how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[itfitzme]

Mostly because of their own doing either from being led by idiots or not being to sharp.

The opinion that people choose starvation could only be expressed by someone who's never been hungry.

I'm talking about whole nations(I.e Hati, Congo, Central African republic, Chad, Sudan, etc) that don't seem to work to end that hunger. People like you give the man a fish and they don't care to learn.

Why not put a sheet of paper with instructions and seed into the next box of food?

Have you ever actually tried to grow a substantial personal supply of food?

 

[ScienceRocks]

The opinion that people choose starvation could only be expressed by someone who's never been hungry.

I'm talking about whole nations(I.e Hati, Congo, Central African republic, Chad, Sudan, etc) that don't seem to work to end that hunger. People like you give the man a fish and they don't care to learn.

Why not put a sheet of paper with instructions and seed into the next box of food?

Have you ever actually tried to grow a substantial personal supply of food?

Yes,

Large gardens and I use to live on a farm(my family were fully capable of it). So you're saying that these people shouldn't be expected to build a national food supply. Why the fuck haven't they?

 

[Foxfyre]

We have government dictating what sort of toilets we must use and what kinds of lightbulbs we are allowed to make.*

What are you refering to exactly? *What specifies "what kinds of lightbulbs we are allowed to make."?

Have you been living under a rock the last few years?

House Sub-committee Flushes Repeal of Low-Water Toilet Mandate
Congress Kills Light Bulb Ban - Sort Of - Forbes

 

[itfitzme]

We have government dictating what sort of toilets we must use and what kinds of lightbulbs we are allowed to make.*

What are you refering to exactly? *What specifies "what kinds of lightbulbs we are allowed to make."?

Have you been living under a rock the last few years?

House Sub-committee Flushes Repeal of Low-Water Toilet Mandate
Congress Kills Light Bulb Ban - Sort Of - Forbes

I'm just ask you to be specific so I know what your vague and sweeping generalities are refering to.

So there is no lightbulb ban?

 

[Foxfyre]

What are you refering to exactly? *What specifies "what kinds of lightbulbs we are allowed to make."?

Have you been living under a rock the last few years?

House Sub-committee Flushes Repeal of Low-Water Toilet Mandate
Congress Kills Light Bulb Ban - Sort Of - Forbes

I'm just ask you to be specific so I know what your vague and sweeping generalities are refering to.

So there is no lightbulb ban?

Vague and sweeping generalities? Giving specific examples is vague and generalized?

If you had bothered to read the links I provided you, you would see that there is indeed a ban on manufacture of 100 watt incandescent bulbs. The implementation has been temporarily delayed but it is still out there to be implemented. And if you have followed the debates and commentary during all that legislation, if there is little resistance to the loss of that liberty/choice/option, we can expect much more of that kind of legislation in the future if the leftwingers gain control.

 

[flacaltenn]

Have you been living under a rock the last few years?

House Sub-committee Flushes Repeal of Low-Water Toilet Mandate
Congress Kills Light Bulb Ban - Sort Of - Forbes

I'm just ask you to be specific so I know what your vague and sweeping generalities are refering to.

So there is no lightbulb ban?

Vague and sweeping generalities? Giving specific examples is vague and generalized?

If you had bothered to read the links I provided you, you would see that there is indeed a ban on manufacture of 100 watt incandescent bulbs. The implementation has been temporarily delayed but it is still out there to be implemented. And if you have followed the debates and commentary during all that legislation, if there is little resistance to the loss of that liberty/choice/option, we can expect much more of that kind of legislation in the future if the leftwingers gain control.

Just the existence of the lightbulb ban legislation -- stalled or not (i believe not) had FORCED stores and the supply chain to ASSUME a ban.. Haven't been to Lighting Aisle at Home Depot recently Itfitzme???

That change is NOT because those are better products and the public WANT them or NEED them.. It's because of over-hyped enviro "beliefs" driving public policy with the POWER to PUT them on the shelves..

Just to try to unlock your chains here -- if you've never heard the argument -- An incandescent light bulb is 100% efficient anytime you have the heat running in your building. Science fact -- that would be 4 to 7 months a year.. But you NEVER HEARD that in the Congress or the DOE or the EPA or the press frenzy over this issue -- didya?

 

[itfitzme]

I'm talking about whole nations(I.e Hati, Congo, Central African republic, Chad, Sudan, etc) that don't seem to work to end that hunger. People like you give the man a fish and they don't care to learn.

