How GE was able to ban low-cost incandescents for more profitable, more expensive, shorter lasting fluorescents

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 02, 2014 2:32 PM GMT
    Crony capitalism and greenwashing at its finest.

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/industry-not-environmentalists-killed-incandescent-bulbs/article/2541430

    Competitive markets with low costs of entry have a characteristic that consumers love and businesses lament: very low profit margins. GE, Philips and Sylvania dominated the U.S. market in incandescents, but they couldn’t convert that dominance into price hikes. Because of light bulb’s low material and manufacturing costs, any big climb in prices would have invited new competitors to undercut the giants — and that new competitor would probably have won a distribution deal with Wal-Mart.

    So, simply the threat of competition kept profit margins low on the traditional light bulb — that’s the magic of capitalism. GE and Sylvania searched for higher profits by improving the bulb — think of the GE Soft White bulb. These companies, with their giant research budgets, made advances with halogen, LED and fluorescent technologies, and even high-efficiency incandescents. They sold these bulbs at a much higher prices — but they couldn’t get many customers to buy them for those high prices. That’s the hard part about capitalism — consumers, not manufacturers, get to demand what something is worth.

    Capitalism ruining their party, the bulb-makers turned to government. Philips teamed up with NRDC. GE leaned on its huge lobbying army — the largest in the nation — and soon they were able to ban the low-profit-margin bulbs. . . .

    Technologies often run the course from breakthrough innovation to obsolete. Think of the 8-track, the Model T or Kodachrome film. But the market didn’t kill the traditional light bulb. Government did it, at the request of big business.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 02, 2014 3:25 PM GMT
    The Washington Examiner is one of the most Right Wing outlets in D.C. Another of its breaking stories in that edition is "Jail survey: 7 in 10 felons register as Democrats".

    They do admit it was a Republican who submitted the legislation in Congress, but seem to omit any mention of President George Bush signing it. And concede the real reason Republicans are stepping away from supporting a bill they created is Teabagger opposition to it, due to their policy to destroy most government regulation of business, even laws that protect the general public. It's corporations first, citizens last.

    No wonder the big business Koch brothers founded the Tea Party, which didn't become a major force in the Republican Party until a few years after this light bill was passed. But the Tea Party has caused some ironic consequences for big business, if you're to believe this biased article.

    As Democrats probably delighted in reminding Republicans when they wanted to change their minds on the light bulb issue, the industry itself had lobbied for it (although actually I seem to remember some industry opposition, too, that his article doesn't mention, based on immature technologies and difficulties in meeting mandatory manufacturing timelines). Are Repubs now going to turn on their friends at GE, Philips, et al, who invested in all this research and manufacturing capacity?

    And buried in these claims of corporate profits and secret government collusion lies a scientific basis for the new lightning methods: they DO save consumers money, they DO lower US energy consumption & dependence, and they DO last longer in most cases. And that's improving every year, especially as LEDs are being introduced and costs drop.

    And BTW, what is Canada doing on this issue? Seems like you're in the same boat up there. Why don't you make this a Canadian issue that actually affects YOU, instead of a US one. And before you say neighboring US business affects you, read this article:

    http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/532523/20140102/canada-ban-incandescent-bulb-cfl-led-tax.htm#.UsWDp3lOqlQ

    Canadian government has decided to ban incandescent light bulbs starting from 2014.

    Canada seems to be learning from Australia which introduced a law to ban incandescent light bulbs back in 2007. Starting from November 2008, bulbs which did not comply with the minimum energy performance standards were banned from being imported to Australia. It completely banned the retail sale of such bulbs in November 2009.

    Other countries that have already ordered restrictions on incandescent light bulbs include Venezuela and Brazil which initiated the movement in 2005. The European Union, Australia and Switzerland followed them in 2009. Argentina and Russia did it in 2012.


    Hmmm... I wonder what influence US corporations have in Russia? Seems more like US corps saw the worldwide trend, and needed to switch over their production if they wanted to remain competitive.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 02, 2014 3:26 PM GMT
    GE has one of the biggest lobbying groups anywhere including Canada and Australia.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 02, 2014 3:29 PM GMT
    riddler78 saidGE has one of the biggest lobbying groups anywhere including Canada and Australia.

    Then make your thread about that, not your usual slam against the US alone. If you can prove your contentions.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 02, 2014 3:32 PM GMT
    ART_DECO said
    riddler78 saidGE has one of the biggest lobbying groups anywhere including Canada and Australia.

