2014, New Light bulbs a ' comin, theres dancing tonight.

[rigney]

I'll make it short and sweet since there's little of the issue making "ANY" sense at all. Are we as a nation, so damned obstinate and stupid to let this happen?

 

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/75548.html

Edited April 7, 2011 by rigney

[John Cuthber]

Apparently, like mine, most of the people in your nation are too obstinate and stupid to choose to save their own money (and the environment) by using CFLs.

I remember a similar reaction to the legislation that required drivers to wear seatbelts and to the decision to ban smoking in public places (etc...).

 

Once the legislation guarantees a good market the manufacturers can invest in production equipment and so the price drops making them an even better bet.

[jackson33]

John C; It's not using the bulb that's objectionable, but being told we have NO CHOICE. The bulbs have been available for years and whether it's saving anything is highly questionable...

 

 

rigney; Your forgetting we have TOO MANY PEOPLE working in the US and had to close those three GE Factories down (making 60W bulbs) and they (GE) can produce all our new bulbs in China (all imported). Then remember we have to support Lawyers, which will get the cases, when people start claiming sickness from broken bulbs....it will happen.

[Phi for All]

It's the duty of the established technology to make the emerging technology seem dangerous or expensive or inadvisable somehow. And, in the US at least, it's the duty of the incumbent politicians whose hands are deep in the pockets of the established technology's businesses to help that process.

 

Your forgetting we have TOO MANY PEOPLE working in the US and had to close those three GE Factories down (making 60W bulbs) and they (GE) can produce all our new bulbs in China (all imported). Then remember we have to support Lawyers, which will get the cases, when people start claiming sickness from broken bulbs....it will happen.

GE wouldn't make their bulbs here in any case. They can make $14.2B in profits, $3.2B of which is US federal tax credit, and because of their offshore work force, they don't have to pay a dime in taxes.

[zapatos]

It's not using the bulb that's objectionable, but being told we have NO CHOICE.

I hear people complain about the cfl legislation and wonder why this relatively minor requirement bothers people so much. The poor legislators have voters yelling in one ear about the need to reduce our dependence on foreign energy, and when they do something to reduce the energy needs of the country, they have voters yelling in their other ear about how they don't want to have to give up their light bulbs.

 

Too many people want the government to take care of our country's problems, but only so long as it doesn't affect them personally.

 

If the government cannot even implement a change that the voter does not find 'objectionable' because it is such a massive imposition on his right to choose, what chance do we have to tackle the really big problems?

[ewmon]

Apparently, like mine, most of the people in your nation are too obstinate and stupid to choose to save their own money (and the environment) by using CFLs.

I remember a similar reaction to the legislation that required drivers to wear seatbelts and to the decision to ban smoking in public places (etc...).

 

Once the legislation guarantees a good market the manufacturers can invest in production equipment and so the price drops making them an even better bet.

Ditto. As an engineer, when CFL's first hit the market at the introductory offer of 25 or 50¢ (I forget which), I bought plenty. In the hot weather, who wants a 100-Watt bulb pumping out 90 Watts of heat? The only drawback I see is that CFLs don't work well in the cold (outdoor lamps, frigs, etc), but they'll probably invent a "cold" version of CFL.

 

As for the mercury in CFLs, mercury is in every fluorescent lamp ... the circular ones in mom's kitchen over the food and the straight 4-footers in the kid's rec room downstairs (where they throw around balls and other stuff). :eek:

 

It's even got to the point where the average person couldn't even say "safety belt", and over the years, the name became "seatbelt". Now everyone says it. I'll bet even the owner's manual calls them "seatbelts". If folks could have managed another syllable, they wouldn't need to be reminded to put on their "safety belts".

 

Anyone remember the end of leaded gas and the extra 5¢ a gallon for the alternative anti-knock chemical? Anyone still fuming over that? No.

