The barbarians ban the lightbulb

[sjw]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=59298

[studiodekadent]

Damn Tree-Fascists.

I need a drink.

[tjohnson]

Damn Tree-Fascists.

I need a drink.

Tree-fascists? What have you got against conserving energy? I use fluorescent bulbs to cut down on my power bill and so I'm not replacing bulbs all the time. It seems to me like common sense to conserve energy.

[studiodekadent]

Damn Tree-Fascists.

I need a drink.

Tree-fascists? What have you got against conserving energy? I use fluorescent bulbs to cut down on my power bill and so I'm not replacing bulbs all the time. It seems to me like common sense to conserve energy.

My problem is with the Anthropogenic Global Warming lie, the primitivist philosophies of Al Gore etc, and the like. My problem is also with banning the bulbs.

I have no problem with flourescent lighting.

[tjohnson]

Tree-fascists? What have you got against conserving energy? I use fluorescent bulbs to cut down on my power bill and so I'm not replacing bulbs all the time. It seems to me like common sense to conserve energy.

My problem is with the Anthropogenic Global Warming lie, the primitivist philosophies of Al Gore etc, and the like. My problem is also with banning the bulbs.

I have no problem with flourescent lighting.

So it's forcing it on the public that you have a problem with, right? Would you be against the government making it attractive to the public to take conservation measures using other tactics, like taxing energy hogging devices or subsidizing energy conserving devices to make them more economically viable?

[studiodekadent]

Tree-fascists? What have you got against conserving energy? I use fluorescent bulbs to cut down on my power bill and so I'm not replacing bulbs all the time. It seems to me like common sense to conserve energy.

My problem is with the Anthropogenic Global Warming lie, the primitivist philosophies of Al Gore etc, and the like. My problem is also with banning the bulbs.

I have no problem with flourescent lighting.

So it's forcing it on the public that you have a problem with, right?

Yes.

Would you be against the government making it attractive to the public to take conservation measures using other tactics, like taxing energy hogging devices or subsidizing energy conserving devices to make them more economically viable?

Yes. For the reasons that 1) AGMH is a load of lies and hence legislation shouldn't be based on such "sky is falling" nonsense and 2) taxes and subsidies are basically theft, in addition to making things worse rather than better (generally speaking).

[tjohnson]

Studio, here is a scenario that has played out numerous times in North America. You have a large resource company, like a Pulp and Paper company, it manufactures it's product and uses vast amounts of fresh water from a river and dumps vast amounts of polluted water back into said river. Now we have a public health problem on our hands and who is going to pay for that? Tell me how you would handle this?

[studiodekadent]

Studio, here is a scenario that has played out numerous times in North America. You have a large resource company, like a Pulp and Paper company, it manufactures it's product and uses vast amounts of fresh water from a river and dumps vast amounts of polluted water back into said river. Now we have a public health problem on our hands and who is going to pay for that? Tell me how you would handle this?

Privatize the river. This would make pollution an act of trespass on another's property.

[sjw]

Damn Tree-Fascists.

I need a drink.

Tree-fascists? What have you got against conserving energy? I use fluorescent bulbs to cut down on my power bill and so I'm not replacing bulbs all the time. It seems to me like common sense to conserve energy.

Stop--you're making me ill.

Shayne

[sjw]

'Always' and 'Never' are two words you should always remember never to use. :-)

So, it's OK to contradict oneself, as long as one admits it?

Shayne

[tjohnson]

Privatize the river. This would make pollution an act of trespass on another's property.

Exactly how do you "privatize" a river??

[tjohnson]

So, it's OK to contradict oneself, as long as one admits it?

Shayne

I assume that's a rhetorical question?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Exactly how do you "privatize" a river??

GS,

That's easy. If nobody has claimed it, you homestead it, put an army around as much of it as you can and say "It is mine."

Michael

[studiodekadent]

Exactly how do you "privatize" a river??

GS,

That's easy. If nobody has claimed it, you homestead it, put an army around as much of it as you can and say "It is mine."

Michael

Correct, although in todays world I think the only approach would be for the government to sell it and/or parts of it (since they own it, they should sell it off).

[tjohnson]

Exactly how do you "privatize" a river??

GS,

That's easy. If nobody has claimed it, you homestead it, put an army around as much of it as you can and say "It is mine."

Michael

Correct, although in todays world I think the only approach would be for the government to sell it and/or parts of it (since they own it, they should sell it off).

You guys can't be serious?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You guys can't be serious?

