John Barry wrote:

Jim Redelfs wrote:

The Nanny Geniuses in D.C. just passed legislation that, in addition
to putting some serious "hurt" on our domestic car and light truck
industry, kills off those outmoded, wasteful and environmentally
DEVASTATING electric lamps we've all come to know and love.

Say "goodbye" to the venerable 100w and 75w, cheap, light bulb.
(Thomas Alva Edison will surely turn over in his grave).

Stock-up and horde 'em now, folks. They'll be worth a LOT in 10-15
years on the black market.

I just switched all my exterior entryways and garage "eyebrow"
fixtures to CF lamps. I am considering switching BACK the one beside
the front door.

I rarely use exterior lighting. Mostly, I switch-on the front porch
light when there is someone at the door - a rare occurrence.

On those occasions, I want IMMEDIATE light.
However, right now, it is 12F outside and that curly, compact
fluorescent lamp outside, by the front door, doesn't provide usable
light worth a damn for a minute or two.

With no apologies to anyone, I believe that switching to CF lamps
won't, over the LONG "haul", provide a bit of "relief" to our
ever-increasing energy consumption. Although that implies that our
ever-increasing energy consumption needs relief, I am adamantly
UNconvinced of that in any case.

The Energy Bill provided for NO new energy.

All the windmills, solar panels, methane plants and CF bulbs in the
world cannot, and never will, provide for our energy needs.
Conservation alone is NOT the answer, even IF there were a problem.
We have adequate stores of fossil fuels to keep our grandchildren's
grandchildren's grandchildren cool or warm and productive. Whether we
can overcome all the hand-wringing, crybaby, do-gooders that think
they're saving something by declaring wide swaths of our land "off
limits" to fossil fuel harvesting is another matter.

We learned how to do it cleanly, neatly and with minimal environmental
impact YEARS ago. But that's not good enough now. We simply CAN'T do
it because of some PERCEIVED, detrimental environmental impact.
That's B.S.

How about slashing the "red tape" and getting a few, new nuclear power
generating stations on-line within ten years?

We should drill for oil and gas in ANWR (Alaska National Wildlife
Refuge)?

Why do you think Seward talked Congress into buying Alaska?

Do you think he would have ever believed that there'd come a day when
vast miles of it would be virtually off-limits to any resource
harvesting?

Despite incessant impediments from environmentalists, the Tans-Alaska
Pipeline was finally built. But, Shazam! The devastation to the
environment and wildlife it was predicted to cause never happened.
They were WRONG. They're wrong now.

CF bulbs and set-back thermostats are NOT the final solution, even if
there was a problem. Heck, such measures aren't even a viable stop-gap.

We need more energy. Let's go get it. -Jim Redelfs


Nonsense- to the assertion that extracting fossil fuels faster will
solve our problems. It'll just bring forward the day of reckoning what
to do when it becomes unaffordable.

There's so much we can do to reduce demand and make much better use of
what's in the "pipeline" and what's yet to be invented.

Consensus among many seems to be that there's no single solution. Maybe
opening our minds to reasonable means to cure our coal/oil/gas addiction
will help, AND provide marketable solutions for the rest of the planet.

John
Hi,
That guy must be joking! Or he is a part of problem, not solution.