Edited April 7, 2011 by ewmon

[Phi for All]

Anyone remember the end of leaded gas and the extra 5¢ a gallon for the alternative anti-knock chemical? Anyone still fuming over that? No.

Good one, I'd almost forgotten.

 

My favorite "Don't take away our right to choose!" objection was the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973. Health insurance was based on your age at the time you bought it before that. You stayed loyal to an insurer because your premiums stayed low and the actuarial tables made the risk pool profitable. But our "right to choose" led to the current health insurance situation, which is working oh so well for us.

[John Cuthber]

"John C; It's not using the bulb that's objectionable, but being told we have NO CHOICE. "

Did you read the whole of my post?

 

What did you make of the bit that said "I remember a similar reaction to the legislation that required drivers to wear seatbelts and to the decision to ban smoking in public places (etc...)."?

[jackson33]

If the government cannot even implement a change that the voter does not find 'objectionable' because it is such a massive imposition on his right to choose, what chance do we have to tackle the really big problems? [/Quote]

 

zapatos; We're talking the Federal Government and in the US, believe it or not, generally speaking the Federal as no business in what people purchase or what's in the marketplace to purchase from. While this may seem trivial in the overall realm of the marketplace, one thing will generally lead to others things, maybe even some day to who provides Health Care...oh my, well maybe what kind of car you buy...oops forget about GM, well who knows what's next.

 

Too many people want the government to take care of our country's problems, but only so long as it doesn't affect them personally.[/Quote]

 

Without going through Federal Responsibilities, as a Constitution Conservative and a "State Rights" advocate, if some things need to be controlled and not a Federal Responsibility, it should IMO be left up to the States. People that feel we can save the planets environment, or reduce dependency on "foreign energy" can pay the extra price or the convenience if nothing else and buy or not buy anything they wish or their State can make the law/regulation. California has no problem creating new regulation and people/business are free to move elsewhere, as they have done.

[swansont]

His speech is short on facts.

 

Incandescent bulbs were not banned by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. What was instituted was a set of efficiency standards. Why? Because a standard 100W light bulb based on 100 year-old technology, which puts out about 1750 lumens, is really just a heater that happens to put out some visible light. Its luminous efficiency is less than 3%, and this drops for lower-power bulbs. The new standard requires that the power draw of such a bulb not exceed 72 Watts. But there are incandescent bulbs that can do this. The law doesn't force anyone to buy CFLs, either. You can buy the higher-efficiency incandescents, as well as LED and OLED bulbs.

 

Since the banning/forcing claims are lies, the whole Constitutional authority bit is misdirection. In any event, the interstate commerce clause would probably be the constitutional authority.

 

The mercury/pollution part is more misdirection. Has anyone been hauled away for not properly getting rid of their regular fluorescent bulbs? Anyway, by making bulbs more efficient, one reduces pollution. Burning coal releases mercury, too.

 

As far as the complaints about the bulbs being made in China rather than here, or there not being a comprehensive energy policy, all I can say is: gee, whose fault is that? This is a congressman complaining that congress passed this law but hasn't done anything else. This law, BTW, was passed by the Senate 86-8 and the House approved it by a vote of 314-100, i.e. lots of Republicans voted for it, and it was signed into law by GW Bush.

 

It's funny that Poe complains about the cost of CFL bulbs and later about the price of gasoline. It's almost as if he's admitting that the cost buy a car isn't the whole story — that the cost to run it matters, too. But he conveniently ignores the fact that the cost of using a light bulb is probably an even larger part of its total cost than for a car. 10,000 miles @20 MPG = 500 gallons/year. Even at $4 a gallon, it'll take 10 years to equal the outlay for a $20,000 car, and that's ignoring maintenance in figuring the total cost of ownership. Meanwhile, compare the electricity for a 100W incandescent bulb vs 25W for a CFL. Even at just 2 hours a day, at $0.12 per kWh, that's $8.76 vs $2.19 in operating costs in one year. More than the cost difference of the bulbs. — operating costs are the largest factor for light bulbs. Throw in the longer life of the alternate bulbs, and it's an even bigger discrepancy.

