• Advertisement
To advertise, place classifieds free ads by category in a forum as a new topic, or in the classified display ads section, or start a classifieds free blog.

Sanders says he'd reverse Trump decision rolling back lightbulb standards: 'Duh'

Sanders says he'd reverse Trump decision rolling back lightbulb standards: 'Duh'

Postby smix » Thu Sep 05, 2019 3:28 am

Sanders says he'd reverse Trump decision rolling back lightbulb standards: 'Duh'
The Hill

URL: https://thehill.com/policy/energy-envir ... -lightbulb
Category: Politics
Published: September 4, 2019

Description: Democratic presidential contender Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said he would move swiftly to reverse a decision from the Trump administration Tuesday that eliminated Obama-era efficiency standards for lightbulbs. Asked by Anderson Cooper at the CNN climate town hall whether he would reverse the decision, Sanders responded with a long drawn out “Duh.”
Anderson Cooper: "The Trump administration announced plans to overturn requirements on energy-saving lightbulbs. ... Would you reinstate those requirements?"
Sen. Bernie Sanders: "Duh!"

bernie-cnn-lightbulbs.jpg

— CNN (@CNN) September 5, 2019

The new rule unveiled by the Department of Energy would eliminate energy efficiency standards for about half the bulbs on the market, prompting a backlash from critics who say it will speed up global warming as the U.S. produces more energy to power inefficient bulbs. “If you can get electricity from a light bulb that utilizes one-tenth of the power that an old incandescent light bulb uses, of course you're going to do that. Of course, you're going to encourage that technology,” Sanders said.

bernie-lightbulb.jpg

Sanders home state of Vermont is one of several states that have passed laws to keep the older federal standards in place.
User avatar
smix
 
Posts: 1847375
Images: 1
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 8:05 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

On bulbs, Democrats offer dim demagoguery

Postby smix » Thu Sep 12, 2019 7:00 am

On bulbs, Democrats offer dim demagoguery
Washington Examiner

URL: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opin ... emagoguery
Category: Politics
Published: September 12, 2019

Description: Democrats are trying to have it both ways on lightbulbs. They declare that lightbulbs are a trifle, but also that it’s imperative the federal government regulate them. They are up in arms that the Trump Energy Department would undo regulations, but Obama didn’t issue the regulations in question until his last day in power. On lightbulbs, Democrats show a shallow hypocrisy that reflects a deeper one. Elizabeth Warren, one of the front-runners for the Democratic nomination, got very upset recently when CNN's Chris Cuomo asked her, “Do you think that the government should be in the business of telling you what kind of lightbulb you can have?” “Oh come on, give me a break!” she said. “This is exactly what the fossil fuel industry hopes we’re all talking about." She said, "They want to be able to stir up a lot of controversy around your lightbulbs, around your straws, and around your cheeseburgers when 70% of the pollution, of the carbon that we’re throwing into the air, comes from three industries.” We hope the moderators at Thursday night’s Democratic debate ask Warren a follow-up: How can a lightbulb be important enough to outlaw but not important enough to talk about? It’s a common tactic of the Left, and on one level it’s just plain old demagoguery. Regularly, we are told that conservatives objecting to lightbulb mandates are obsessing over trivia. Isn’t the “obsession” on the part of the lawmakers who wrote the laws on lightbulbs, and triggering dozens of regulations about which lightbulbs may be bought, sold, imported, and made? On another level, coming from lawmakers, it's a bit despotic: We will regulate how you live your life, and if you ask us about it, we'll attack you. If lightbulbs are a tiny part of the climate debate, why was there such uproar over the Trump administration’s decision to halt new regulations that were written by the Obama administration but that haven’t gone into effect yet? The 2007 energy bill effectively outlawed most traditional incandescent bulbs through efficiency mandates on “general service lamps.” On the last full day of the Obama administration, the Energy Department issued a rule redefining the term “general service lamp” to include specialty bulbs, such as three-way bulbs and chandelier bulbs. Why did the Department of Energy play this Orwellian word game? “DOE expects these sales will likely increase since these lamps could be used as replacements for other regulated lamp types," the agency explained on January 19, 2017. In other words, the Obama administration knew that people appreciate traditional incandescents and would buy the classes of bulbs where traditional incandescents were still allowed. So they changed the rules to deny consumers even that little avenue of choice. Again, Democrats proclaim it’s absurd to worry about light bulbs, yet a Democratic administration went on a hunt to sniff out where consumers might still be buying traditional bulbs. Also, the media and Democrats are really upset about Trump “rolling back” lightbulb rules, but those rules aren’t even in effect yet. If three-way bulbs and chandelier bulbs were such a threat to the climate, why didn’t Obama rope them into the lightbulb mandates earlier? Trump’s “deregulation” is basically preserving the regulatory structure that existed throughout the Obama administration. These little hypocrisies point to a bigger hypocrisy. Democrats are willing to inconvenience us all in the name of saving the planet, but they’re unwilling to take the most practical steps to actually slash greenhouse gas emissions that are contributing to climate change. Nuclear power is the only feasible zero-carbon source of energy, yet Warren and some of her rivals want to ban it. Sometimes it seems as though the green folk are less interested in saving the planet than they are in telling us how to live, and then telling us to quit complaining.