Why not put a sheet of paper with instructions and seed into the next box of food?

Have you ever actually tried to grow a substantial personal supply of food?

Yes,

Large gardens and I use to live on a farm(my family were fully capable of it). So you're saying that these people shouldn't be expected to build a national food supply. Why the fuck haven't they?

And what was the region like? Weather, climate, water supply, soil conditions? What other resources were available? Fertilizer, insectisides, equipment?

 

[itfitzme]

Have you been living under a rock the last few years?

House Sub-committee Flushes Repeal of Low-Water Toilet Mandate
Congress Kills Light Bulb Ban - Sort Of - Forbes

I'm just ask you to be specific so I know what your vague and sweeping generalities are refering to.

So there is no lightbulb ban?

Vague and sweeping generalities? *Giving specific examples is vague and generalized?

If you had bothered to read the links I provided you, you would see that there is indeed a ban on manufacture of 100 watt incandescent bulbs. *The implementation has been temporarily delayed but it is still out there to be implemented. *And if you have followed the debates and commentary during all that legislation, if there is little resistance to the loss of that liberty/choice/option, we can expect much more of that kind of legislation in the future if the leftwingers gain control.

I did read the links. *They make statements but provide no specific detail naming the law or regulation. *That requires serarching for any hint of a regulation or law that might ban toilets and lightbulbs.

I actually have other responsibilities beyond spending all my time following every congressional meeting, debate and internet comment about flush toilets and lightbulbs, then posting endlesz vague only to get all upset when someone asks for specific details.

Yes, the vague and sweeping generalities you posted BEFORE asked for details of what laws ban toilets and lightbulbs. *

What are you, like ten?

 

[jasonnfree]

The entire world population could fit into Texas and New Mexico with a population density less than that of San Francisco. We have plenty of room. We just need more freedom for natural human ingenuity to develop resources to accommodate the needs that humankind will have.

With all the saguaro cactus you can eat, grown right on your own private 1600 square feet of Chihuahuan desert cactus farm.

Doing the math assuming 7 billion people, and if Texas was divided up proportionately, each person would have something just over 1,000 sq ft at ground level. But most of us don't live individually as one person per pad--most of us live with one or more other people so the combined square footage would be pretty spacious. And stacking some residences in apartments and condos would free up a lot more space. I threw in New Mexico because some of the Texas area is water. Most of both New Mexico and Texas is inhabitable though and the combined states would provide a comfortable urban environment for all 7 billion people.

Of course the logistics of providing sufficient food and potable water for that many people in that small an area would not make that feasible. But when you figure what a tiny percentage of the Earth's surface is occupied by Texas and New Mexico, it does put into perspective the issue of room on the Earth and that if we just use our ingenuity and creativity, there are resources for all. Those resources are too often squandered or suppressed, however, when oppressive government and religious systems prevent the people from engaging in free market systems that have solved issues of food, water, transportation, health. Government rarely gets it done. But free people let loose to accomplish what they can, usually do.

When free people and free markets solve issues, would there be any regulations, or would the free market find it's own solutions?

 

[Foxfyre]

Have you ever actually tried to grow a substantial personal supply of food?

Yes,

Large gardens and I use to live on a farm(my family were fully capable of it). So you're saying that these people shouldn't be expected to build a national food supply. Why the fuck haven't they?

And what was the region like? Weather, climate, water supply, soil conditions? What other resources were available? Fertilizer, insectisides, equipment?

FYI, Eskimos were feeding themselves in the harshest environment imaginable long before there were any federal governments or social programs or even charity of any kind.

FYI, desert dwellers were feeding themselves in some of the most desolate and inhospitable terrain imaginable long before there were any federal governments or social programs or even charity of any kind..

FYI, cliff dwellers were feeding themselves in terrain not well suited for any kind of serious farming long before there were any federal governments or social programs or even charity of any kind.

FYI, prairie dwellers near no surface water of any kind were feeding themselves long before there were social programs or organized charity or the federal government paid much attention to them at all.

FYI, jungle dwellers were feeding themselves in wildly fluctuating conditions between drought and flood long before there were any federal governments or social programs or even charity of any kind.

In fact, it seems that many people managed pretty well without authoritarian government assuming responsibility for their 'welfare'. And it seems that more and more authoritarian government decreases the people's ability to manage their own welfare as effectively.

