s or waterheaters? Last time I checked, they run on coal too.

          • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

            i back laws for both, Matt, bcs we’re going to be using a ton of coal for quite awhile longer and energy efficiency is an easy & quick way to help lessen its impact

  • Ed

    Gee, what a surprise. A another liberal hit-piece. The percentage of people who support something doesn’t matter if the rest of the people’s rights are being violated. Most of the country supported slavery at one point in time… hint hint.

    • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

      as stated above, the “free market” has its limitations and failures. Economics 101 can tell you that. protecting our environment so we live healthier, higher quality lives (ever heard of “the tragedy of the commons”?) is one area in which government needs to step in. do you realize that if the “free market” had its way, slavery would still be in place?

      • Ed

        hey Zach, are you one of those people who would in a heart beat support a government ban on video games if there is a correlation between violence and video games?

        no the free market doesn’t have limitation since the U.S. is a constitutional republic with laws that protect property already.

        • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

          the free market has considerable limitations. you haven’t studied the matter in much depth at all if you don’t think so

  • Joe

    3 months ago I one of those CFL light bulbs broke and the powder inside went all over my carpet. I only recently found out that they contain mercury…and my 1 year old has been crawling around the floor with that stuff! Fantastic!

    “USA TODAY actually found that most Americans support this incandescent light bulb phase out.”

    The above quote sets a bad precedent for majority rule in America.

    • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

      truthfully, you should read the package..

      • handyman96792

        Why don’t you just address his concern about his infant crawling around in mercury smart guy?

        • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

          hopefully this was just a fabricated story. otherwise, i am very sorry for you & your child. (of course, i wouldn’t repeat the same general mistake by not looking into things in a little more depth)

          • Joe

            I placed my trust in the people who told me that CFLs are good for the environment and the health of myself and my family…that is were I went wrong. Not only will I read labels much more carefully, but I will go on to question every new fad eco-alarmist try to push with a healthy dose of skepticism

          • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

            Joe, CFLs are good for the environment, compared to the alternative, you are missing the point here. the point is to dig beyond the packaging and look at the specifics. otherwise, yes, people will always lead you to a problem, from no matter whatever side you are standing on.

    • John

      Joe, while you should take sensible precautions, you needn’t panic about the mercury from a CFL. A small amount of mercury is essential to how all fluorescent lamps work (both CFLs and ‘long tubes’). It allows the arc to form that produces the UV that energizes the phosphors that give off light. Slow warm up is due to the mercury evaporating inside the bulb. The quantity in a CFL lamp is very small, perhaps one hundredth or thousandth of what is in a mercury-filled thermometer, or an old pinball machine tilt switch. There is much more in a large tube, and greater care should be taken handling these.

      The white powder that comes from the bulb is not mercury, but most likely the phosphors that coat the inside of the glass tube. These are various inorganic compounds and binders, and while they shouldn’t be ingested in quantity, they are not particularly harmful. There will also be broken glass, and of course you should protect your child from the obvious hazard of the glass fragments. There may be some dust from the ceramic cement used to secure the tube into its holder, which is inert.

      Depending on temperature, the mercury will either be in the form of a shiny metallic residue on the inside of the glass, or as vapor in the filling gas. Therefore, if this is released, you should leave and ventilate the room (just open the window). Rather than using a vacuum cleaner to pick up the debris, use a damp cloth. You might wish to wear gloves, if only to protect your fingers from the broken glass, but a hazmat suit is not needed. Avoid exposure by anyone who is pregnant or very young; this is man’s work.

      There is much less mercury released into the environment than there used to be. Alternative materials are available for dental amalgam, thermometers, barometers, tilt sensors, batteries, grain dressings, ointments, scientific instruments, mining processes, and so on. Your child will grow up being exposed to less mercury than we were.

      Reducing electricity consumption by using low energy lamps reduces emissions from coal-fired power stations, which are a source of environmental mercury.

      More from the EPA at http://epa.gov/hg/, http://epa.gov/cfl/ and specifically http://epa.gov/cfl/cflcleanup.html

  • john

    This article is completely bias, so if you would like to look at the counter argument which makes a good point check this article out.
    http://blog.mises.org/6593/say-no-to-the-hideous-light-bulbs/

  • Paul Svornich

    You call yourselves clean energy advocates and you seem clueless as to the fact that those little fluorescent light bulbs contain so much mercury that the EPA does not even allow them to be manufactured in America because they put workers at such a high health risk! They have to be manufactured in a country with much lower health risk for workers standards like China. Also you are not even allowed to place a broken one in a regular landfill because of their high mercury content, not to mention the health risk they pose to your family when they break on the floor. Your ignorance on this issue is shameful. I have been an extreme liberal all my life but Ron Paul is right on this one just like he is correct on his understanding of the insanity of America’s current economic policy.

    • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

      be careful with your claims of ignorance. the mercury in these light bulbs is minuscule in comparison to the mercy that does not enter our environment from coal-burning power plants due to the energy-efficiency of these bulbs. it has been shown in numerous studies by now

  • Xtrdouglas

    Leave it to a would be pundit to mid the point-
    It’s more about letting the market decide rather than government-

    Otherwise- you allow the government to take steps to irradicate twinkles in order to deal with the health and obesity problem-

    Yes- the principle is the same you narcissistic line stepper- don’t forget to pay your monthly bill so you can talk derogitively to any one who falls for you little slice of hypocritical heaven that is the temple of your own doctrine-

    Time to take a philosophy course and open up that brick you call a head

    • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

      the “free market” has its limitations and failures. Economics 101 can tell you that. protecting our environment so we live healthier, higher quality lives (ever heard of “the tragedy of the commons”?) is one area in which government needs to step in.

  • Desh

    If both consumers and light bulb manufactures both agree that these old light bulbs use too much energy, or whatever, don’t you think that they would naturally be “phased-out” by consumer preference? Why does the federal government need to butt in here? I think that you miss this point.

    • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

      i think you’ve missed this point: the “free market” has its limitations and failures. Economics 101 can tell you that. protecting our environment so we live healthier, higher quality lives (ever heard of “the tragedy of the commons”?) is one area in which government needs to step in. the sooner we phase these out, the better

      • handyman96792

        This is a trick, if he keeps repeating the lie over and over the sheeple’s will start to believe him.

        • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

          truthfully, do you realize that the same argument warrants the same response?

  • Ryan VEst

    The study you cite says nothing about whether or not people support the phase out, it only says that people are using different technology. For instance, most people have switched away from VHS tapes but that doesn’t mean that they supports a phase out of VHS.

    • http://wvoutpost.com Mark Tyler

      Does VHS phase out help the grids in the United States in any way?

  • Nick

    Wait, why did you delete my first comment? I thought it was reasonable enough. Your argument is flawed, and instead of replying to my actual argument, you just delete it?

    • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

      Nick, you’re comment wasn’t deleted. We are going through these right now.

  • Jeff

    I like how you take Paul trying to protect freedom of choice and paint it as “they have nothing else better to do” meanwhile he just co sponsered a bill with barbra lee to withdrawl from Afghanistan, he is non stop trying to get the fed to open its books on what will be the biggest problem this country is facing which is dollar devaluation. You’re a joke. Paul is becoming more popular everyday and these pieces will not work in 2012.

    • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

      You think Ron Paul has a chance at presidency? Jeff, come on.

      • handyman96792

        Just looking for the opportunity to say that weren’t you? Donald Trump would be proud.

        • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

          D Trump?

  • Ayrton Parham

    There are a number of things wrong with this article.

    First, Ron Paul has not officially announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination.

    Second, you seem to imply that Ron Paul and the others supporting this repeal are doing nothing else. This is not Ron Paul’s main issue (it’s far from it). Just recently Ron Paul, Walter Jones (Republican), and Barbra Lee (Democrat) introduced legislation to end the war in Afghanistan. A while ago Paul introduced legislation to end the TSA’s scanning and groping tactics. Why weren’t these mentioned? Instead you claim that he has “nothing else to do” but attack light-bulb legislation.

    Third, if most people support using something other than incandescent bulbs, why does the government need to get involved at all? If consumers want to purchase something else with their own money they can! If, as you say, the vast majority of people feel this way then incandescent light-bulbs will fail on the market and we won’t need to worry about them. Instead, we are told that the only way to get rid of these evil light-bulbs is to make them criminal! Why is it assumed that we need to be protected from our own stupidity otherwise we’ll just keep buying the same product even if it is harmful or outdated? We the People can make our decisions for ourselves. You cite that nearly 3/4 Americans have already made the change, why get government involved in an issue that seems to organically resolving itself?

    • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

      Ron Paul has been a Presidential candidate in the past, no?

