OT: best legislative bill title EVER!

Page 1 of 5  
The answer seems to be "62", in California.
http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/31/news/companies/bc.energy.california.lightbulbs.reut/index.htm
The "How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb Act" would ban incandescent lightbulbs by 2012 in favor of energy-saving compact fluorescent lightbulbs.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

a dope dealer? Will Kalifornia border agents stop cars at the border and search for light bulbs? How much prison time will you face if caught with a box of light bulbs?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Somebody needs to pass the "how many legislators does it take to grow a brain act".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There isn't much hope in getting that through the California legislature, I don't suppose. Remember that's the same group of geniuses that put a cap on retail electricity prices a few years ago... and then got all surprised and angry when utilities stopped producing when their costs of producing electricity exceeded the price at which they could legally sell it.
That's a pretty good argument for requiring that candidates should have to pass a test in basic macroeconomics before they're allowed to serve in the legislature. At any level.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 14:24:28 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:

WHAT, and not be allowed to pander to the voting public.
;>
Markem (sixoneeight) = 618
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote in wrote:

Well, agreed, but you have to take into account the Texans that were doing the price manipulations, and screwing everyone.

And STRONGLY agreed! Although not all of the ignorance was in the legislature here, by any means.
Patriarch, Californian for at least 5 generations, on two family lines.
Some of us are stubborn.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I changed a lot of my regular light switches, in high traffic areas, to motion sensors. Now the light comes on when you enter a hallway, and goes off when you're no longer there. I bet that saves a lot more money than having a fluorescent bulb left on "because they don't use much power anyways". In fact, the main floor bathroom has both. A motion sensor and fluorescent bulb. <rant> The problem isn't the bulbs.. it's the slack-assed consumers who won't turn the farking lights off. But, as per usual, if people won't change, change the legislation. What a bunch of ass-hats.
This whole energy conservation thing reminds of the idiot down the street from me: he put in a glaring blue-white fluorescent bulb in his porch light, but has his 3-ton Escalade SUV idle in the driveway for 1/2 hour because he's too lazy to scrape his windshield.... what's missing is a Support Our Troops bumber-sticker. </rant>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, that's part of it, to be sure. But what about the (frequent) times when the lights are left on because people are *using* them? CF bulbs save a *lot* of energy.
I agree with your objections to unnecessary legislation, though. That's pretty far over the top.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Feb 1, 11:41 am, snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:

<rant2> First deduct the energy required to manufacture the bulb in the first place. I have a feeling it takes more energy to build a CF (ceramics and such) than a regular bulb. That is probably an easy payback as CF's indeed use a lot less energy once they are lit up and warmed up. Most of them have dismal output when cold. Next, work environments where continuous sources of light are used, are mostly fluorescent already. I don't see a whole lot of regular bulbs in offices, banks. stores. I do see a lot of metal halides and sodium/mercury vapour lights. All the traffic lights are LED around here now. I have a hunch that incandescent bulbs are mostly used in temporary situations. And who wants to cozy up with a nice book in the light of a humming CF?
Let's legislate a ban on CRT's and enforce LCD laws..... and glass drink containers. Tetrapaks are a lot more efficient. Better yet.. outlaw electric sanders... we got arms.
Let's outlaw 300 pound slobs who order a 2-gallon bucket of buttered popcorn, 2 family-size Mars Bars and a Diet Coke. General transportation systems would see significant savings if porkers like that weren't allowed to use busses, cars and planes.
None of these energy problems would be insurmountable if we all woke up one morning and collectively decided to give a shit.
</rant2>
HID lights on cars should be mandatory...on MY cars. Other people should not be allowed to use them. I love driving with them, but can't stand looking into them...outlaw them all...except 6 for Rob.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
[...]

They make CFs that have pretty much the same apparent spectrum as a standard soft-white incandescent -- and they don't make any noise that I can detect. (And my hearing is just fine, thank you very much.)

Can't agree with you there -- too many people would disagree over what it means, collectively, to give a shit, and over what to do about it. From my perspective, for example, one of the principle means of implementing the idea that we should give a shit about energy production is to build as many nuclear reactors as we have land to put them on. Some people think otherwise.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Feb 1, 5:46 pm, snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:

Amen. Why we (as a nation) aren't pushing for nuclear energy is disappointing to me. JP
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

More or less the same color temperature, not necessarily the same spectrum. And definitely not the same geometry.