    Then make your thread about that, not your usual slam against the US alone. If you can prove your contentions.


    It was an issue first raised in the US. Further - the point and underlying proof was in the article.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 02, 2014 3:47 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    ART_DECO said
    riddler78 saidGE has one of the biggest lobbying groups anywhere including Canada and Australia.

    Then make your thread about that, not your usual slam against the US alone. If you can prove your contentions.

    It was an issue first raised in the US. Further - the point and underlying proof was in the article.

    Actually no proof at all, but undocumented assertions. But please tell us about GE's lobbying influence in Russia, that caused them to phase out traditional incandescent lights. I don't suppose that Russia's leaders themselves saw an economic and strategic advantage in lowering their national energy consumption? I don't suppose that's even remotely possible, right?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 02, 2014 3:51 PM GMT

    He's right Riddler, the Canadian gov't announced the ban was coming back in 2007.

    "OTTAWA – A federal ban on inefficient light bulbs goes into effect Jan. 1, 2014, almost seven years after it was announced with fanfare by a then-rookie Conservative government."

    http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/12/13/federal-light-bulb-ban-set-for-2014/

    If this bothers you so much why didn't you criticize Canada befo..... oh wait, because the Canadian Feds are Conservative!

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 02, 2014 3:58 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    He's right Riddler, the Canadian gov't announced the ban was coming back in 2007.

    "OTTAWA – A federal ban on inefficient light bulbs goes into effect Jan. 1, 2014, almost seven years after it was announced with fanfare by a then-rookie Conservative government."

    http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/12/13/federal-light-bulb-ban-set-for-2014/

    If this bothers you so much why didn't you criticize Canada befo..... oh wait, because the Canadian Feds are Conservative!



    I criticize the conservatives plenty - but they rarely come up here - and as I've pointed out on the issue of Republicans, too often conservatives/Republicans confuse the support of business for the support of markets.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 02, 2014 4:21 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    I criticize the conservatives plenty - but they rarely come up here - and as I've pointed out on the issue of Republicans, too often conservatives/Republicans confuse the support of business for the support of markets.

    Well if THAT'S your criteria, how often do Obama and Democratic US lawmakers come calling up there?

    I think you fish in foreign waters when it suits you, and silently ignore the polluted pools in your own back yard. But then I begin to realize as a transient resident you know even less about Canada than you do the US, and are qualified to comment on neither.

    (Sorry for the "polluted pools" hyperbole, meninlove, you know I actually love Canada. But every country does have its failings, which riddler78 apparently knows nothing about to our north, blinded by his [sponsored?] anti-US obsession)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 02, 2014 4:23 PM GMT
    ART_DECO said
    riddler78 said
    I criticize the conservatives plenty - but they rarely come up here - and as I've pointed out on the issue of Republicans, too often conservatives/Republicans confuse the support of business for the support of markets.

    Well if THAT'S your criteria, how often do Obama and Democratic US lawmakers come calling up there?

    I think you fish in foreign waters when it suits you, and silently ignore the polluted pools in your own back yard. But then I begin to realize as a transient resident you know even less about Canada than you do the US, and are qualified to comment on neither.

    (Sorry for the "polluted pools" hyperbole, meninlove, you know I actually love Canada. But every country does have its failings, which riddler78 apparently knows nothing about, blinded by his [sponsored?] anti-US obsession)


    That is certainly your prerogative to think what you will - and you clearly do, though you often also clearly do not. But thank you for your feedback.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jan 02, 2014 4:27 PM GMT
    This issue started several decades ago. When incandescent lightbulbs were first invented, they were very efficient and long lasting---so much so that lightbulb companies weren't making enough of a profit, so they lobbied for regulations that would force lightbulb companies to decrease their efficiency and make them more disposable, simply to force consumers to keep repurchasing them.

    Riddler is right that there is crony capitalism, but as usual he fails to acknowledge that the environment will be impacted, either way. He seems to think that CO2 emissions are myth. I think his agenda on RJ is as shady as any crony capitalist (and that's any everyday, every thread issue).