 

One more thing — this would be the same Poe who complained about how we don't drill for oil off our own coast about a month before the deepwater horizon well blew, right? Yep. That's the one.

[zapatos]

zapatos; We're talking the Federal Government and in the US, believe it or not, generally speaking the Federal as no business in what people purchase or what's in the marketplace to purchase from.

If the Federal Government passes a law and it is not struck down, then under the Constitution it is valid for them to be in that business. Doesn't matter if you or I think so or not.

While this may seem trivial in the overall realm of the marketplace, one thing will generally lead to others things, maybe even some day to who provides Health Care...oh my, well maybe what kind of car you buy...oops forget about GM, well who knows what's next.

 

The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This "argument" has the following form:

 

 

Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).

Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another.

 

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html

[jackson33]

swansont; Dose the following link hold any weight with you. Personally when I shop or use to, I'd pick out the best prices for my purpose of what's available, but some people do buy American and IMO, Federal Government should never promote foreign products, I don't care for what reason. I'll add this little opinion, in that neither GE or any other American based Corporation would find being permitted to labor cost, cost/productive.

 

Light bulb bill about limited government

 

I am blown away by the interest the national and even international press has taken in the "light bulb bill" that Rep. Dwight Loftis and I have introduced in the South Carolina House. That bill would allow for the manufacture and purchase of incandescent bulbs in our state even after the federal ban on them takes effect in January 2012.

 

I want to shed some light, so to speak, on why I am motivated to fight for this issue. While the new compact fluorescent bulbs or "CFLs" do pose some environmental concerns, the truth is that our bill is not really about light bulbs. It's about taking a stand against government intrusion in our everyday lives. I strongly believe that the feds have overstepped the 10th Amendment and now are venturing into telling us what kind of lighting we can have in our homes.

 

We must protect the rights of South Carolina consumers who don't want the federal government telling them which light bulbs they should use. I am championing this bill because I believe that we must stand up for limited government and personal freedoms.

 

This bill is also about supporting the free market. At a time when South Carolina families need jobs, the federal light bulb ban will export jobs overseas to countries like China, which has gained the lion's share of the market for CFLs. I believe that we should let the demand for light bulbs be market-driven rather than mandated by the federal government.

 

- Rep. Bill Sandifer

 

S.C. House of Representatives[/Quote]

 

http://www.thetandd.com/news/opinion/article_680556fa-5019-11e0-9af4-001cc4c002e0.html

 

Since the bulbs will be ILLEGAL to sell, they are being banned. I'll guarantee you those hundreds that are planning to sell on the black market, will be prosecuted.

 

If the Federal Government passes a law and it is not struck down, then under the Constitution it is valid for them to be in that business. Doesn't matter if you or I think so or not.[/Quote]

 

zapatos; At this point I don't believe the regulation has been tested, but if SC does pass their suggested law, it will be, or any other States. If you care to glance through swansont's link, I think you'll find practically everything that uses electricity from your favorite razor to your 2 year old garbage disposal is covered under that "Energy Independence & Security Act of 2007". If what you think doesn't matter now, it might when all that's coming is programmed and if that doesn't get you goat, the cost to "Administer and Enforce" the entire program will rock you boat.

 

The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed.[/Quote]

 

Not really, if the original intent was what the actual goal is. That is, to achieve a political objective in the US you purposely use either an incremental or slippery slope approach to get it started. Do you really think Obama, Reid and others were kidding when they said "a Federal single payer HC system is the goal" of Obamacare.

[swansont]

swansont; Dose the following link hold any weight with you. Personally when I shop or use to, I'd pick out the best prices for my purpose of what's available, but some people do buy American and IMO, Federal Government should never promote foreign products, I don't care for what reason. I'll add this little opinion, in that neither GE or any other American based Corporation would find being permitted to labor cost, cost/productive.