We aren't because a few loons have convinced the body politic that nuclear power is dangerous beyond comprehension and that there is no way to make it safe.
When it gets down to choosing between "don't want no atoms around here" and "don't want to freeze to death in the dark" then that will change. Or not depending on just how good a job of terrifying the body politic the antinuclear demagogues did.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:

Considering the 15+ year lead time to fire up a nuke, I'd guess that the best bet would be to buy a few more blankets.
Interesting things happening in the environment these days.
--
Make yourself an honest man, and then you may be sure that there is one
rascal less in the world.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yeah -- including environmentalists pushing nuclear fission reactors as an alternative to coal-fired power plants, because they don't contribute to "global warming."
Finally *some*body's getting a bit of common sense....
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Doug Miller wrote:

It doesn't seem to be that simple. Apparently the particulates mixed in with the green house gases have been reflecting about 1/5 of the sunlight away from us ... and attenuating the effect of the gases by about 50%. The Nova video title "Global Dimming" is something of an eye opener.
Getting rid of the particulates without also getting rid of the corresponding gases (as we currently do with smokestack scrubbers) leaves us in even worse shape.
Bill
--
Make yourself an honest man, and then you may be sure that there is one
rascal less in the world.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Eye opening? Hardly. Knee-slapping, maybe. You are trying to state that particulates mixed with green house gases are reducing the amount of impinging sunlight by 20%? Exercise: Compute the earth's atmospheric volume, account for the fact that 3/4 of the globe is covered by ocean and thus not heavily enough human populated to affect that volume of atmosphere by direct input into it (yes, I understand wind currents, but this is the input section). Now, of the land mass, evaluate the percentage of area in human population centers. Your argument is that the humans in those population centers are capable of emitting sufficient particulates to reduce overall global solar insolation by 20%?

So we should bring back the days of open output from coal-fired industrial equipment to solve the global warming problem? Man, the enviro-whackos from the 60's are gonna be pissed.
Bottom line here, can we screw up our local environments? Sure -- there is sufficient evidence of this from the early industrial age and even earlier than that to demonstrate that. Can human activity contribute to catastrophic global climate change? That seems the height of hubris to assert. The so-called "evidence" about how greatly the global average temperature is changing is ludicrous. To assert that the average temperature of the earth several hundred or thousand years ago can be measured to the precision of a few degrees is absolutely ridiculous. All of the assertions about being able to measure to within a few degrees the average temperature by measuring tree rings doesn't pass the laugh test. There are so many confounding factors that contribute to tree growth that separating temperature from precipitation variations and other factors are not going to allow that degree of precision in estimating average temperatures. Certainly there are various historical accounts that illustrate a mini-ice age in the middle ages as well as a heavy warming trend some time later, those kinds of events only serve to demonstrate that climate is cyclical -- to attempt to tie human activity to that change is going to take a lot more evidence than what is currently being offered. ... and it should certainly require a whole lot more evidence than mere vigorous assertion by a certain element of the scientific community to adopt the draconian and intrusive remedies these people are proposing.

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
[snipped excellent post for brevity]
I applied that type of scope/ insight to another problem a few years ago. The topic was over-populating the planet. I took the square footage of my province (Ontario) deducted an acceptable amount for water (all basic encyclopedic stuff) and took the world's polpulation at 6 billion. Guess what? We all ended up with a piece of property the size of a nice lot. (IIRC 60 x 150) ALL of us. In Ontario. Now, I realize that left no farm-land or roads or even a single pub. But look at a globe. Ontario is not very big.. just a speck, south of Hudson Bay, around a couple of the Great Lakes. The rest of the planet would be vacant. All of it.
The planet is mighty vast and resilient... that doesn't mean we can't mess things up on a regional/local basis, but to put things in perspective: when it was calculated how many BTU's were being pumped into Lake Huron by the cooling of a nearby nuclear powerstation, the natives were up in arms. Further research came up with the astonishing fact that a couple of hours of sunshine did the same. (Yes, I know, I know, the power station puts the heat in a more concentrated area, but by the time it dissapates, the lake temperature increase can not be measured.)
To paraphrase:
Some people enjoy taking a trip in a sewer in a glass-bottomed boat. And always remember that almost all of the killers on death row, at time or another in their lives...drank milk. Therefore:......
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes, It does sound like he misremembered the figure. a 20% change would be like the difference between summer and winter.
If you have any doubts about humanities capacity to work large scale changes over large areas of the Earth just fly across the Eastern US on a clear day.
--
FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.