    The real story is that we don't, and never have had, a free market, nor would that be sustainable. We have crooked governments, a few unscrupulous rich people, a planet on the brink of disaster, and 6 billion + victims caught in the crossfire.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 02, 2014 4:31 PM GMT
    HottJoe saidThis issue started several decades ago. When incandescent lightbulbs were first invented, they were very efficient and long lasting---so much so that lightbulb companies weren't making enough of a profit, so they lobbied for regulations that would force lightbulb companies to decrease their efficiency and make them more disposable, simply to force consumers to keep repurchasing them.

    Riddler is right that there is crony capitalism, but as usual he fails to acknowledge that the environment will be impacted, either way. He seems to think that CO2 emissions are myth. I think his agenda on RJ is as shady as any crony capitalist (and that's any everyday, every thread issue).

    The real story is that we don't, and never have had, a free market, nor would that be sustainable. We have crooked governments, a few unscrupulous rich people, a planet on the brink of disaster, and 6 billion + victims caught in the crossfire.


    Again you've yet to support anything here with any details. Please link to where I've ever claimed CO2 emissions are a myth. I've pointed out however the US has done the most of the G7 much because of fracking to reduce CO2 emissions. I've also pointed out how you are touting green energies that aren't so green. Brink of disaster? Again you seem to lack context as you are hardly the first nor will you be the last to find kinship with chicken little.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 02, 2014 4:36 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    ART_DECO said
    riddler78 said
    I criticize the conservatives plenty - but they rarely come up here - and as I've pointed out on the issue of Republicans, too often conservatives/Republicans confuse the support of business for the support of markets.

    Well if THAT'S your criteria, how often do Obama and Democratic US lawmakers come calling up there?

    I think you fish in foreign waters when it suits you, and silently ignore the polluted pools in your own back yard. But then I begin to realize as a transient resident you know even less about Canada than you do the US, and are qualified to comment on neither.

    (Sorry for the "polluted pools" hyperbole, meninlove, you know I actually love Canada. But every country does have its failings, which riddler78 apparently knows nothing about to our north, blinded by his [sponsored?] anti-US obsession)

    That is certainly your prerogative to think what you will - and you clearly do, though you often also clearly do not. But thank you for your feedback.

    A not unexpected non-reply. Maybe the resurrected southbeach1500 can come to your rescue, or another of the US Conservaposse.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jan 02, 2014 4:36 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe saidThis issue started several decades ago. When incandescent lightbulbs were first invented, they were very efficient and long lasting---so much so that lightbulb companies weren't making enough of a profit, so they lobbied for regulations that would force lightbulb companies to decrease their efficiency and make them more disposable, simply to force consumers to keep repurchasing them.

    Riddler is right that there is crony capitalism, but as usual he fails to acknowledge that the environment will be impacted, either way. He seems to think that CO2 emissions are myth. I think his agenda on RJ is as shady as any crony capitalist (and that's any everyday, every thread issue).

    The real story is that we don't, and never have had, a free market, nor would that be sustainable. We have crooked governments, a few unscrupulous rich people, a planet on the brink of disaster, and 6 billion + victims caught in the crossfire.


    Again you've yet to support anything here with any details. Please link to where I've ever claimed CO2 emissions are a myth. I've pointed out however the US has done the most of the G7 much because of fracking to reduce CO2 emissions. I've also pointed out how you are touting green energies that aren't so green. Brink of disaster? Again you seem to lack context as you are hardly the first nor will you be the last to find kinship with chicken little.

    All the details are in the IPCC reports. These are conservative reports that show without a trace of doubt that manmade climate change is the most insidious threat to humanity. If you won't acknowledge the proof and the science then you're not to be trusted on anything you say. Period.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 02, 2014 4:40 PM GMT
    HottJoe said
    All the details are in the IPCC reports. These are conservative reports that show without a trace of doubt that manmade climate change is the most insidious threat to humanity. If you won't acknowledge the proof and the science then you're not to be trusted on anything you say. Period.

    +100
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 02, 2014 4:43 PM GMT
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe saidThis issue started several decades ago. When incandescent lightbulbs were first invented, they were very efficient and long lasting---so much so that lightbulb companies weren't making enough of a profit, so they lobbied for regulations that would force lightbulb companies to decrease their efficiency and make them more disposable, simply to force consumers to keep repurchasing them.

    Riddler is right that there is crony capitalism, but as usual he fails to acknowledge that the environment will be impacted, either way. He seems to think that CO2 emissions are myth. I think his agenda on RJ is as shady as any crony capitalist (and that's any everyday, every thread issue).