As for those bills, us 'ten year olds' who do have time to read newspapers or watch evening newscasts or keep up with what government is doing to us were well aware of the legislation cited. If I had thought the actual bill numbers of the legislation was pertinent to the point I was making--you know, that point that went sailing right over your head--I would have listed them.

But, you are apparently too busy to educate yourself and therefore are no doubt too busy to read the actual legislation, so I won't bother.

Do have a good day.

 

[Foxfyre]

With all the saguaro cactus you can eat, grown right on your own private 1600 square feet of Chihuahuan desert cactus farm.

Doing the math assuming 7 billion people, and if Texas was divided up proportionately, each person would have something just over 1,000 sq ft at ground level. But most of us don't live individually as one person per pad--most of us live with one or more other people so the combined square footage would be pretty spacious. And stacking some residences in apartments and condos would free up a lot more space. I threw in New Mexico because some of the Texas area is water. Most of both New Mexico and Texas is inhabitable though and the combined states would provide a comfortable urban environment for all 7 billion people.

Of course the logistics of providing sufficient food and potable water for that many people in that small an area would not make that feasible. But when you figure what a tiny percentage of the Earth's surface is occupied by Texas and New Mexico, it does put into perspective the issue of room on the Earth and that if we just use our ingenuity and creativity, there are resources for all. Those resources are too often squandered or suppressed, however, when oppressive government and religious systems prevent the people from engaging in free market systems that have solved issues of food, water, transportation, health. Government rarely gets it done. But free people let loose to accomplish what they can, usually do.

When free people and free markets solve issues, would there be any regulations, or would the free market find it's own solutions?

It is a favorite ploy of the left to equate resistance to UNNECESSARY regulation with no regulation at all. There is a huge difference between those two things.

In order to function as a nation, as states, as local communities, we do need sufficient regulation to secure our unalienable rights which means we would be prevented by law from doing physical, economic, or environmental violence to each other. But apart from that, the best government then leaves us alone to form whatever sort of societies we wish to have and live our lives as we choose to live them.

A free market within such a system will provide opportunity for prosperity for far more people than any government will or can do. And the more prosperous people are, the more leisure and incentive they have to demand that the Earth they live on is properly cared for and that good stewardship is employed.

The poorer the people, the less they give a damn about anything other than their most basic needs for survival.

 

[itfitzme]

Yes,

Large gardens and I use to live on a farm(my family were fully capable of it). So you're saying that these people shouldn't be expected to build a national food supply. Why the fuck haven't they?

And what was the region like? *Weather, climate, water supply, soil conditions? *What other resources were available? *Fertilizer, insectisides, equipment?

FYI, Eskimos were feeding themselves in the harshest environment imaginable long before there were any federal governments or social programs or even charity of any kind.

FYI, desert dwellers were feeding themselves in some of the most desolate and inhospitable terrain imaginable long before there were any federal governments or social programs or even charity of any kind..

FYI, cliff dwellers were feeding themselves in terrain not well suited for any kind of serious farming *long before there were any federal governments or social programs or even charity of any kind.

FYI, prairie dwellers near no surface water of any kind were feeding themselves long before there were social programs or organized charity or the federal government paid much attention to them at all.

FYI, jungle dwellers were feeding themselves in wildly fluctuating conditions between drought and flood long before there were any federal governments or social programs or even charity of any kind.

In fact, it seems that many people managed pretty well without authoritarian government assuming responsibility for their 'welfare'. *And it seems that more and more authoritarian government decreases the people's ability to manage their own welfare as effectively.

As for those bills, us 'ten year olds' who do have time to read newspapers or watch evening newscasts or keep up with what government is doing to us were well aware of the legislation cited. *If I had thought the actual bill numbers of the legislation was pertinent to the point I was making--you know, that point that went sailing right over your head--I would have listed them.

But, you are apparently too busy to educate yourself and therefore are no doubt too busy to read the actual legislation, so I won't bother.

Do have a good day.

Yes, now there is a goal to aspire to, the standard of living afforded by growing cropsmin the desert, the frozen wasteland of the arctic region, the desert of Texas and New Mexico, or the side of a cliff.

Funny how society has relied on centuries of free markets to improventhe standard of living beyond that.

You don't bother because you have no clue what the actual legislation is. *I mistakenly assumed that you actually knew what you were talking about.**Rather, when asked for the actual details so others can understand yout reasoning clearly, you just feign being terribly upset you are about the very idea that someone might have expect it of you.

