Being forced to buy Chinese lightbulbs?

[dman1991]

Ive read a few comments that they dont make these in the U.S. but in China, Is that true? Is this kinda what you are talking about polar, where the free market should decide if we use these lightbulbs, not the gov? After all if they really are so much better then people will ultimately buy them, right?

SC lawmakers take a dim view of new light bulbs
AP

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110328/ap_on_re_us/us_light_bulbs_states

   

Linda Smith, front, and Pat Leonhard place screw bases on the bottoms of light bulbs at American Light Bulb Manufacturing Inc. in Mullins, S.C. Monday AP – Linda Smith, front, and Pat Leonhard place screw bases on the bottoms of light bulbs at American Light …
By JIM DAVENPORT, Associated Press Jim Davenport, Associated Press – 1 hr 52 mins ago

COLUMBIA, S.C. – South Carolina lawmakers are taking a stand in favor of states' lights.

With incandescent bulbs being phased out under federal law in favor of energy-efficient compact fluorescents, legislators want to exempt South Carolina from the measure, saying Washington has no business telling the state how to light its closets and countertops.

The proposed state law, called the Incandescent Light Bulb Freedom Act, "allows South Carolina to say to the federal government we are going to exercise our rights," said Republican state Rep. Bill Sandifer, a co-sponsor.

The federal government is phasing out incandescent lights starting with 100-watt bulbs in 2012. In 2014, manufacturers will stop making 75-, 60- and 40-watt bulbs, too, under the 2007 Bush administration law. But the squiggly, energy-efficient fluorescent bulbs have drawn complaints that they are too expensive, put out a dim, sickly light, contain traces of mercury and take too long to reach full brightness.

As early as Tuesday, the South Carolina House will begin debating a bill that would allow companies to manufacture incandescent bulbs in South Carolina as long as they stamp them "Made in South Carolina" and sell them only within the state. Supporters of the bill say the federal government would have no authority to intervene because its power to regulate business extends only to commerce that crosses state lines.

South Carolina has only one, small manufacturer of incandescent bulbs, but the hope is that others will set up shop here, too, if the law passes.

Arizona lawmakers tried the same thing a year ago, passing a bill that would have declared incandescent light bulbs manufactured entirely within the state exempt from federal regulation. But Republican Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed it. Texas, Georgia and Minnesota have also considered clinging to incandescent bulbs, but none has passed a law. California embraced the new federal regulations a year early.

The South Carolina bill is expected to win approval in the House, though its fate is far from certain in the Senate, and Republican Gov. Nikki Haley has not offered her support. Even if it became law, it would probably be challenged in court.

And Randy Barnett, a constitutional law expert at Georgetown University, said the state would probably lose, in part because it wouldn't be able to keep people from buying incandescent light bulbs in South Carolina and using them in another state.

California lost a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court case with a similar underlying legal issue. That dispute involved whether medical marijuana grown in the state is subject to federal laws against pot.

South Carolina lawmakers have a long history of going against the federal government. In the past year they have taken up bills to stall federal health care legislation and create their own currency. Before that, of course, came slavery, states' rights, secession and the Civil War, as well as a century of foot-dragging on segregation, seat belts, drunken driving and the drinking age.

Incandescents, the design basically created by Thomas Edison in the late 1800s, create light by passing electric current through a wire filament. But 90 percent of the electricity is wasted as heat instead of light. Fluorescents burn cooler.

The newer bulbs are more expensive — about $3 for a 25-watt fluorescent versus about $1 for a 100-watt incandescent — but supporters of the new technology say the lights last so much longer that they save money in the long run. An incandescent bulb may burn for 750 to 2,500 hours, while a compact fluorescent can last up to 10,000 hours, according to the Energy Department.

If the South Carolina bill passes, it could boost hiring at American Light Bulb Manufacturing Inc., which has a factory in Mullins, in an impoverished, rural part of the state, president Ray Schlosser said from the company's headquarters in Schaumburg, Ill. The plant is in Marion County, the state's capital for unemployment, with one-fifth of the work force jobless.

"The federal government was just trying to shove this down Americans' throats too quickly," Schlosser said.

Before the 2007 law, he had three production lines with 50 workers making the bulbs. But Schlosser said he is down to a single line with 15 workers and a single U.S. competitor, Sylvania. Most of the incandescent bulb business is now overseas. GE made its last incandescent bulb in the U.S. last fall.

Kit Kennedy, energy counsel with the Natural Resources Defense Council, doesn't expect other states to follow South Carolina's lead.

"Most states, whether they're red states or blue states, are interested in promoting energy efficiency," Kennedy said. "We hope that South Carolina sees the light, as it were."

[2NaFish]

energy efficient bulbs are great. cheap to buy, cheap to run you almost never need to change them and getting better. couldnt give a rats ass about enviromental concerns.

[dman1991]

energy efficient bulbs are great. cheap to buy, cheap to run you almost never need to change them and getting better. couldnt give a rats ass about enviromental concerns.

Yes, but should we be forced to change them?

[2NaFish]

Yes, but should we be forced to change them?

Should you? Dunno. Its your own country, what ought to happen is what you want to happen.

It happened here, although differently, and nobody gave a shit.

[dman1991]

Should you? Dunno. Its your own country, what ought to happen is what you want to happen.

It happened here, although differently, and nobody gave a shit.

Well, I was hoping to tie this into Polar's free market spiel. Based of the info I have read I would say no we should not be forced to use them as they are being made in China. Its almost like not only are they telling us what to buy they are making us buy them from a supposed(well actual) threat. Its just seems fishy to me that our country would pass legislation that makes us buy foreign... oh wait, guess this is commonplace nowadays.

You would think if they are more cost efficient and better for the environment then they would be purchased anyway regardless of any law. Just a random article I saw that made me think of some of the recent discussions going on in the green room.

[polar]

Well, I was hoping to tie this into Polar's free market spiel.

it's not mine, by any means.  so i take it you're starting to come around or are you still leaning left

[dman1991]

it's not mine, by any means.  so i take it you're starting to come around or are you still leaning left

Dont really think Ive ever leaned either way, some things I can be far left on, and others far right, I try not to make a decision based solely upon a belief. In this situation, I suppose I lean to the right. I just dont see any need to force this on anyone, especially if the gain goes to China.

[polar]

I try not to make a decision based solely upon a belief

then what exactly do you base your decisions on?

In this situation, I suppose I lean to the right. I just dont see any need to force this on anyone, especially if the gain goes to China.

any need to force this on anyone, in this situation you mean.  in others, force isn't an issue.  you are the classic consequentialist, which is what defines the left.

quite by accident, you've actually made a thread that illustrates what determines right from left, or force vs freedom, tyranny vs liberty.  let me explain.  every single action a govt takes or policy it makes either relies on force, or it doesn't.  a rightist will reject any policy or action requiring force, a leftist will say "hey, if it helps me or someone i look down upon as weak, go for it"

a couple of examples from my real life.  me and my consequentialist/ leftist friends agree that drugs should not be illegal.  they go on to support their point by saying that the prisons are full of drug use offenders and they are a drag on the state budget, which is true.  they also will go into the argument that pot never hurt anyone and it's safer than booze, blah blah blah, which may also be true, but when i ask them what about coke and acid and ecstasy, their eyes glaze over.  I tell them none of that even matters, an adult is free to make his own decisions about how he wants to live his life and treat his body, so making drugs illegal is anti-liberty.

now on the issue of whether guns should be illegal, my consequentialist friends who lean to the right will argue that crime stats rise in areas like Chicago where they ban guns in the city.  they argue how people need to hunt animals to control the population so they don't face a far less human death when they starve in the wild, blah blah blah.  I always just say, well all of that may be true or not, but the constitution guarantees us the right to bear arms, and man also if you believe in freedom, man has the right to protect himself.

that's the difference between your POV and mine

[dman1991]

then what exactly do you base your decisions on?

In my mind, what is right and wrong. Say I was a libertarian, I couldnt base a decision solely on the libertarian beliefs system. Sure it serves as a good guide, but nothing is black and white. I guess that is where we differ, though I dont see myself as a leftist, I dont really see where you drew that conclusion. I said I am not in favor of these lightbulbs for 2 reasons, one it shouldnt be forced on us, and 2 china makes the money from it. I guess if making decisions based on consequence is purely left then you can put me over there.

A couple other things, I agree about the guns, the government has no right to take our guns away, as for the drugs, I guess I do lean a little to the left. I agree that its our right to put what we want in our body, but its a tricky issue. Say crack and heroin were legal, who sells it? Are scumbag drugdealers still scumbag drugdealers or are they entrepenuers now? Are we gonna have more 13 year olds getting an early dose of crack now? I understand you cannot legislate risk out of life, but not everyone is as smart as you. I seems you are all about survival of the fittest.

quite by accident, you've actually made a thread that illustrates what determines right from left, or force vs freedom, tyranny vs liberty. 

I dont think it was an accident, I actually said this seems like a good example of what we were talking about before, force vs. freedom, free market, etc...

[polar]

i'll brb, i was in the middle of my reply and one of my ppl fell down and hurt himself

[dman1991]

it's not mine, by any means.  so i take it you're starting to come around or are you still leaning left

And to add to that, I feel like im coming around, then you tell me something else that makes me left, haha. Not that your wrong, I guess I am just one of those indecisive assholes everyone hates. I cant just agree with one POV all the time.

[2NaFish]

dman, would it be ok if the bulbs you were being 'forced' to buy were american bulbs? or simply from a nation thats not a threat?

[dman1991]

dman, would it be ok if the bulbs you were being 'forced' to buy were american bulbs? or simply from a nation thats not a threat?

No, and why do you say 'forced' like the term is being misused. There was a law passed that will eventually make everyone use them. I was just throwing in the China thing because its like adding insult to injury. Passing legislation to give jobs to China seems like a nono, and I meant an economic threat, nothing to do with being taken over because they sell us light bulbs.

[2NaFish]

No, and why do you say 'forced' like the term is being misused. There was a law passed that will eventually make everyone use them. I was just throwing in the China thing because its like adding insult to injury. Passing legislation to give jobs to China seems like a nono, and I meant an economic threat, nothing to do with being taken over because they sell us light bulbs.

i used quotation marks as i was quoting earlier uses of the word, nothing to do with misuse. if you enter a discussion talking about what you are forced to do then its unlikely you'll be able to think about it rationally.

i know you meant economically. i never mentioned anything else, once again it was your language.