 

A main issue here is pollution. Any argument based on "freedom" has to tie back to whether you are free to pollute. Are you free to dump your used oil or nasty chemicals in the drain and pollute the water I drink, or junk into the air that I breathe? The republican position seems to "yes," and I disagree. Ironically, they seem to support that the government, i.e. the people, own the problem and must collectively clean up pollution, which means they believe in socialism and big government when it suits them.

 

You can't wait for the market to drive solutions when you have socialized costs that result in skewing the market, and when people are going to get sick or die before any kind of market pressure could take place.

 

If it helps with the concept, just replace "low-efficiency incandescent light bulb" with "leaded gasoline."

 

Since the bulbs will be ILLEGAL to sell, they are being banned. I'll guarantee you those hundreds that are planning to sell on the black market, will be prosecuted.

 

But only some incandescent bulb will be banned. Incandescents in general will not. Saying that you won't be able to buy an incandescent bulb is a lie.

 

An underlying problem to "China is going to eat our lunch" is that the government has done very little to promote such industry here. We have no energy policy beyond "oil makes Exxon, et. al happy." We saw the shock when, in the stimulus, it was found that some of the energy stimulus was going overseas, because there has been no reason for such industry to grow here. Socializing the cost of pollution artificially lowers the price of fossil fuels and, by extension, energy inefficient technology, and because the government hasn't fixed that it has come back to bite us in the ass, economically speaking. Hearing the republicans complain about that is laughable, since they are the ones sitting in their hands.

[CaptainPanic]

What a silly and shortsighted video.

 

So many times have we bought new products because the old ones became obsolete for some reason. And very often, that is a policy invented by industry to force more products upon us. And we call that "Economic Growth". And we are happy when our economy grows. It is a good thing.

 

And now a government does the same. And now it is "Evil"??

 

If industry invented light fittings that wouldn't fit incandescent bulbs (like the halogen lamps), and the only fittings one would be able to buy at some point were the new ones, then there would be no protest... and incandescent lights would vanish without a trace. (This happens especially often in the consumer electronics, or software, where compatibility might be dropped just like that, forcing people to get new products to replace old ones which aren't broken...).

 

The video is a dumb protest against something that is very common, but normally orchestrated by industry rather than a government.

[rigney]

rigney, Baryon

I'll make it short and sweet since there's little of the issue making "ANY" sense at all. Are we as a nation, so damned obstinate and stupid as to let this happen?

http://www.lewrockwe...ives/75548.html

 

In all honesty, this was not meant as a politically motivated issue in the least. I actually thought it was quite humorous that a grown man having a duly elected job would be so stupid as to make such a rediculous 5 minute (speech). But then, politicians do it all of the time.! I probably should have said: As a nation of dunces, are we so gullible as to allow this kind of B.S to "continue happening"? You can't blame politicians for such ignorance. Hey!, we hire 'em. It's the type of "chicanery" that has keeps our government up to its ass in problems from both sides for centuries. Fortunately our nation is still big enough and bad enough to keep "furriners" out of our front yard. But some day that may not be the case and fools like this will allow the wolves to devour us.

Edited April 8, 2011 by rigney

[lemur]

Fortunately our nation is still big enough and bad enough to keep "furriners" out of our front yard. But some day that may not be the case and fools like this will allow the wolves to devour us.

Rigney, do you view people with non-US citizenship as being somehow inferior to US citizens?

[rigney]

John C; It's not using the bulb that's objectionable, but being told we have NO CHOICE. The bulbs have been available for years and whether it's saving anything is highly questionable...

 

 

rigney; Your forgetting we have TOO MANY PEOPLE working in the US and had to close those three GE Factories down (making 60W bulbs) and they (GE) can produce all our new bulbs in China (all imported). Then remember we have to support Lawyers, which will get the cases, when people start claiming sickness from broken bulbs....it will happen.

