Going Green is Big business!

[HOZ]

Timothy Carney: How many lobbyists does it take to change a light bulb?
Earlier this month, Thomas Edison’s GE, together with Sylvania and Philips won a legislative victory when Congress passed an energy bill that would outlaw sale of the standard light bulb by 2012.
Sylvania is the leading light bulb maker worldwide, and GE is tops in America. These two companies, together with Dutch-based Royal Phillips Electronics, concede they basically wrote the new light bulb law. It goes without saying that they stand to profit from it — at consumer expense.

The energy bill — with its gifts to aluminum giants such as Alcoa, ethanol moguls such as Goldman Sachs and Archer Daniels Midland, and now GE, Sylvania and Phillips — shows that the doors of power are as wide open to corporate lobbyists as they have ever been, as long as the lobbyists are dressed in green.


Well it is good to see that it isn't just Gore getting into the action.

BTW: With GE stocks jumping like they did it looks like electronic companies, especially those that produce CFLs are a good buy!

[jammies]

The best part of that article is the Google ads attached, which tout energy-efficient bulbs just like the article decries. Irony at its finest...

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Well it is good to see that it isn't just Gore getting into the action.

Good point. For far too long it's been the Al Gores and the rest of the goddamn hippies ripping off the government and the average hard-working citizen.

It's about time big business got a piece of the action.

[worth]

I've been saying this for a couple years now along with a lot of other people. Starts with lightbulbs, progresses to major appliances and then your car. You will need to switch out anything that is inefficient in the name of the green initiative, or pay taxes if you don't. Government and corporations gain, while the average consumer has to either put thousands into new cars and appliances or pay an energy tax based on hysteria the green movement has created which has been embraced as basically a new religion by governments media and citizens.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by worth

I've been saying this for a couple years now along with a lot of other people. Starts with lightbulbs, progresses to major appliances and then your car. You will need to switch out anything that is inefficient in the name of the green initiative, or pay taxes if you don't. Government and corporations gain, while the average consumer has to either put thousands into new cars and appliances or pay an energy tax based on hysteria the green movement has created which has been embraced as basically a new religion by governments media and citizens.

Cars and major appliances already have to meet minimum efficiency standards. The dastardly act of phasing out inefficient lightbulbs over a 5-year period isn't the beginning of the erosion of western-style democracy, it's the end.

[worth]

Standards are rising. If you haven't seen the push for hybrid cars, or the article that recently ran in the Calgary Herald where city officials were considering installing monitors to measure amount of pollutants coming out of cars in order to ticket those with cars that are over the acceptance level then you must live under a rock.

Why should it stop with lightbulbs? Replacing old appliances with new energy efficient ones is a great idea, and one I support. Pushing people to do so before they are required is the problem I have, and I believe we will see this soon.

We already have rebates for people who buy energy efficient cars. In my opinion, it isn't a stretch to say the government wouldn't bat an eye in levying a tax on those with older, less efficient cars. Or perhaps a tax on peoples homes who use too much energy.

[Daradon]

Most consumers want to make a change to green, in fact several to many do out of their own pocket book. When legislation and business get on the same page, it makes a level playing field for everyone, and the earth much greener.

Agreed the light bulb thing is a bit of a joke, I mean that product is the EXAMPLE of planned obsolesence. A waste of both energy and materials. It's an easy piece of technology to replace, and a easy bit of law to enact.

However, it is a huge step in the right direction, and could be a type of watershed idea or legislation. Time will tell.

Government and business need to make steps like this in all industry. Could be tough with the oil people in power but we'll see.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by fotze

I still wish I knew how much it cost me exactly to run the tap for 3 minutes. It should cost people a lot more money to watse energy and water or at least as much as it REALLY costs.

Ding! And that's why government needs to step in. Those who already do conserve will have better information and those who waste (sometimes just because of an old habit or lack of information) will learn new better habits.

I think everyone should have as much water as they need for free. But I think waste should hit you hard in the pocket book.

[Daradon]

Perhaps there could be a limit per person (inflated so those with greater needs will fall within the norm range) but anything after that you start paying big time.

The people who water their lawn everyday or run the faucet when they brush their teeth will learn quickly.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Good point. For far too long it's been the Al Gores and the rest of the goddamn hippies ripping off the government and the average hard-working citizen.

It's about time big business got a piece of the action.

Any rip-off for the cause eh Rouge? Had this had been an Oil company or Halburton (wait?) you would have been screaming.

3 companies unable to sell an inferior product conspire with a government to pass a law forcing people to buy their inferior product and you are a.ok with this? With a market monopoly, kiss all those advancements good bye. Why R&D when you don't have to?

Got to get me some shares....with suckers like you I could be rich!

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Ding! And that's why government needs to step in. Those who already do conserve will have better information and those who waste (sometimes just because of an old habit or lack of information) will learn new better habits.

I think everyone should have as much water as they need for free. But I think waste should hit you hard in the pocket book.

Oh boy...I saw it! I saw IT! Government and conserve put together! Not only that we get big brother too! Cameras on each corner to catch those harden criminals watering their lawns!

[jammies]

Originally Posted by HOZ

3 companies unable to sell an inferior product conspire with a government to pass a law forcing people to buy their inferior product and you are a.ok with this? With a market monopoly, kiss all those advancements good bye. Why R&D when you don't have to?

What ARE you talking about?

#1 - the companies don't have a monopoly, never mind that it is nonsensical to talk about a "monopoly" with more than one company in the first place.

#2 - the product isn't inferior, unless you think Edison is the pinnacle of light bulb development and everyone since has been a poseur. The lightbulbs are CHEAPER in the long run than conventional ones, but too many people are unable to process the concept of "long run". Plus, people that don't pay for their power (like me) have no incentive to use the more expensive bulbs unless forced to.