      The point is not the other things that Ron Paul is focusing on, but that he is wasting is time on this issue, which was widely supported and is widely supported by the public.

      as stated above, the “free market” has its limitations and failures. Economics 101 can tell you that. protecting our environment so we live healthier, higher quality lives (ever heard of “the tragedy of the commons”?) is one area in which government needs to step in. this is a legitimate way and place to do so.

      • handyman96792

        For real dude, is this all you can do is copy and paste?

        • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

          as i’ve said repeatedly, same argument, same response

          • Drewbie

            lame

          • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

            you’re free to your own opinion, but leaving false claims on here is not my idea of good comment moderation

  • John

    I would rather have a choice than to have a government tell me what I can and can not use. All power to Ron Paul. I doubt Ron Paul cares about the use of incandescent lights or not. He is just using this as a platform to raise awareness about choice and personal freedom. Obviously, you don’t care about those.

    • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

      as stated above, the “free market” has its limitations and failures. Economics 101 can tell you that. protecting our environment so we live healthier, higher quality lives (ever heard of “the tragedy of the commons”?) is one area in which government needs to step in. government, believe it or not, is needed

      • handyman96792

        Copy & Paste

        RON PAUL 2012

        • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

          same argument, same response.

          RP has no chance in 2012. get back to reality, please.

  • LarryB

    Obviously, Mark Tyler is not a journalist because he doesn’t let facts get in the way of a sensational story. “They have decided to take on the biggest threat first,” he writes, omitting the fact that Dr. Paul has been quite busy going to bat for American citizens by trying to give us a peek behind the Federal Reserve’s cloak of secrecy, trying to prevent the unpatriotic and unconstitutional Patriot Act from getting extended, trying to get us to pull our troops out of harm’s way in Afghanistan…the list is quite long before you even get to light bulbs.
    Ron Paul is attempting to downsize our government, which is working its way toward controlling everything in our lives. But, obviously Tyler wants to paint Dr. Paul as a one-dimensional hater of fluorescent bulbs. If you want to give the appearance of credibility, at least contact the subject of your attack and offer him or her the chance to respond and then include that in your story. I know, a journalistic approach means more work for the author.

    • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

      LarryB, you are completely out of touch with professional blogging and the practicalities of getting Ron Paul to comment on this. sorry ’bout that

      • LarryB

        If a desire to have a total lack of credibility is the goal of a “professional” blogger, then I suppose I am completely out of touch. It sounds like a pathetic excuse to fall back into the comfort zone of gossip. When my congressman makes a decision with which I disagree, I often call or fire off an e-mail, and I often get a reply. Rarely do I get an elected official to take a call, but it’s not difficult to get a staffer to state their official position on an issue.
        Maybe it simply doesn’t seem practical to you because of a lack of effort.

  • Jeffrey

    Why ban the bulbs?
    If an overwhelming majority prefer the alternative, then let the market decide.
    Just another way government interferes in our lives and forcibly reduces our freedom of choice. I’m glad there are those who see this as more than a light bulb issue, and are willing to stand up for our liberties.

    • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

      the “free market” has its limitations and failures. Economics 101 can tell you that. protecting our environment so we live healthier, higher quality lives (ever heard of “the tragedy of the commons”?) is one area in which government needs to step in. it is reasonable and helpful for the govt to step in here and phase these out sooner rather than later.

      • Dave

        Wait….it says in your profile you live in Poland? Everything you now say is to be taken with a grain of salt.

        • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

          Dave, I’m a U.S. citizen. Perhaps you missed that? I am teaching English over here.

          • Dave

            Well that qualifies you to dictate how people live their lives. If you really do teach English…your doing a bad job.

            quoted from your post…spot the error?

            “oh my, it seems a lot of people here no nothing of the government’s role in correcting a harmful “free market”

          • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

            Thanks, Dave, i do spot the error. it’s called a typo. when you respond to hundreds of comments a day, they occasionally slip out. find me a person who hasn’t made a typo

      • drewbie

        Your right, the Government can make a diffrence in the enviroment, with there buying power… how it would help the electric car if that’s all the government bought….. Under this law any person from the government may enter your home, with out your consent on one of these ” light bulb” checks.

        • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

          actually, from what i understand, this is about the manufacturing of the bulbs, not the use of the bulbs. a BIG difference when it comes to such issues

  • Tom

    Progressives wish to use the power of the gun (govt) to force everyone to behave the way they see fit….How, where and what we eat, drive, smoke, buy, sell, say, and think. The fact 71% don’t care tells me the republic is dead. Tyranny is almost here….hurray!