 

jackson, I don't know who first dropped the ball and started lacing our landfills with mercury and fluorescent bulbs, but both have been dumped there for years. Most times our knee jerk is only to the opposition to our position on an issue, not the problem itself. We're all guilty of it. Just one of those things.

[CaptainPanic]

Fortunately our nation is still big enough and bad enough to keep "furriners" out of our front yard. But some day that may not be the case and fools like this will allow the wolves to devour us.

Funny that you're thinking that you need to keep the foreigners physically out of your country when the Chinese are simply buying the USA at a distance.

 

Priorities, priorities, man.

[rigney]

Rigney, do you view people with non-US citizenship as being somehow inferior to US citizens?

 

You're kidding and know better than that. Inferior?, of course you're not. I look at myself in the mirror almost daily and marvel. With such shortcomings as mine, "What a Blessing" to be born here in America. Inferior? I could write such a vivid self-portrait.

[lemur]

You're kidding and know better than that. Inferior?, of course you're not. I look at myself in the mirror almost daily and marvel. With such shortcomings as mine, "What a Blessing" to be born here in America. Inferior? I could write such a vivid self-portrait.

Then why do you talk negatively about "furriners," and say they should be kept out? If you don't see yourself as superior, what gives you more entitlement to the US than anyone else, in your mind?

Edited April 8, 2011 by lemur

[jackson33]

Planned obsolescence or built-in obsolescence[1] in industrial design is a policy of deliberately planning or designing a product with a limited useful life, so it will become obsolete or nonfunctional after a certain period.[1] Planned obsolescence has potential benefits for a producer because to obtain continuing use of the product the consumer is under pressure to purchase again, whether from the same manufacturer (a replacement part or a newer model), or from a competitor which might also rely on planned obsolescence.[1][/Quote]

 

 

CP; Please note, PO is a motive and generated by the Corporate world, primarily to insure future success, NOT Government dictation through regulation. In the American Society, the newer bulbs have been gaining success and logically it would be a matter of time sales would drop so low, manufacturing would not be worthwhile. I use them myself, have little trouble noting a difference, but I do leave them on, especially in the bathroom, to prevent going through warm up light distraction. Another form of PO, can be found in Electronics best practiced best by Apple Computers, where current product sold might be second to the best developed.

 

And now a government does the same. And now it is "Evil"??[/Quote]

 

Motive??? Governments are motivated simply to exist, concerned with political acceptance of an electorate and in the US are limited to certain duties. The Federal is responsible, for all practical purposes, to things that are seen consistent with the ENTIRE Union of States, the States to what are seen consistent to ALL the Counties and the Counties/Cities maintain the duties seen needed by the local electorate.

 

The video is a dumb protest against something that is very common, but normally orchestrated by industry rather than a government. [/Quote]

 

Yes, and rightfully so. Representative Poe represents and he himself is a "Limited Government" advocate, as was I and wants the Federal Government out of Texas affairs and his districts affairs. He is doing and saying exactly what his constituency would being saying and that's his job.

 

A main issue here is pollution. Any argument based on "freedom" has to tie back to whether you are free to pollute. Are you free to dump your used oil or nasty chemicals in the drain and pollute the water I drink, or junk into the air that I breathe? The republican position seems to "yes," and I disagree. Ironically, they seem to support that the government, i.e. the people, own the problem and must collectively clean up pollution, which means they believe in socialism and big government when it suits them.[/Quote]

 

swansont; Liberal spin, we must be heading into another election year and Republicans want everybody drinking dirty water, swimming in acid laden pools, polluting the planet and only Democrats are only interested in protecting the weak and downtrodden.