    The real story is that we don't, and never have had, a free market, nor would that be sustainable. We have crooked governments, a few unscrupulous rich people, a planet on the brink of disaster, and 6 billion + victims caught in the crossfire.


    Again you've yet to support anything here with any details. Please link to where I've ever claimed CO2 emissions are a myth. I've pointed out however the US has done the most of the G7 much because of fracking to reduce CO2 emissions. I've also pointed out how you are touting green energies that aren't so green. Brink of disaster? Again you seem to lack context as you are hardly the first nor will you be the last to find kinship with chicken little.

    All the details are in the IPCC reports. These are conservative reports that show without a trace of doubt that manmade climate change is the most insidious threat to humanity. If you won't acknowledge the proof and the science then you're not to be trusted on anything you say. Period.


    Yep - and the IPCC record has pointed out that the US has done more to reduce emissions. Where have I disputed on this?

    Further, the IPCC reports have been changing - it's too bad you haven't kept up to date:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/01/ipcc-silently-slashes-its-global-warming-predictions-in-the-ar5-final-draft/
    http://pjmedia.com/blog/ipcc-backpedals-on-extreme-weather-claims/

    And further still, there is no longer a consensus on anthropological warming. If you aren't willing to acknowledge the proof, you can't be trusted - but oh wait, we already know that you cherry pick.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jan 02, 2014 4:56 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe saidThis issue started several decades ago. When incandescent lightbulbs were first invented, they were very efficient and long lasting---so much so that lightbulb companies weren't making enough of a profit, so they lobbied for regulations that would force lightbulb companies to decrease their efficiency and make them more disposable, simply to force consumers to keep repurchasing them.

    Riddler is right that there is crony capitalism, but as usual he fails to acknowledge that the environment will be impacted, either way. He seems to think that CO2 emissions are myth. I think his agenda on RJ is as shady as any crony capitalist (and that's any everyday, every thread issue).

    The real story is that we don't, and never have had, a free market, nor would that be sustainable. We have crooked governments, a few unscrupulous rich people, a planet on the brink of disaster, and 6 billion + victims caught in the crossfire.


    Again you've yet to support anything here with any details. Please link to where I've ever claimed CO2 emissions are a myth. I've pointed out however the US has done the most of the G7 much because of fracking to reduce CO2 emissions. I've also pointed out how you are touting green energies that aren't so green. Brink of disaster? Again you seem to lack context as you are hardly the first nor will you be the last to find kinship with chicken little.

    All the details are in the IPCC reports. These are conservative reports that show without a trace of doubt that manmade climate change is the most insidious threat to humanity. If you won't acknowledge the proof and the science then you're not to be trusted on anything you say. Period.


    Yep - and the IPCC record has pointed out that the US has done more to reduce emissions. Where have I disputed on this?

    Further, the IPCC reports have been changing - it's too bad you haven't kept up to date:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/01/ipcc-silently-slashes-its-global-warming-predictions-in-the-ar5-final-draft/
    http://pjmedia.com/blog/ipcc-backpedals-on-extreme-weather-claims/

    And further still, there is no longer a consensus on anthropological warming. If you aren't willing to acknowledge the proof, you can't be trusted - but oh wait, we already know that you cherry pick.

    Anthropological warning doesn't account for CO2 or acid oceans or any of the global systems breakdowns that man had caused.

    Reducing emissions is just kicking the can down the road ( and it's a heavy can on a short road). We actually have to stop removing fossil fuels from the ground and start removing CO2 from the atmosphere. There is green technology available to developed and developing countries alike, but people like you are against them. You're lying in the face of facts.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 02, 2014 6:05 PM GMT
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe said
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe saidThis issue started several decades ago. When incandescent lightbulbs were first invented, they were very efficient and long lasting---so much so that lightbulb companies weren't making enough of a profit, so they lobbied for regulations that would force lightbulb companies to decrease their efficiency and make them more disposable, simply to force consumers to keep repurchasing them.

    Riddler is right that there is crony capitalism, but as usual he fails to acknowledge that the environment will be impacted, either way. He seems to think that CO2 emissions are myth. I think his agenda on RJ is as shady as any crony capitalist (and that's any everyday, every thread issue).

    The real story is that we don't, and never have had, a free market, nor would that be sustainable. We have crooked governments, a few unscrupulous rich people, a planet on the brink of disaster, and 6 billion + victims caught in the crossfire.