  • Lone-Wolf

    Yeah I want a mercury filled compact fluorescent bulb in my house.If Americans go along with this then they are worthy of the scientific name of Boobus Americanus.

    • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

      the mercury pollution and other pollution we are suffering from burning coal is more harmful when you look at the issue from a broader, scientific perspective

      • handyman96792

        How much energy do you suppose (I use the word suppose because you don’t strike me as a researcher) our military industrial complex consumes? Run those numbers and get back to me.

        • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

          run those numbers & get back to me, friend. i have no need to run them

  • Michael

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/business/energy-environment/06bulbs.html

    CFLs have mercury in them, a very toxic substance. You practically have to don a nuclear waste suit if you break one in your house! Not to mention the mercury that goes into landfills when people throw them away…

    New technology has got incandescents approaching 50% effeciency without the toxic mercury.

    Thanks to this law, ALL incandescents are illegal… this is a perfect example of government stupidity at selecting a technology rather than the market. Guess who the major backers of that law are/were? CFL manufacturers!

    A more reasonable law would have set effeciency standards, but as usual, the government gets it wrong and outlaws a type of useful technology…

  • George

    ““Nearly three of four U.S. adults, or 71%, say they have replaced standard light bulbs in their home over the past few years with compact fluorescent lamps or LEDs (light emitting diodes) and 84% say they are ‘very satisfied’ or ‘satisfied’ with the alternatives,” a survey of over 1,000 U.S. adults found.”

    Yet the ban has not yet begun. These statistics demonstrate that this sort of change can occur without government intervention. And what of the many people who prefer incandescent lightbulbs? They may be a minority, but when we’re referring to nearly 600 million people, even a mere 1 percent is quite a significant number. Doesn’t it seem silly that the government is trying to tell us what type of lightbulbs we may and may not use?

    I realize the ban is on the manufacturing of the bulbs and not their usage, but the intent is to decrease (or eliminate) supply and, consequentially, usage. I’m all for using fluorescent bulbs, but I believe the government shouldn’t be dictating such minute decisions as what type of light bulb people may use. It’s overbearing, and again, quite silly.

    Because Congressman Paul, along with 20 other congressmen, proposed a bill repealing the ban on incandescents does not mean he is devoting all of his energies to this. Most of his effort is devoted to raising awareness about serious issues in Washington, such as auditing the Federal Reserve, ending the PATRIOT act, bringing our troops home, and repealing the flawed healthcare reform bill. I would like to think he is also preparing to run for president in 2012.

    Some politicians seem to occupy themselves with only one or two issues. Many Republican congressmen seem only to be concerned with repealing Obamacare and/or reducing the federal budget, and in a Republican-controlled congress, the Democrats’ focus is on blocking their Republican counterpart’s efforts. But there is much more to running government than a couple of prevalent issues, and while these issues may deserve the most attention, they do not deserve all of it. To know Congressman Paul is not neglecting these other areas only tells me that he is rounded, not negligent, and not obsessed with a few specific issues (if he were obsessed with them, he would neglect all else.)

    These are my thoughts, take them as you will. :)

    • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

      the “free market” has its limitations and failures. Economics 101 can tell you that. protecting our environment so we live healthier, higher quality lives (ever heard of “the tragedy of the commons”?) is one area in which government needs to step in.

      CFLs make a huge difference and increasing their usage with this type of legislation is purposeful and needed, which is why it was passed

      http://cleantechnica.com/2011/02/23/leds-v-incandescent-bulbs-the-math/

  • Dan

    You have a lot of great evidence to back up why incandescent light bulbs are inferior and obsolete. I agree…. however you are missing the simple point that its not the governments role to ban them. If the product is inferior then the free market will faze them out.

    You are presenting a STATIST argument and that kind of thinking has to stop.

    • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

      & one more time:

      the “free market” has its limitations and failures. Economics 101 can tell you that. protecting our environment so we live healthier, higher quality lives (ever heard of “the tragedy of the commons”?) is one area in which government needs to step in.

      CFLs make a huge difference and increasing their usage with this type of legislation is purposeful and needed, which is why it was passed.

