Posted by Charity on January 31st, 2007

Sorry for all of the news dumps lately, but I haven’t had the time to do any original posts. I will try to bring you some of my fresh perspective and enlightening brilliance later this week.

In the meantime, I just read this story out of good ol’ California.

How many people does it take to change a light bulb? In California, the answer could be a majority of the Legislature.

The electricity-wasting incandescent bulb would be banned _ replaced by energy efficient compact fluorescents _ under a bill that Assemblyman Lloyd Levine plans to introduce.

Governor Arnold “The Terminator” Schwarzenegger has not weighed in on this issue yet.

Feel free to discuss.

10 Responses to “What would Edison say?”

  1. Oh, those nasty big government Californians. Why can’t we let the market decide…gahhh…socialist blah… blah.. (wiping drool from chin, craps pants while singing ‘Deutchland Uber Alles’ and Lee Greenwood’s cliche-ridden cheesefest ‘God Bless the USA’).

    Rightwinger imitations aside, I think it’s a good idea. Once again, it’s a good example of how people sometimes need a push to get going in the right direction.

  2. “People sometimes need a push to get going in the right direction” — says j.d. ryan

    The “right” direction? And who made your direction the “right” direction? Spoken like a true lefty.

    I hate flo bulbs. I hate the buzzing sound, the weird washed out looking light in the room. I like my incan light bulbs because they don’t make noise that gives me a headache, and I can actually see.

    But thank you j.d. for being so enlightened and smarter than us “common folk” so that you can run my life for me.

    Next thing you know, the government is going to tell us how much water we can use to flush our toilets… wait one sec… what’s that?… Damn!

  3. Yeah, Chanman, my husband said the same thing (about the lighting).

    If you need someone to hook you up with some blackmarket old school bulbs, let me know. That is, until Vermont follows suit.

  4. Yeah, you people would still be using PCB’s, DDT and leaded gasoline if you could, too.

    I’m not determining what’s ‘right’. The science is pointing in that direction. Quit living on earth like you own the place.

  5. You people“? Come on JD, where’s the love?

    How do you know us people don’t care about the earth?

    So as to not make presumptions, in what ways are you voluntarily doing your part?

  6. Remember when Ross Perot addressed the NAACP as ‘you people?’ Eeech… actually, i just meant those of the mindest of, ‘the hell with the planet, I’m going to do what I want to, regardless of the impact, cuz I’m a guldurn Amurrrican.’

    Let’s see… I buy only energy efficient appliances (even the computer I just built is energy efficient), I drive as little as I have to, volunteer time/money to conservation organizations, buy as much of my food locally (and organic)as I can, burn wood instead of oil, work to defeat anti-environmental candidates, have my forest logged in a sustainable manner, have all compact fluorescents, reuse/recycle to the point of obsessive anal retentiveness, have an on-demand hot water heater that uses much less energy than a conventional one, buy food with the minimum of packaging, etc…

    And to cut off any troll that is going to somehow take the above as me professing moral superiority, I ain’t. I just realize that the earth isn’t just another commodity to be consumed recklessly, and our personal choices do matter. So there. Pfffft…!

  7. Well, I am glad to see that you are doing all of those things, but I use a vegetable-based laundry soap from Seventh Generation (a local company), instead of the petroleum-based crap I used to use that costs about 1/3 of the price. Do you? Because if you are not then I think the legislature needs to pass a law requiring that you do because sometimes people “need a push to get going in the right direction.”

  8. Actully, I use that stuff too. Next?

  9. Obviously, you are not going to admit that I have a point as long as I use examples that have to do with environmental stewardship. So, where do we draw the line with government mandates? How about we let the government mandate all behaviors that experts (secular, of course) agree are harmful? After all, people sometimes need a push to get going in the right direction.

  10. I see your point about the examples, and it’s great that you and I both are aware of environmental stewardship and take steps to live that way. problem is, most people could care less, either because they’re unaware, don’t care, or a bit of both. Should we just ignore their behavior and to hell with the consequences? Your basic libertarian philosophy would work.. if people weren’t so selfish and could be counted on to behave in an ethical manner. prob is, the world doesn’t work that way.

    Well, Charity, it’ s a matter of scale…There’s a big difference between me smoking a joint in the privacy of my living room and the steps that needed to be taken for energy conservation and reducing global warming. I know it’s not a conservative trait to see these kinds of things, but it’s not an all or nothing, black or white world. It’s actually pretty complex.

    And whatever it is, you’re damn right it better be secular. You know there’s that little issue with ‘facts’ that non-secular types seem to have a problem with. It’s one thing to mandate something backed up by science, it’s another thing all together to back it up with fairy tales.