    Again you've yet to support anything here with any details. Please link to where I've ever claimed CO2 emissions are a myth. I've pointed out however the US has done the most of the G7 much because of fracking to reduce CO2 emissions. I've also pointed out how you are touting green energies that aren't so green. Brink of disaster? Again you seem to lack context as you are hardly the first nor will you be the last to find kinship with chicken little.

    All the details are in the IPCC reports. These are conservative reports that show without a trace of doubt that manmade climate change is the most insidious threat to humanity. If you won't acknowledge the proof and the science then you're not to be trusted on anything you say. Period.


    Yep - and the IPCC record has pointed out that the US has done more to reduce emissions. Where have I disputed on this?

    Further, the IPCC reports have been changing - it's too bad you haven't kept up to date:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/01/ipcc-silently-slashes-its-global-warming-predictions-in-the-ar5-final-draft/
    http://pjmedia.com/blog/ipcc-backpedals-on-extreme-weather-claims/

    And further still, there is no longer a consensus on anthropological warming. If you aren't willing to acknowledge the proof, you can't be trusted - but oh wait, we already know that you cherry pick.

    Anthropological warning doesn't account for CO2 or acid oceans or any of the global systems breakdowns that man had caused.

    Reducing emissions is just kicking the can down the road ( and it's a heavy can on a short road). We actually have to stop removing fossil fuels from the ground and start removing CO2 from the atmosphere. There is green technology available to developed and developing countries alike, but people like you are against them. You're lying in the face of facts.


    Here's a great way to do

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/3610926

    Go out in style, and maybe if all this bullshit turns out to be true, warm things up a bit. It's been way too cold. Global cooling sucks.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 02, 2014 6:14 PM GMT
    freedomisntfree said
    Go out in style, and maybe if all this bullshit turns out to be true, warm things up a bit. It's been way too cold. Global cooling sucks.

    What is your scientific evidence for global cooling?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 02, 2014 6:23 PM GMT
    HottJoe saidAnthropological warning doesn't account for CO2 or acid oceans or any of the global systems breakdowns that man had caused.

    Reducing emissions is just kicking the can down the road ( and it's a heavy can on a short road). We actually have to stop removing fossil fuels from the ground and start removing CO2 from the atmosphere. There is green technology available to developed and developing countries alike, but people like you are against them. You're lying in the face of facts.


    There is so much that you don't understand because you know what? The IPCC can't account for it either given how badly their forecasts have been. You're the one who is lying in the face of the facts and lying about what I've been saying. You are unable to show anything for your claims and point to dated predictions that have since been revised.

    There is green technology available - but you are unable or unwilling to reason as to why it doesn't actually make sense given the alternatives out there. You refuse to acknowledge that the US has actually done far more than the other G7 countries already.

    It's pretty typical though - that you're such an expert at spending other people's money and resources.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 02, 2014 6:57 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe saidAnthropological warning doesn't account for CO2 or acid oceans or any of the global systems breakdowns that man had caused.

    Reducing emissions is just kicking the can down the road ( and it's a heavy can on a short road). We actually have to stop removing fossil fuels from the ground and start removing CO2 from the atmosphere. There is green technology available to developed and developing countries alike, but people like you are against them. You're lying in the face of facts.


    There is so much that you don't understand because you know what? The IPCC can't account for it either given how badly their forecasts have been. You're the one who is lying in the face of the facts and lying about what I've been saying. You are unable to show anything for your claims and point to dated predictions that have since been revised.

    There is green technology available - but you are unable or unwilling to reason as to why it doesn't actually make sense given the alternatives out there. You refuse to acknowledge that the US has actually done far more than the other G7 countries already.

    It's pretty typical though - that you're such an expert at spending other people's money and resources.


    http://isthereglobalcooling.com/

    This is looking at least as plausible as global warming, but one fact remains ..... climate continues to change as it has for the last 4.7 billion years.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/05/26/to-the-horror-of-global-warming-alarmists-global-cooling-is-here/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 03, 2014 4:35 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said994100_407968799336304_1077471711_n.jpg

    Except, it was a Republican in Congress who proposed the law, passed by Republicans, and signed by a Republican President in 2007.