GS,

Check your history. That's the way it has always happend with mankind 100% of the time. Real estate ownership has always started with a club. Then a body of laws develop and things get civilized.

Not very pretty, is it?

btw - That's not Objectivist theory.

Michael

[tjohnson]

Check your history. That's the way it has always happend with mankind 100% of the time. Real estate ownership has always started with a club. Then a body of laws develop and things get civilized.

I realize that in the past people would just "grab" land but we can go back in time can we? How do we resolve the problem now?

[sjw]

Check your history. That's the way it has always happend with mankind 100% of the time. Real estate ownership has always started with a club. Then a body of laws develop and things get civilized.

I realize that in the past people would just "grab" land but we can go back in time can we? How do we resolve the problem now?

Natural law: Use should determine ownership. No one should be able to point yonder and claim that they "own" something. Untangling the current mess would take some work to ensure a semblance of fairness, but ultimately any land not being actively used shouldn't be owned.

Shayne

[tjohnson]

Anyway we were talking about a waterway and I don't know that anyone has ever owned a waterway. If you tell the factory to stop polluting they say it costs too much and they will have to shut down. Then people are unemployed - social problems, etc. so we live with the pollution and accept it as a way of life. If the cost of operating a factory cleanly and sustainably were factored in the price of the goods would be a lot higher and so now maybe the business is not viable after all. So basically we are borrowing (stealing?) from the people who come after us by polluting the environment.

[jordanz]

Tree-fascists? What have you got against conserving energy? I use fluorescent bulbs to cut down on my power bill and so I'm not replacing bulbs all the time. It seems to me like common sense to conserve energy.

Let's cut to the premise here. There is no reason whatsoever to conserve energy. Energy is a product in the marketplace like any other. The price system will correctly allocate the product. I don't think this needs explaining to the members of this BBS. Further, we are not running out of resources. To paraphrase Julian Simon, there is only one true resource: the human mind.

[jordanz]

Anyway we were talking about a waterway and I don't know that anyone has ever owned a waterway.

A quick Google search will show that this isn't true.

If the cost of operating a factory cleanly and sustainably were factored in the price of the goods would be a lot higher and so now maybe the business is not viable after all.

I believe that these costs are factored into prices. In fact, they are most likely over-factored given the litigiousness of the USA.

[jordanz]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=59298

This is driving me insane. My wife and I are remodeling our house and California has utterly irrational laws regarding lighting. I hate fluorescent light and am being forced to use it in parts of house. Makes me want to scream!

[Judith]

This is driving me insane. My wife and I are remodeling our house and California has utterly irrational laws regarding lighting. I hate fluorescent light and am being forced to use it in parts of house. Makes me want to scream!

Me too. I abhor fluorescent light. I turn it off in my office and I hate it elsewhere. It gives a lot of people headaches, and it's downright ugly. Every hotel I've been in lately uses it; makes me miserable.

So they're cutting out the 100 watt bulbs first, are they? Sigh. That's all I use, except for the big three-ways.

Jordan, just put in a lot of outlets and then do what you want by stringing cords in out-of-the way places. Meddling bastards.

Judith

Edited April 9, 2008 by Judith

[jordanz]

Jordan, just put in a lot of outlets and then do what you want by stringing cords in out-of-the way places. Meddling bastards.

To show you how nutty things are here: the regulation is called Title 24 and states:

Residential Lighting [§150(k)]. The requirements for residential lighting will be substantially

revised to increase clarity and specificity, require high efficacy lighting equipment or energy

savings controls for permanently installed luminaries in all lighting functions, as well as require

recessed luminaries in insulated ceilings to be airtight. At least 50 percent of the lighting wattage

in kitchens will be required to be high efficacy.

* snip *

The important item here is this: "At least 50 percent of the lighting wattage in kitchens will be required to be high efficacy." Read that again to yourself and you'll soon realize that I can actually have as much standard lighting as I want as longs as I install twice as much wattage of fluorescent! Yes, this law will actually cause me to install about 1000 watts of fluorescent lighting that I will never turn on so that I can install the non-fluorescent that I want! A law straight out of Atlas Shrugged.

[tjohnson]

Let's cut to the premise here. There is no reason whatsoever to conserve energy. Energy is a product in the marketplace like any other. The price system will correctly allocate the product. I don't think this needs explaining to the members of this BBS. Further, we are not running out of resources. To paraphrase Julian Simon, there is only one true resource: the human mind.

Well maybe I can stuff his mind (read brain) into my boiler and see how many btu's I can get out it. We ARE running out of fossil fuels, btw.