  • Aliks

    If people are already switching over from incandescent bulbs as a natural market phenomenon, why did this law need to be passed in the first place? And if 71% of Americans have switched over so far, what does that mean?-That 29% (87 million) still prefer to use incandescent bulbs at present. So what is the rational of taking that choice away from them? We use legislation to force what they want off the market for the sake of ‘progress’?

    • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

      the rational: the “free market” has its limitations and failures. Economics 101 can tell you that. protecting our environment so we live healthier, higher quality lives (ever heard of “the tragedy of the commons”?) is one area in which government needs to step in.

      CFLs make a huge difference environmentally and increasing their usage with this type of legislation is purposeful and needed, which is why it was passed.

      • handyman96792

        “1 more time” dude that is 1 of copy and paste responses you have to every comment, are you a machine?

        • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

          as stated above, same argument, same response. give me a different argument, & i’ll give you a diff response. efficiency, my friend, it’s worth something

          • Aliks

            The ‘tragedy of the commons’ argument is a fallacy. If people start using up a resource or doing something that is inherently less efficient people will automatically self-correct over time. Less efficient equals eventually more costly (in monetary terms or time or convenient, etc.), more costly equals less desirable, less desirable things in the market will eventually phase out all on their own. You don’t need a costly Gov bureaucracy to FORCE something out of the market. If market forces (prices) don’t push something that is ‘clearly more efficient’ out then the older model is actually still useful. There is no reason why the ‘commons’ would continue to buy an older product that is clearly less efficient (and therefore more costly) to their own detriment. Just because YOU don’t have a need for such a product doesn’t mean others don’t.

          • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

            Aliks, you are completely wrong and don’t even attribute the “commons” to the right thing. look it up

  • ROLLTIDE

    I guess some folks have no prob. with corporatism.

  • http://www.ronpaul.se RonPaul.se

    My guess is that Ron Paul is capable of doing more than one thing at the same time…and that this is only a lame way of attacking him.

  • Paladin

    Mark,

    The US Today poll was [unapproved word] and based on a very small cross section. The bulb ban has nothing to do with the environment, it’s about corporate greed. Period. GE and the other majors were not making enough profit off Incans.

    GE was one of the major backers behind EISA.

    In reality, stockpiling is rampant, with at least six that I know of (repeat that I KNOW OF) in my Central Texas city that’s building a collection. If the store shelf stocking pattern are any indication, they have to restock at least twice a week. Something is definitely wrong with this picture.

    Detailed information about the switchover and it’s “real” cost.

    http://ceolas.net/

    European study

    http://greenwashinglamps.wordpress.com/

  • celeste

    The only thing sillier is your article.

  • Austin Alexander

    I will have to be brief in my opinion so in order to make a long philosophical article short i will simply state the following.

    The government has no right to ban incandescent bulbs, it goes beyond the scope of its power. In addition the ban is mostly ineffective, the article state that 71% now buy alternative bulbs. It would seem that the market has done a fairly good job of promoting the new generation of light bulbs, but to ban those of us who prefer incandescents from purchasing them is emblematic of the governments view that they know what is best for us.

    It may seem trivial but this runs in the same philosophical vein as the war on drugs and any number of overreaching, nanny-state programs. Thank you for considering my response.

    • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

      the “free market” has its limitations and failures. Economics 101 can tell you that. protecting our environment so we live healthier, higher quality lives (ever heard of “the tragedy of the commons”?) is one area in which government needs to step in.

      CFLs make a huge difference environmentally and increasing their usage with this type of legislation is purposeful and needed, which is why it was passed.

      • handyman96792

        OMFG, did you copy and paste again? Let me do a quick fact check….yep.

        • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

          i’m replying to each individual comment (or nearly all of them). there’s no need to waste time when replying to the same arguments over & over again.

  • Barney

    Looks like Mr Tyler has taken a page out of the O’Reilly/Limbaugh playbook.

    Dr Paul’s motivation behind everything he does is in defense of individual liberty. He did not abandon his medical practice because he wanted incandescent light bulbs.

    People of Mark’s ilk love to wield the force of government to impose their will on others. Then they get all upset when someone else takes reign of the monstrosity they help create.

    Why not let individuals decide? If people are so against incandescent bulbs, the market would phase it out.

    • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

      oh my, it seems a lot of people here no nothing of the government’s role in correcting a harmful “free market”

      the “free market” has its limitations and failures. Economics 101 can tell you that. protecting our environment so we live healthier, higher quality lives (ever heard of “the tragedy of the commons”?) is one area in which government needs to step in.