    Oops!!! Another example of southbeach misinformation.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 03, 2014 4:54 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    ART_DECO said
    southbeach1500 said994100_407968799336304_1077471711_n.jpg

    Except, it was a Republican in Congress who proposed the law, passed by Republicans, and signed by a Republican President in 2007.

    Oops!!! Another example of southbeach misinformation.


    Colonel,

    Republicans can be liberals too. Surprise!

    George W. Bush being a Liberal is indeed a surprise! Should I tell him or you?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 03, 2014 2:15 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    ART_DECO said
    southbeach1500 said
    ART_DECO said
    southbeach1500 said994100_407968799336304_1077471711_n.jpg

    Except, it was a Republican in Congress who proposed the law, passed by Republicans, and signed by a Republican President in 2007.

    Oops!!! Another example of southbeach misinformation.


    Colonel,

    Republicans can be liberals too. Surprise!

    George W. Bush being a Liberal is indeed a surprise! Should I tell him or you?


    A surprise to you. I'm not at all surprised.


    "Except, it was a Republican in Congress who proposed the law, passed by Republicans, and signed by a Republican President in 2007."

    Not quite true.

    "The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Pub.L. 110-140[1] originally named the Clean Energy Act of 2007) is an Act of Congress concerning the energy policy of the United States. As part of the Democratic Party's 100-Hour Plan during the 110th Congress,[2] it was introduced in the United States House of Representatives by Representative Nick Rahall of West Virginia, along with 198 cosponsors. Despite Rahall becoming 1 of only 4 Democrats to oppose the final bill,[3] it passed in the House without amendment in January 2007. When the Act was introduced in the Senate in June 2007, it was combined with Senate Bill S. 1419: Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007.[4] This amended version passed the Senate on June 21, 2007.[5][6] After further amendments and negotiation between the House and Senate, a revised bill passed both houses on December 18, 2007[7] and President Bush, a Republican, signed it into law on December 19, 2007, in response to his "Twenty in Ten" challenge to reduce gasoline consumption by 20% in 10 years.[8]"

    "The majority of the supporters for the original bill were Representatives from the Democratic party. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi described the vote as "the first step toward a future of energy independence." Moira Chapin, Environment California Federal Field Organizer, said "the 110th Congress made a down payment on a new energy future," referring to its investment in renewable energy resources from solar and wind power generation facilities"

    Problem with that little theory is that the democrats controlled both houses of congress from January 2007 to January 2011.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 03, 2014 3:31 PM GMT
    freedomisntfree said
    southbeach1500 said
    ART_DECO said
    southbeach1500 said
    ART_DECO said
    southbeach1500 said994100_407968799336304_1077471711_n.jpg

    Except, it was a Republican in Congress who proposed the law, passed by Republicans, and signed by a Republican President in 2007.

    Oops!!! Another example of southbeach misinformation.


    Colonel,

    Republicans can be liberals too. Surprise!

    George W. Bush being a Liberal is indeed a surprise! Should I tell him or you?


    A surprise to you. I'm not at all surprised.


    "Except, it was a Republican in Congress who proposed the law, passed by Republicans, and signed by a Republican President in 2007."

    Not quite true.

    "The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Pub.L. 110-140[1] originally named the Clean Energy Act of 2007) is an Act of Congress concerning the energy policy of the United States. As part of the Democratic Party's 100-Hour Plan during the 110th Congress,[2] it was introduced in the United States House of Representatives by Representative Nick Rahall of West Virginia, along with 198 cosponsors. Despite Rahall becoming 1 of only 4 Democrats to oppose the final bill,[3] it passed in the House without amendment in January 2007. When the Act was introduced in the Senate in June 2007, it was combined with Senate Bill S. 1419: Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007.[4] This amended version passed the Senate on June 21, 2007.[5][6] After further amendments and negotiation between the House and Senate, a revised bill passed both houses on December 18, 2007[7] and President Bush, a Republican, signed it into law on December 19, 2007, in response to his "Twenty in Ten" challenge to reduce gasoline consumption by 20% in 10 years.[8]"

    "The majority of the supporters for the original bill were Representatives from the Democratic party. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi described the vote as "the first step toward a future of energy independence." Moira Chapin, Environment California Federal Field Organizer, said "the 110th Congress made a down payment on a new energy future," referring to its investment in renewable energy resources from solar and wind power generation facilities"

    Problem with that little theory is that the democrats controlled both houses of congress from January 2007 to January 2011.
    Just a small problem...