And to think I actually thought you had a good point regarding the shear area of habitable land compared to the world population. *Still, without actually getting into the specific and real details, it remains nothing but a sweeping generality.

It was your concept.

 

[Foxfyre]

And what was the region like? *Weather, climate, water supply, soil conditions? *What other resources were available? *Fertilizer, insectisides, equipment?

FYI, Eskimos were feeding themselves in the harshest environment imaginable long before there were any federal governments or social programs or even charity of any kind.

FYI, desert dwellers were feeding themselves in some of the most desolate and inhospitable terrain imaginable long before there were any federal governments or social programs or even charity of any kind..

FYI, cliff dwellers were feeding themselves in terrain not well suited for any kind of serious farming *long before there were any federal governments or social programs or even charity of any kind.

FYI, prairie dwellers near no surface water of any kind were feeding themselves long before there were social programs or organized charity or the federal government paid much attention to them at all.

FYI, jungle dwellers were feeding themselves in wildly fluctuating conditions between drought and flood long before there were any federal governments or social programs or even charity of any kind.

In fact, it seems that many people managed pretty well without authoritarian government assuming responsibility for their 'welfare'. *And it seems that more and more authoritarian government decreases the people's ability to manage their own welfare as effectively.

As for those bills, us 'ten year olds' who do have time to read newspapers or watch evening newscasts or keep up with what government is doing to us were well aware of the legislation cited. *If I had thought the actual bill numbers of the legislation was pertinent to the point I was making--you know, that point that went sailing right over your head--I would have listed them.

But, you are apparently too busy to educate yourself and therefore are no doubt too busy to read the actual legislation, so I won't bother.

Do have a good day.

Yes, now there is a goal to aspire to, the standard of living afforded by growing cropsmin the desert, the frozen wasteland of the arctic region, the desert of Texas and New Mexico, or the side of a cliff.

Funny how society has relied on centuries of free markets to improventhe standard of living beyond that.

You don't bother because you have no clue what the actual legislation is. *I mistakenly assumed that you actually knew what you were talking about.**Rather, when asked for the actual details so others can understand yout reasoning clearly, you just feign being terribly upset you are about the very idea that someone might have expect it of you.

And to think I actually thought you had a good point regarding the shear area of habitable land compared to the world population. *Still, without actually getting into the specific and real details, it remains nothing but a sweeping generality.

It was your concept.

Hmmm. Hey guys. Given that it is hard to believe different people could interpret things as our friend here has interpreted them, and given that he is using much of the exact same debate style as some of our other (cough) friends are consistently using, is it possible that the Siamese triplets have morphed into quadruplets?

 

[jasonnfree]

Doing the math assuming 7 billion people, and if Texas was divided up proportionately, each person would have something just over 1,000 sq ft at ground level. But most of us don't live individually as one person per pad--most of us live with one or more other people so the combined square footage would be pretty spacious. And stacking some residences in apartments and condos would free up a lot more space. I threw in New Mexico because some of the Texas area is water. Most of both New Mexico and Texas is inhabitable though and the combined states would provide a comfortable urban environment for all 7 billion people.

Of course the logistics of providing sufficient food and potable water for that many people in that small an area would not make that feasible. But when you figure what a tiny percentage of the Earth's surface is occupied by Texas and New Mexico, it does put into perspective the issue of room on the Earth and that if we just use our ingenuity and creativity, there are resources for all. Those resources are too often squandered or suppressed, however, when oppressive government and religious systems prevent the people from engaging in free market systems that have solved issues of food, water, transportation, health. Government rarely gets it done. But free people let loose to accomplish what they can, usually do.

When free people and free markets solve issues, would there be any regulations, or would the free market find it's own solutions?

It is a favorite ploy of the left to equate resistance to UNNECESSARY regulation with no regulation at all. There is a huge difference between those two things.

In order to function as a nation, as states, as local communities, we do need sufficient regulation to secure our unalienable rights which means we would be prevented by law from doing physical, economic, or environmental violence to each other. But apart from that, the best government then leaves us alone to form whatever sort of societies we wish to have and live our lives as we choose to live them.

A free market within such a system will provide opportunity for prosperity for far more people than any government will or can do. And the more prosperous people are, the more leisure and incentive they have to demand that the Earth they live on is properly cared for and that good stewardship is employed.