Elizabeth Warren would appreciate it if everyone stopped pointing out that climate change alarmists want to ban everyday items
Washington Examiner

URL: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opin ... yday-items
Category: Politics
Published: September 5, 2019

Description: Sen. Elizabeth Warren is annoyed that people keep pointing out that her brand of climate change alarmism calls for the prohibition of everyday items, including plastic drinking straws and incandescent light bulbs. In fact, the top-tier 2020 Democratic primary candidate believes it is an unfair, devious, fossil-fuel-industry-promoted talking point to highlight the fact that alarmists like herself — who oppose nuclear energy — back placebos that will do next to nothing to offset the industrialized world’s carbon footprint. On Wednesday, during CNN's seven-hour climate crisis town hall, host Chris Cuomo addressed the senator’s support for supposedly climate-saving bans. “Today the president announced plans to roll back energy-saving light bulbs, and he wants to reintroduce four different kinds, which I'm not going to burden you with, but one of them is the candle-shaped ones, and those are a favorite for a lot of people, by the way,” Cuomo said. He added, “But do you think that the government should be in the business of telling you what kind of light bulb you can have?” Warren was not pleased with the question. “Oh, come on,” she said, “give me a break.” “Is that a yes?” Cuomo pressed. The Massachusetts senator pounced (or seized, depending on your persuasion). “No. Look, there are a lot of ways that we try to change our energy consumption, and our pollution, and God bless all of those ways,” she said. “Some of it is with light bulbs, some of it is on straws, some of it, dang, is on cheeseburgers, right? There are a lot of different pieces to this. And I get that people are trying to find the part that they can work on and what can they do. And I'm in favor of that. And I'm going to help and I'm going to support.” She continued, “But understand, this is exactly what the fossil fuel industry hopes we're all talking about. That's what they want us to talk about.”

warren-bulb.jpg

Ah-ha! There it is again: The “Republican talking point!” dodge utilized by so many of the 2020 Democratic primary candidates. When confronted with an uncomfortable fact or question, many of the 2020 candidates have avoided answering by alleging a dirty trick by their opponent. In Warren’s case Wednesday evening, the “opponent” is the fossil fuel industry and the "trick" is noting her support for government bans on everyday items. Naturally, the CNN studio audience cheered her response. “They want to be able to stir up a lot of controversy around your light bulbs, around your straws, and around your cheeseburgers. When 70% of the pollution of the carbon that we're throwing into the air comes from three industries, and we can set our targets and say, by 2028, 2030, and 2035, no more. Think about that. Right there,” Warren continued. She added, “Now, the other 30%, we still got to work on. Oh, no, we don't stop at 70%. But the point is, that's where we need to focus. And why don't we focus there? It's corruption. It's these giant corporations that keep hiring the PR firms that — everybody has fun with it, right, gets it all out there — so we don't look at who's still making the big bucks off polluting our Earth.” Now is a good time to stress that Warren absolutely believes the federal government should be “in the business” of telling people what kind of light bulb they can have. She is just annoyed that people are saying that part out loud, especially as she is campaigning for the Democratic Party’s nomination. The fact is, Warren supports things like lights bulb bans. She also opposes nuclear energy, in case you were wondering how seriously you should take her climate change platform.
User avatar
smix
 
