[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 24, 5:05Â*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On Jun 24, 1:12Â*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Jun 24, 7:59Â*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Jun 24, 8:24Â*am, MiNe 109 Â* wrote:
Â*"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

On Jun 23, 7:12Â*pm, MiNe 109 Â* wrote:
Â*"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

Oh, so you're really REALLY ****ed because the bill doesn't go *far*
enough!

My bad. I thought you were really REALLY ****ed about something else.
LoL.

Is Scotty arguing both sides again?

Either that or he's arguing that we aren't spending enough fast enough.

You'd think he'd be happy about the lower electric bills.

http://www.grist.org/article/epa-wax...electricity-bi
lls/

Today, the Environmental Protection Agency obliterated these phony
numbers with the release of its economic analysis of H.R. 2454. Â*The EPA
estimated the bill would actually lower household electricity bills:

Â* Â* As a result of energy efficiency measures, Â*consumer spending on Â*
Â* utility bills would be roughly 7% lower in 2020 as a result of the
Â* legislation.

That¹s right €¹ lower bills. In 2007, this would have saved the average
residential user $84, or 23 cents per day. EPA¹s analysis also found:

Â* Â* The overall impact on the average household, Â*including the benefit
Â* of many of the energy efficiency provisions in the legislation, would
Â* be 22 to 30 cents per day ($80 to $111 per year).

We don¹t have to just wish we were there €¹ we can have a clean energy
economy for the cost of a postcard stamp a day. And the EPA¹s analysis
does not ³take into account the benefits of reducing global warming.²
What are the costs to implement this?
How much will that raise the cost of consumer's bills?

Answered in the CBO report, already posted in this thread.

What about other societal costs?

Such as?

Unintended consequences. Like in previous legislation, going to
the energy saver flourescent bulbs. They are useless for
home security setups. watch property crime go up

Do you have any evidence of property crime going up due to different
bulbs? Please show your work.

They don't work with dimmers.

Some do:

http://www.1000bulbs.com/Dimmable-Co...FR7yDAod7gl2DQ

they expend more energy to produce than they save over the projected
life.

Really? That makes no sense:

An ENERGY STAR qualified compact fluorescent light bulb (CFL) will
save about $30 over its lifetime and pay for itself in about 6 months.
It uses 75 percent less energy and lasts about 10 times longer than an
incandescent bulb.

http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=cfls.pr_cfls

I think you're using bad/outdated information. Did you get it from one
of 2pid's blogs?

Whoever makes them pays for the energy to make them as well as the
components, equipment, marketing, etc. It used to be that you took
your cost and multipiled by five to approximate a retail price. I'm
not sure if that's still current. Whoever makes them is making money
on them.

In any event, I find it hard to believe that all of these people say
something other than what you say and I can find nothing which
supports your claim. If you have something, let's see it.

Will it have governmental costs that will increase taxes?
Will it be like the supposed energy saving lightbulbs, which
take more extra energy to produce than what they save?

BZZZT.

You want to be an environmentalist, fine with
me, but get SMART about and don't
fall for glosssy superficial hype.

Ask better questions.

there was nothing wrong with those, except that
\they are too difficult for you to answer, you being
a relatviely simplistic non-thinker.

No, it's just that the correct answers aren't what you thought they
were, being an ossified old codger who seems to frequently post while
drinking.