 

Actually sir, in my opinion, the conservative base, most the tea party and Republicans, the issue is 'LIMITED GOVERNMENT". Pollution is a devised tactic, to undermine Capitalism's place in the American Society, under the fallacy the Earth can't survive without environmentalist and their control of human activity and YES big government and strong regulations of every aspect of business and the individual are socialistic principles and now we're throwing in "Social Justice" the primary principle.

 

An underlying problem to "China is going to eat our lunch" is that the government has done very little to promote such industry here. We have no energy policy beyond "oil makes Exxon, et. al happy." We saw the shock when, in the stimulus, it was found that some of the energy stimulus was going overseas, because there has been no reason for such industry to grow here. Socializing the cost of pollution artificially lowers the price of fossil fuels and, by extension, energy inefficient technology, and because the government hasn't fixed that it has come back to bite us in the ass, economically speaking. Hearing the republicans complain about that is laughable, since they are the ones sitting in their hands. [/Quote]

 

If US industry, didn't have to fight 20 different environmentalist law suits for practically any project, opposing any number of things, pay the highest Corporate Tax Rates on the planet, California nearing 50% of profits (Federal/State) and if unionized the highest cost per employee (lifetime obligation), they could compete with most Nations (productivity). China doesn't produce a good percentage of American Consumption, because they are Environmentally Friendly (your point?), I think you will find they are NOT the least bit concerned...

[lemur]

Pollution is a devised tactic, to undermine Capitalism's place in the American Society, under the fallacy the Earth can't survive without environmentalist and their control of human activity and YES big government and strong regulations of every aspect of business and the individual are socialistic principles and now we're throwing in "Social Justice" the primary principle.

 

If US industry, didn't have to fight 20 different environmentalist law suits for practically any project, opposing any number of things, pay the highest Corporate Tax Rates on the planet, California nearing 50% of profits (Federal/State) and if unionized the highest cost per employee (lifetime obligation), they could compete with most Nations (productivity). China doesn't produce a good percentage of American Consumption, because they are Environmentally Friendly (your point?), I think you will find they are NOT the least bit concerned...

The problem that environmentalism is used as an impetus for lawsuits, fines, and other money transfers is equalled by the problem that money-concerns are the driving economic force in people's decisions for how to live, what to consume, etc. In other words, the main problem is economic dependency on a culture that puts various social expectations and creature comforts above the will to reduce pollution.

 

I do find it especially striking, though, that the Democratic party both promotes cleaner technologies AND lower gas prices. This leads me to believe that they only care about cleaner technologies for the fiscal-stimulus effect that produces higher taxes, and that they only like environmental protection because that creates fines that redistribute money from lucrative businesses to a broader subsidiary group. In other words, I think they just want to spread out the prosperity of the existing industrial economy and will never challenge that economy where it means decreases in GDP.

 

Republicans, on the other hand, would cut taxes and spending regardless of how much it would reduce GDP. I think this makes the Republican party appear somewhat more free of economic bias, despite whatever other social-cultural biases individuals who support the party may have.

 

 

[rigney]

Apparently, like mine, most of the people in your nation are too obstinate and stupid to choose to save their own money (and the environment) by using CFLs.

I remember a similar reaction to the legislation that required drivers to wear seatbelts and to the decision to ban smoking in public places (etc...).

 

Once the legislation guarantees a good market the manufacturers can invest in production equipment and so the price drops making them an even better bet.

 

You are absolutely right on all counts John. I'm not up to date on European standards, but as Americans; we are dumb asses to allow such "tomfoolery" to go on unchecked. Doesn't matter the political party you buy into, it's the frenzied stupidity of both.

[swansont]

swansont; Liberal spin, we must be heading into another election year and Republicans want everybody drinking dirty water, swimming in acid laden pools, polluting the planet and only Democrats are only interested in protecting the weak and downtrodden.

 

Actually sir, in my opinion, the conservative base, most the tea party and Republicans, the issue is 'LIMITED GOVERNMENT". Pollution is a devised tactic, to undermine Capitalism's place in the American Society, under the fallacy the Earth can't survive without environmentalist and their control of human activity and YES big government and strong regulations of every aspect of business and the individual are socialistic principles and now we're throwing in "Social Justice" the primary principle.