Posts: 1847375
Images: 1
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 8:05 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Elizabeth Warren Issues Misleading Claim That Three Industries Are Responsible for 70 Percent of Carbon Pollution

Postby smix » Thu Sep 12, 2019 9:51 am

Elizabeth Warren Issues Misleading Claim That Three Industries Are Responsible for 70 Percent of Carbon Pollution
Reason

URL: https://reason.com/2019/09/11/elizabeth ... pollution/
Category: Politics
Published: September 11, 2019

Description: Elizabeth Warren claims three industries are responsible for 70 percent of carbon pollution. One of those industries is…"industry." Any time a politician makes an argument using a single, simple statistic, it is worth investigating its origins. That is especially true when that politician is Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.). Take, for example, her claim at last week's CNN town hall on climate change that 70 percent of airborne carbon pollution comes from three industries. Warren made this argument in response to a question about whether the government should tell people which lightbulbs they have to use. "This is exactly what the fossil fuel industry hopes we're all talking about," she said. "They want to be able to stir up a lot of controversy around your lightbulbs, straws, and cheeseburgers when 70% of the pollution of the carbon that we're throwing into the air comes from three industries." Because this is 2019, Warren also posted the claim on Instagram. So, which three industries are to blame? The helpful fact-checkers at Politifact looked into this question and found the source of Warren's statistic. It does not show that three industries are to blame. Instead, Warren's claim comes from an Environmental Protection Agency's document stating that more than 70 percent of greenhouse gas emissions can be traced to three sources. The first is "transportation," which accounts for about 29 percent of emissions. The second is "electricity production," which accounts for about 27 percent. You may have noticed that these are both activities, not industries. Transportation, in particular, encompasses a variety of different economic sectors, from trucking and freight rail to personal air travel and driving—which is to say, the sort of individual consumer economic decisions that Warren says are a distraction. You may be thinking: This is just quibbling. But then we come to the third category, which accounts for about 22 percent of emissions. And this is where things get weird. The third category is just…"industry." All of it. "Industry," I think it is fair to say, is not an industry. If just three industries are responsible for all carbon emissions, then "industry"—the catch-all term for the entirety of industrial activity in the country—cannot be one of them. Warren's campaign has been more careful about characterizing the sources of carbon emissions in other forums. But it's still telling that this was how Warren chose to frame the issue in a major cable news forum and that her team made the decision to re-post the moment on social media. And it is representative of a tendency of Warren's that I explored at length in the latest issue of Reason: It is a framing that, while based in a legitimate source, is presented in a way that seems designed to mislead for political convenience. In this case, her characterization is presumably intended to leave the impression that the bulk of emissions come from a few powerful bad actors, that the only people who would be affected by her energy plans would be rich industrialists with well-waxed mustaches who own large buildings with menacing smokestacks. In Warren's telling, they are the ones who will be hurt, rather than, say, ordinary people driving cars and heating their homes and buying light bulbs and perhaps even hoping to enjoy hamburgers or tasty beverages with straws that do not crumple into damp napkins when you use them. It was Warren's way of implying, without quite saying so, that this won't really affect you. As John Reilly, the co-director of MIT's Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, told Politifact, Warren's response "may lead to the implication that the cost of reducing these emissions will fall on industry. To the extent that myth is perpetuated, that is a problem. One way or another, we will all bear the cost of doing things differently." Indeed, it is worth noticing what Warren did not say—whether the government has a role in regulating which light bulbs consumers use. She called this question, and others like it, distractions. But if anything, it is Warren's own response that appears to have been constructed to distract from the issue at hand.
User avatar
smix
 
Posts: 1847375
Images: 1
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 8:05 am
Blog: View Blog (0)


  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to Furnishings & Lighting


Mobile Device
  • 1
  • FREE CLASSIFIED ADS
    Free Classified Ads
    There are 3 ways to advertise - your choice: you can place free ads in a forum topic, in the classified display ads section, or you may start your own free blog. Please select the appropriate category and forum for the ad content before you post. Do not spam.
    Caveat emptor - let the buyer beware. Deal at your own risk and peril.
  • Advertisement