First, they came for our 100-watt bulbs

neptunechimney wrote: From the OP: "And the actual mechanics of this ban have been greatly blurred, Washington-style, by framing this fix not as an outright prohibition, but merely as a phase-out of light bulbs that do not meet “standards” set by Washington in the name of “energy efficiency.”

There is no phase-out with the legislation as it is written now - the bulbs are still available - and the entire rest of the article all the lady talks about is how the bulbs are banned and we won't be able to buy them anymore so obviously she is either going off half-cocked and clueless or she is deliberately being overly dramatic and partisan...either is wearying. Could that legislation change, certainly; is it likely to given the climate of our politics and the politicians dragging their heels about mitigating climate change, especially in light of the fact that more conservatives are likely to be voted in next year? Hell, no. We're screwed, so don't worry about it - they'll keep pandering to their corporate interests, repeal this sucker, and we can continue f*****g ourselves to a massive population reduction (please understand this frustration is not directed at you, but at our immaturity as a species as a whole - we've not evolved enough to act on the bigger picture and our due is coming).

neptunechimney wrote: You might want to read a peice before commenting on it sometimes. You are the first to bring up partisan politics. The peice I linked is about our over reaching government with out regards to party.

When it comes to the GOP and DNC I am an equal opportunity hater.

From the link: "Think of the nanny-state implications.

If the federal government says it can choose my ideal energy-efficiency tradeoffs much better than I can for myself, then light bulbs are the least of it."

and "There are much bigger things at stake here than Thomas Edison’s little old light bulbs.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/op ... z1fVNpcbCW

Where was the outrage about a nanny state when lead was removed from paint? Not from us, but from the manufacturers. Where was the outrage about better fuel mileage standards. Oh yeah, from the manufacturers - it'll cost too much they said. Removing CFCs from refrigerants (it doesn't really hurt the ozone, the scientists made all that up to get research funding)? Yup. Arsenic, sulfur, etc from coal plant emissions (they aren't linked to acid rain, the scientists don't know what they're talking about, it's impossible to connect sulfur to lowered pH rain, and those measurements are barely changed so how can they cause any problems in the environment...etc. ad nauseum, do the arguments sound familiar?)...come on guys, how much longer is it going to take before you get that companies care only about their bottom line and while the government may be corrupt as hell, and b/c of that they haven't been doing nearly enough lately to protect us, they are the last line of defense from preventing them from polluting us and our environment into something that we can't even recognize anymore? The OP author is absolutely right that there are much bigger things are stake here than Edison's light bulbs, but she doesn't just how big they are, or what they are. We as a species deserve what we get if we can't stop ourselves from waste and thoughtless overuse of our resources.

FredHayak wrote: Both Republicans and Democrats like to strip away our freedoms and options.

While I don't generally disagree with this, in this case there is no "stripping away of freedom and options" since the bulbs are still available for sale.