Very odd stance

Reader comment on: Light Bulb Laws

Submitted by rick kennerly (United States), Jul 8, 2011 08:44

If the choice is forcing energy efficiency in lightbulbs or forcing ratepayers to build more & more multibillion dollar electrical plants to supply the nation's explosive growth in energy usage in the US, I'll take efficiency every every time.

Turn your Rights question around: Why should you be able to force me to subsidize your wasteful habits? Because it's all ratepayers who finance power plant construction.

Here in SE Va my AC runs all the time. It wasteful of me to have high heat generating incandescent bulbs in the house where I'll just have to cool that hot air over and over again.


Note: Comments are moderated by the editor and are subject to editing.

Submit a comment on this article

Other reader comments on this item

Title By Date
Answer to R Kennerly on "saving power plants" etc [116 words]lighthouseJan 30, 2012 17:05
light bulb bills [24 words]lighthouseJan 30, 2012 16:32
...and CFL Warranty not match Lifespan claims [72 words]lighthouseJan 30, 2012 16:29
⇒ Very odd stance [103 words]rick kennerlyJul 8, 2011 08:44
re "saving power plants" [111 words]lighthouseJan 30, 2012 16:42
Out with Fluorescent Light Bulbs...back in with Incandescent. [112 words]JdccJun 10, 2011 01:28
South Carolina loves nullification! [161 words]LyleJun 2, 2011 16:59

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to Very odd stance by rick kennerly

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Comments are moderated by the editor and are subject to editing.