The poorer the people, the less they give a damn about anything other than their most basic needs for survival.

Well that's a pretty good answer and I know that government can sure get ridiculous with regulations. Still, we had government regulations in place for example when the BP disaster happened and also when the Exxon Valdez had its big spill. What would a system of government that you prefer have done to stop these types of environmental disasters?

 

[gslack]

You guys seem to have gotten into the general idea behind the "green" or "sustainable" movement.

Okay but be warned those "warmers" will not like what they find when they go there. The fact is, the real truth behind the IPCC and the pushing of the AGW theory, is about limiting growth and stifling the potential development of the entire world. To ensure the lifestyle of a a relative few people survives...

They state this all too often in there little clubs, organizations and think tanks...

"If we don't overthrow capitalism, we don't have a chance of
saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have
an ecologically sound society under socialism.
I don't think it is possible under capitalism"
- Judi Bari,
principal organiser of Earth First!

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn't it our responsiblity to bring that about?"
- Maurice Strong,
founder of the UN Environment Programme

"A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the
United States. De-development means bringing our
economic system into line with the realities of
ecology and the world resource situation."
- Paul Ehrlich,
Professor of Population Studies

"The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another
United States. We can't let other countries have the same
number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US.
We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are."
- Michael Oppenheimer,
Environmental Defense Fund

"Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty,
reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control."
- Professor Maurice King

"We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place
for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and
plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams,
free shackled rivers and return to wilderness
millions of acres of presently settled land."
- David Foreman,
co-founder of Earth First!

"Complex technology of any sort is an assault on
human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to
discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy,
because of what we might do with it."
- Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute

"The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the
worst thing that could happen to the planet."
- Jeremy Rifkin,
Greenhouse Crisis Foundation

"Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the
equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun."
- Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University

"The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many,
doing too well economically and burning too much oil."
– Sir James Lovelock,
BBC Interview

"My three main goals would be to reduce human population to
about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure
and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species,
returning throughout the world."
-Dave Foreman,
co-founder of Earth First!

"Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the
affluent middle class - involving high meat intake,
use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning,
and suburban housing - are not sustainable."
- Maurice Strong,
Rio Earth Summit

 

[itfitzme]

FYI, Eskimos were feeding themselves in the harshest environment imaginable long before there were any federal governments or social programs or even charity of any kind.

FYI, desert dwellers were feeding themselves in some of the most desolate and inhospitable terrain imaginable long before there were any federal governments or social programs or even charity of any kind..

FYI, cliff dwellers were feeding themselves in terrain not well suited for any kind of serious farming *long before there were any federal governments or social programs or even charity of any kind.

FYI, prairie dwellers near no surface water of any kind were feeding themselves long before there were social programs or organized charity or the federal government paid much attention to them at all.

FYI, jungle dwellers were feeding themselves in wildly fluctuating conditions between drought and flood long before there were any federal governments or social programs or even charity of any kind.

In fact, it seems that many people managed pretty well without authoritarian government assuming responsibility for their 'welfare'. *And it seems that more and more authoritarian government decreases the people's ability to manage their own welfare as effectively.

As for those bills, us 'ten year olds' who do have time to read newspapers or watch evening newscasts or keep up with what government is doing to us were well aware of the legislation cited. *If I had thought the actual bill numbers of the legislation was pertinent to the point I was making--you know, that point that went sailing right over your head--I would have listed them.

But, you are apparently too busy to educate yourself and therefore are no doubt too busy to read the actual legislation, so I won't bother.

Do have a good day.

Yes, now there is a goal to aspire to, the standard of living afforded by growing cropsmin the desert, the frozen wasteland of the arctic region, the desert of Texas and New Mexico, or the side of a cliff.

Funny how society has relied on centuries of free markets to improventhe standard of living beyond that.

You don't bother because you have no clue what the actual legislation is. *I mistakenly assumed that you actually knew what you were talking about.**Rather, when asked for the actual details so others can understand yout reasoning clearly, you just feign being terribly upset you are about the very idea that someone might have expect it of you.

And to think I actually thought you had a good point regarding the shear area of habitable land compared to the world population. *Still, without actually getting into the specific and real details, it remains nothing but a sweeping generality.

It was your concept.