      CFLs make a huge difference and increasing their usage with this type of legislation is purposeful and needed, which is why it was passed.

      • handyman96792

        Hitler used the same approach as Tyler is attempting by repeating the same thing over and over. Or…he just doesn’t have any original responses to the many valid challenges to his lame blog.

        • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

          i’m sorry, comparing this post and what is contained in it to Hitler is absurd and beyond disrespectful (to Tyler and the people harmed by Hitler)

      • Dave

        Seriously…of all the environmental issues facing us today…lightbulbs will save us all!

        • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

          Dave, no one once said light bulbs will save us all until you added that. it is one part of the equation. and an easy one to address now

  • Nick

    Hahahaha Obviously his comments have gone way over your head. You fail to miss the point, like many others. This has nothing to do with light bulbs. I mean absolutely nothing. He is saying that the government doesn’t have the right to intrude in the marketplace. They don’t have the right to tell us, the American people, what we can and can’t buy. The USA Today polls are irrelevant. It doesn’t matter if 100% say they are satisfied with new light bulbs. This issue is about what the power of the government should and should not be. And they should not be telling consumers what they can and can’t buy. Period.

    • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

      “You fail to miss the point” — which would mean, you didn’t miss the point

      the “free market” has its limitations and failures. Economics 101 can tell you that. protecting our environment so we live healthier, higher quality lives (ever heard of “the tragedy of the commons”?) is one area in which government needs to step in.

      CFLs make a huge difference and increasing their usage with this type of legislation is purposeful and needed, which is why it was passed

      http://cleantechnica.com/2011/02/23/leds-v-incandescent-bulbs-the-math/

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention Presidential Candidate Ron Paul Takes On Hard Issue, Light Bulbs! – CleanTechnica: Cleantech innovation news and views -- Topsy.com

  • http://dailypaul.com Kyle

    How can you say it is right or moral to forbid people from making light bulbs?! Ron Paul is right, this is an important philosophical issue. We DO NOT need a nanny state. If you don’t want incandescent light bulbs, you do not need to purchase incandescent light bulbs.

    • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

      the “free market” has its limitations and failures. Economics 101 can tell you that. protecting our environment so we live healthier, higher quality lives (ever heard of “the tragedy of the commons”?) is one area in which government needs to step in.

      CFLs make a huge difference and increasing their usage with this type of legislation is purposeful and needed, which is why it was passed.

      • WeB

        I agree with Ron Paul. I’m all for saving electrical energy, I have the energysaver bulbs in my house. However, I made the choice to purchase them, not because it was required.

      • Bob Wallace

        I’ve got to say that I really enjoyed reading these posts and replies.

        Bravo for utilizing cut&paste for this string of silly repetitive posts.

        Might I suggest you save bandwidth by simply starting a list of each Paulette who reposts the same old stuff?

        • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

          could be even more efficient :D

          actually, though, i think we just happened to get a flood of Ron Paul lovers from Google. you’d be surprised how many people are just searching for news on Ron Paul.

      • Drewbie

        Zach you keep saying the same thing. You are not educating anyone just repeating the same things over and over… your’e free markets arn’t prefect, thats why we have Anti-Trust Laws and Laws against monopolies…Hell You’re right the Governemnt has helped saved lives i can’t think of two many people who would say seatbelts are bad, or that GFI’s in the bathrooom and kitchen are a bad idea. This law is a good idea, but have you read the rest of these “Cap and Trade” laws? I use CFL in my home too, But im not about to give up a shred of my personal Rights or anyone else…like i said in a comment that got “mediated” The markets will push Incandessents into the past…. How many Beta max’s do you see around? VCR? DVD is dying…. All without Government regulation… As i was saying these laws sound good, but as all things designed by man, is FLAWED…And every Buerocrat or offical working under a Government program, is another chance for corruption. As im sure you would agree Corruption in the Government hurts the Governed.

        • http://zacharyshahan.com Zachary Shahan

          Drewbie, you can find responses all over here responding to your fears. as far as repeating the same response to the same claims, i’ll say it in a different way. if i saw the comment (said in slightly different ways) all over the site that “2+2=5,” (and this was something of importance), i would respond with the correction that 2+2=4 bcs what if someone without much knowledge came on here & just decided to read 10 comments saying “2+2=5″ and no one responded? they would probably be inclined to believe it’s true

Back to Top ↑