#3 - If you don't think the three companies (never mind the dozens of other companies in the business) are going to try to take market share from each other with better bulbs, you are mistaken. R & D is hardly going to be stifled by making a bigger market for efficient lightbulbs, it will have the opposite effect.

#4 - Unless the gov't goes into the business of making lightbulbs, some company has to do it, and therefore, will benefit. However, instead of a negative sum game like preferential legislation for oil companies (so that the taxpayers eat the costs and still get expensive gasoline and heating oil), the only "losers" in this instance are people who will be forced to buy the lights and save money over years of use. Oh, the tragedy!

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Oh boy...I saw it! I saw IT! Government and conserve put together! Not only that we get big brother too! Cameras on each corner to catch those harden criminals watering their lawns!

Hittin the sauce?

Gotta lay this weird illogical argument on me right after I kudos you in another thread...

Ok...

I know I haven't been on in a bit, but if you remember I'm normally a champion AGAINST government interference with things like privacy and laws. I'll admit, I am more liberal and don't mind a few extra taxes if spent well. (And there are lots of countries that do it better than us) But I'm always for the freedom of the individual.

I'd be living a pretty punishable life if I wasn't...

I never asked for government to step in and endorse an inferior product, only to punish waste and endorse GOOD products. Waste is hurtful to us all and such be charged as such. REPEAT: As resources dwindle, WASTE (not use) should be made a punishable crime to public citizens as well as ramping it up on corporations.

The ways and to do this and measures for it are debatable but should start being debated now.

As well, governments should foster growth instead of money mongering old technology (Fossil fuel oligopoly anyone? Bush govt. anyone?) while they allow the market to unfairly trample good ideas whose time has come. I know the answer isn't easy, but it doesn't mean the government can't do more to help it along.

And you don't need cams for lawns. There is such a thing as a water meter...

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by jammies

What ARE you talking about?

#1 - the companies don't have a monopoly, never mind that it is nonsensical to talk about a "monopoly" with more than one company in the first place.

#2 - the product isn't inferior, unless you think Edison is the pinnacle of light bulb development and everyone since has been a poseur. The lightbulbs are CHEAPER in the long run than conventional ones, but too many people are unable to process the concept of "long run". Plus, people that don't pay for their power (like me) have no incentive to use the more expensive bulbs unless forced to.

#3 - If you don't think the three companies (never mind the dozens of other companies in the business) are going to try to take market share from each other with better bulbs, you are mistaken. R & D is hardly going to be stifled by making a bigger market for efficient lightbulbs, it will have the opposite effect.

#4 - Unless the gov't goes into the business of making lightbulbs, some company has to do it, and therefore, will benefit. However, instead of a negative sum game like preferential legislation for oil companies (so that the taxpayers eat the costs and still get expensive gasoline and heating oil), the only "losers" in this instance are people who will be forced to buy the lights and save money over years of use. Oh, the tragedy!

#1: All three companies in the article will have 80-90% or better share of the CFL market. That is a monopoly. Worldwide it should be about the same.

#2; Yes inferior product. Ie. Can't sell. As said in the article....
First, the light is not as attractive to many consumers — a problem with which the industry has struggled for years. Second, they take a little time after you flip the switch to reach full brightness.

People do not like it. They need to come up with a better product.....but no, lobby the government to legislate the problem out of existance.

#3: Good luck. 3 Strong companies versus pipsqueeks....hence monopoly laws. But since government has legislated this monopoly...oh well. Even if these companies are eventually hit with anti-monopoly suits they stand to rake in zillionzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. And still no better product.

#4 Duh....but why not let the companies come up with a product that will actually sell? They were coming up with less toxic improvements....but no more. Why should they. You have to buy whatever they sell you.

[Devils'Advocate]

Someone is obviously in dire needs of a dictionary.

I've bought nothing but CFL's for the past 5 years and I'd say that inferior/superior is a matter of debate, but there definitely are some pros/cons to each.

It would appear that the government is doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. Removing wasteful, inefficient products that harm the environment should be the role of government because, left to our own devices, humans have proven that we don't much mind soiling our own den.

The righties complained bitterly about the U.S. government forcing their citizens to use low-flow toilets. Now even the righties favorite source says they are vastly improved and saving a LOT of water:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,315363,00.html

But if the U.S. government hadn't mandated these toilets, I absolutely swear inertia would have held.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I've bought nothing but CFL's for the past 5 years and I'd say that inferior/superior is a matter of debate, but there definitely are some pros/cons to each.

CFLs save money but put out bad quality light. About half the lights in our house are CFLs and i despise almost everyone of them between the slow turn on times and poorer quality light. Yet to find one which puts out light as good as a regular incandesent. Maybe once I do i'll be less ticked by the legislation to phase them out.

[Calgaryborn]

Isn't there enviromental issues surrounding CFLs?

http://www.financialpost.com/story.h...4-b62dee548fda

I guess it might be a good way to get rid of excess mercury.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Any rip-off for the cause eh Rouge? Had this had been an Oil company or Halburton (wait?) you would have been screaming.

Any rip-off for the cause? More like any reason to spread some nonsense about Al Gore and the rest of the Greenies rolling in our tax dollars and a conspiracy theory about Big Brother. The lightbulbs are just the start!

The rest of your blathering has already been trounced so I won't even bother.

[MelBridgeman]

and Al Gore is raking in the cash

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

and Al Gore is raking in the cash

Al Gore is the Devil.

He should have just stolen all the money he needed, or at least given it to his friends while he's in office. Cheney is doing it right. He won't need some cause or crusade to fill his pockets.