But OK:
Congress has Budget Worries

One might therefore also consider that a TAX not a BAN on popular but energy using Cars, Buildings, TV sets, Refrigerators, Light Bulbs etc
could also help finance cheaper energy saving alternatives
so people are not just “hit by taxes”
GOP keep Choice, Democrats get Funding, tax easily adjusted or removed
according to new market conditions and entrants – a politically fair proposal.
http://ceolas.net/index-x.html#nea8x

That said, stimulated market competition is still better to achieve energy efficiency,
for reasons explained in the link.

1. Only c. 2% grid electricity saved, DOE etc data =
http://ceolas.net/#li171x with more relevant and significant alternatives.

2. Consumers as a whole hardly save MONEY – regardless of energy savings
Initial bulb cost + Utilities compensated for reduced sales.
So, not just in having to pay more for the light bulbs as an initial cost
(or being forced to pay for them, via taxpayer CFL programs)
- but also because electricity companies are being taxpayer subsidised
or allowed to raise Bill rates to compensate for any reduced
electricity use, as already seen both federally and in California, Ohio etc,
and before them in the UK and other European countries
( as referenced http://ceolas.net/#californiacfl )

All lighting has advantages, none should be banned
(and the regulations effectively ban incandescent technology given Energy Act second phase specification of 45 lumen per W before 2020)

Unjustified:

Firstly in being on a Safe-to-use product
(unlike say lead paint, and indeed possibly some of the lighting
alternatives offered)
with usage advantages also compared to temporary replacement Halogens etc

(continued)

Thank you.

“…(I think the appeal above Vernon is talking about is not actually making this argument. It is instead using it to make an emotional appeal to a subset to then not side with “the Democrats.””

Is it? I’m afraid I just read the bit quoted above.
“Some politicians in Washington don’t think you’re all that bright. They believe that you can’t make wise decisions in your day-to-day life, so they have taken it upon themselves to impose regulations to protect you from yourself.”

They don’t mention the Democrats; “some politicians” could also refer to any Republicans who sided with the ban. The primary arguments made here seem to be them making regulations to protect you from yourself, and Nanny State overreach. Isn’t that raising straightforward Harm Principle issues rather than making an emotional appeal not to side with Democrats? The only way I can see it appealing to emotions is if one is emotionally committed to the Harm Principle – which obviously many are, but interpreting it so relies on it being a liberty issue first.

I suppose, in a sense, it is a gift to the GOP that the Democrats have introduced such illiberal legislation, and they are taking advantage of it in their rhetoric. But that’s surely the job of a political opposition; not something to criticise them for. Don’t the Democrats ever criticise Republicans for their own electoral ends?

#8,

That’s precisely the sort of interpretation that scares people so. It would mean that absolutely anything that used energy – i.e. absolutely anything – was subject to regulation. We’re talking here about less than 10 W averaged round-the-clock in some cases – there are relatively few things falling below such a threshold. Anything deemed by the authorities to be “wasteful” could be banned – or not banned – at their whim. It would be the perfect totalitarian tool of social engineering.

It also assumes that my using a 100 W instead of a 70 W light bulb causes “serious harm”, and that using a 70 W bulb instead could prevent it. Obviously, neither is true – even on the basis of the consensus. One person’s energy usage is insignificant.

#9,

I’m not assuming that. Nor is it relevant. Some or all – we don’t want to get into the habit of banning things without good reason.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo