Over at Moonbattery, Van Helsing has a post about the Consumer Product Safety Commission's recall of some compact fluorescent light bulbs because they may explode and burn your house down.
For no reasons other than to appease Al Gore and other global-warming hoax believers and to reward Jeffery Immelt of GE for being a loyal lapdog, our imperial government has banned cheap, efficient incandescent bulbs as being harmful to beloved polar bears. Instead, we will be forced to use dim, flickering, and potentially harmful CF bulbs that'll have us all squinting to read books in the relative darkness of our living rooms. It's likely that our benevolent Marxist overlords would like us to give up books altogether like in Fahrenheit 451, and mindlessly stare at the official Government Information Channel on TV instead. Forcing us to use CF bulbs to read by might just accomplish that.
If you haven't figured it out yet, Jeffery Immelt of GE stands to make billions for his company since GE will be the lone US manufacturer of stupid, expensive, and dangerous compact fluorescent bulbs.
If you ever visit the Oval Office and you see a pair of shoes sticking out from under the President's desk, they'll belong to Jeffery Immelt. He'll be thanking Obama for banning superior incandescent bulbs, as the ban was solely for Immelt's financial benefit, they just use environmentalism as an excuse.
4 comments:
Right on, Ed. One thing that is rarely mentioned concerns the supposed savings from eliminating incandescent bulbs. All the electrical energy that flows into the lamp winds up coming out - as light and heat. The "curly fries" lightbulbs (per Mark Steyn) put off less heat for the same light output, and are therefore more efficient. Forgotten in this is that for much of the year, in much of the world, the heat is not "wasted" at all but helps to heat the space where the light shines. This then reduces the demands on the heating system. Of course, when cooling the space, such waste heat is indeed waste. My point is that much of the "savings" are not really savings at all.
Bill, I wonder what the harping environmentalists think about the toxic Mercury that is used in these bulbs and that by law, you'll need a hazmat team to clean a broken bulb up? Just like every "green" government initiative, if it's such a savings and a good idea, then why not let it compete in the marketplace rather than cramming it down our throats? Short answer: because it's neither a savings or a good idea.
Yes, Ed. Good products that provide a value for people will stand on their own without government mandates or subsidies. Few things frustrate me more than the ethanol mandate and subsidy, especially since I learned it's ruining my small gasoline engines. My car can survive it - at reduced MPG - but the little 2 stroke engines really suffer.
Our entire economic history is based on innovations either succeeding or failing in the free marketplace. For the government to arbitrarily, capriciously, or for the purposes of handing out political favors, choose winners and losers totally disrupts the greatest lifter of economic boats in the history of western civ. But that's by design with malice of forethought....and that's what's truly disturbing.
Post a Comment