Hmmm. *Hey guys. *Given that it is hard to believe different people could interpret things as our friend here has interpreted them, and given that he is using much of the exact same debate style as some of our other (cough) friends are consistently using, is it possible that the Siamese triplets have morphed into quadruplets?

In-group/out-group thinking.

Sweeping generalization;

.. when oppressive government and religious systems prevent the people from engaging in free market systems that have solved issues of food, water, transportation, health."

Specific details;

http://www.energystar.gov/ia/products/lighting/cfls/downloads/EISA_Backgrounder_FINAL_4-11_EPA.pdf

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-110hr6enr/pdf/BILLS-110hr6enr.pdf

 

[flacaltenn]

Yes, now there is a goal to aspire to, the standard of living afforded by growing cropsmin the desert, the frozen wasteland of the arctic region, the desert of Texas and New Mexico, or the side of a cliff.

Funny how society has relied on centuries of free markets to improventhe standard of living beyond that.

You don't bother because you have no clue what the actual legislation is. *I mistakenly assumed that you actually knew what you were talking about.**Rather, when asked for the actual details so others can understand yout reasoning clearly, you just feign being terribly upset you are about the very idea that someone might have expect it of you.

And to think I actually thought you had a good point regarding the shear area of habitable land compared to the world population. *Still, without actually getting into the specific and real details, it remains nothing but a sweeping generality.

It was your concept.

Hmmm. *Hey guys. *Given that it is hard to believe different people could interpret things as our friend here has interpreted them, and given that he is using much of the exact same debate style as some of our other (cough) friends are consistently using, is it possible that the Siamese triplets have morphed into quadruplets?

In-group/out-group thinking.

Sweeping generalization;

.. when oppressive government and religious systems prevent the people from engaging in free market systems that have solved issues of food, water, transportation, health."

Specific details;

http://www.energystar.gov/ia/products/lighting/cfls/downloads/EISA_Backgrounder_FINAL_4-11_EPA.pdf

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-110hr6enr/pdf/BILLS-110hr6enr.pdf

Ahhh yeah.. That great Energy Star program who's product is a label.. Yu do realize that Energy Star tax breaks is a large reason why GE and other appliance end up paying no taxes. You LIKE CORPORATE WELFARE??? To each his own..

And it's not like these low-tech EXISTING PRODUCTS couldn't compete in the market on the basis of energy efficiency WITHOUT the label is there?

Why couldnt Underwriter's Laboratory (UL) do the certification?

 

[mamooth]

Hmmm. Hey guys. Given that it is hard to believe different people could interpret things as our friend here has interpreted them, and given that he is using much of the exact same debate style as some of our other (cough) friends are consistently using, is it possible that the Siamese triplets have morphed into quadruplets?

Only cowardly liars fling accusations of "sock!" at everyone who tears apart their stupid arguments.

Fox has devolved into such a cowardly liar. Cowardly for using that tactic over and over, and liar for denying it.

 

[itfitzme]

http://www.energystar.gov/ia/products/lighting/cfls/downloads/EISA_Backgrounder_FINAL_4-11_EPA.pdf

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-110hr6enr/pdf/BILLS-110hr6enr.pdf

Ahhh yeah.. That great Energy Star program who's product is a label.. Yu do realize that Energy Star tax breaks is a large reason why GE and other appliance end up paying no taxes. You LIKE CORPORATE WELFARE??? *To each his own..*

And it's not like these low-tech EXISTING PRODUCTS couldn't compete in the market on the basis of energy efficiency WITHOUT the label is there?*

Why couldnt Underwriter's Laboratory (UL) do the certification?

Uh...They do

 

[flacaltenn]

http://www.energystar.gov/ia/products/lighting/cfls/downloads/EISA_Backgrounder_FINAL_4-11_EPA.pdf

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-110hr6enr/pdf/BILLS-110hr6enr.pdf

Ahhh yeah.. That great Energy Star program who's product is a label.. Yu do realize that Energy Star tax breaks is a large reason why GE and other appliance end up paying no taxes. You LIKE CORPORATE WELFARE??? *To each his own..*

And it's not like these low-tech EXISTING PRODUCTS couldn't compete in the market on the basis of energy efficiency WITHOUT the label is there?*

Why couldnt Underwriter's Laboratory (UL) do the certification?

Uh...They do

Then why do you point to "energy star" to make a point about the need to have GOVT do these things? As far as I can tell -- all the label does (that isn't done in the free market) is to make a company eligible for tax dodges doled out like candy...