 

The only fallacy here is your straw man. Pollution makes people sick and kills people — that's a matter of simple fact. (I would say "undeniable fact," but in my experience there are few things so clear that someone won't try to deny it.) So spinning it as the position that "the earth won't survive" is bull. The issue is peoples' health and survival.

 

If US industry, didn't have to fight 20 different environmentalist law suits for practically any project, opposing any number of things, pay the highest Corporate Tax Rates on the planet, California nearing 50% of profits (Federal/State) and if unionized the highest cost per employee (lifetime obligation), they could compete with most Nations (productivity). China doesn't produce a good percentage of American Consumption, because they are Environmentally Friendly (your point?), I think you will find they are NOT the least bit concerned...

 

I would have no problem with tariffs on products from countries that have weak environmental laws, if such a thing were possible to even the playing field. What I am not willing to do is support allowing people to pollute in order to make a bigger profit.

[jackson33]

The only fallacy here is your straw man. Pollution makes people sick and kills people — that's a matter of simple fact. (I would say "undeniable fact," but in my experience there are few things so clear that someone won't try to deny it.) So spinning it as the position that "the earth won't survive" is bull. The issue is peoples' health and survival. [/Quote]

 

swansont; If your trying to say, Federal mandates on a certain type of light bulb we can buy, will save lives, I'd suggest any "straw man argument" is yours. To my knowledge no person has died from using those items in there 100 year history.

 

If your concerned with health and extending life expectancies, you might consider other issues. We're ALL going to die and today that means from some cause, old age is no longer acceptable, then most from Heart, cancer or respiratory problems. I'd suggest personal hygiene and dietary habits, contribute more than anything, with the probable exception of genetics. When they come knocking on your door, to check what your doing wrong and they will your early older age, I think you might realize intent and motivations, were not what you had thought.

 

I would have no problem with tariffs on products from countries that have weak environmental laws, if such a thing were possible to even the playing field. What I am not willing to do is support allowing people to pollute in order to make a bigger profit. [/Quote]

 

By whose definition, would you base those tariffs on, the unions or maybe some environmentalist extremist opinions. All you would accomplish is the total destruction of the US economy, as most all is based on World trade in some manner, today. And no legitimate Company pollutes anything to "make bigger profits", more spin.

 

The problem that environmentalism is used as an impetus for lawsuits, fines, and other money transfers is equaled by the problem that money-concerns are the driving economic force in people's decisions for how to live, what to consume, etc. In other words, the main problem is economic dependency on a culture that puts various social expectations and creature comforts above the will to reduce pollution.[/Quote]

 

lemur; Unfortunately, I've been around long before today's "Environmental Movement" or the EPA. I've pacify watched over time as groups, with trivial objectives, join others to the point everything now is saving the planet from any human activity. The only thing that's happened, is the individual has suffered, both in cost or freedom of choice and I don't think anything that's been eliminated has satisfied any of them, only bringing up the next complaint.

 

On your other comments; To more than some degree, I believe both parties since 1988, (earlier if I credit a liberal Congress), have pretty much acted in concert on these issues. Both have ignored the increased reliance on imported oil, while saying they would decrease the need and I always add State Taxes to Federal, and they have rarely totaled less by year. I don't pretend to have the answers, but if the America I've always enjoyed, is to continue, somebody better come up with some and quickly.

 

Today, the one financial chart I follow and the one that shows daily dollar value impacts is the following link. The DAILY inflation effect on commodities, to my knowledge have never hit 1/2 of one percent, but today it shows up to 3/4ths of one percent on some....

 

http://www.kitco.com/kitco-gold-index.html?utm_source=kitco&utm_medium=banner&utm_content=20110215_KGX_tb1&utm_campaign=KGX