Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why is Elizabeth Edwards waiting until her lights burn out to switch to CFL's???

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread		 This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 02:01 PM
Original message
Why is Elizabeth Edwards waiting until her lights burn out to switch to CFL's???
As most probably know Elizabeth Edwards posted a blog entry yesterday here:
http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/1/26/15303/2358

Note the line:

And as the incandescent light bulbs the electrician installed in our fixtures burn out, we are replacing them with fluorescent bulbs.

I applaud the rest of that paragraph on CFL's...well written and informative. This opening line doesn't sit well with me though. Why on earth would they wait to do the replacement? Ms Edwards should sacrafice that $.50 bulb to help with C02 output right now,

In comments below she answers a question about geo-thermal energy:
Actually we are "geothermal-ready." The system was built in a manner to allow us to integrate geothermal. And, although we thought we would be talking about it in four or five years, we are already talking about installing it.

This should not be delayed any longer. If I had the money, I would do geo-thermal tomorrow.

Besides that they should buy offsets. Make themselves completely carbon-neutral. Everyone who can afford it should do it. I'm not rich, but I buy offsets for my car and house. It's not that expensive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
oldtime dfl_er Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 02:02 PM
Response to Original message
1. I'm not going to criticize her for it.
Good for her for making the switch. And if the Edwards's get into the WH, maybe they'll make the switch there too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #1
27. that's the point, she hasn't made the switch. She's waiting for them to burn out.
it's a bad example for the public.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nedbal Donating Member (675 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #27
56. She's right, 1. more energy&pollutants&resources to make CF L's 2) they cannot ,,
be dimmed, so don't work well in all situations, 3) do not fit well in many fixtures.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Syncronaut Seven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #56
62. I believe you are mistaken on all counts.
Some compact fluorescents are dimmable. Check the label, or ask a knowledgeable salesperson.

The average lifetime savings of a 23W CF is 770 Kilowatts, it takes about 5KW to make one and put it on the shelf. In my neck of the woods, that's $70 in the bank.

Most "twisty" type compact fluorescent will fit most fixtures perfectly, they have the same physical size as the standard "A" lamp. In fact they make one that looks just like an "a" lamp.

Pollutants are contained thru recycling in to the proper waste stream.

Fluorescent lamps have evolved more than any other type known to man, and will continue to do so.
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #62
71. All good points, thankyou. I'm going to quote you below.
The manufacture part is interesting.

It's a fact, they make dimmable (and 3-way) fluorescents. As well, they make a them for a variety of sockets, including candle-size.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nedbal Donating Member (675 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #62
91. My points were all valid , CFL are not the answer in all situations
>>>Some compact fluorescents are dimmable. Check the label, or ask a knowledgeable salesperson.

the starting and running electronics will not function at lower voltages in CFL's find me a link to a dimmable CFL, now Fluorescent lamps can be dimmed to a extent with the correct expensive controller



>>>The average lifetime savings of a 23W CF is 770 Kilowatts, it takes about 5KW to make one and put it on the shelf. In my neck of the woods, that's $70 in the bank.

that data sounds like the lamp is never turned off & the CFL functions to it's full rated life, one brief cfl lifetime in a small sample puts a huge dent in $$$ savings, true the energy savings are still present in the sample


>>Most "twisty" type compact fluorescent will fit most fixtures perfectly, they have the same physical size as the standard "A" lamp. In fact they make one that looks just like an "a" lamp.

true for the lower lumen lamps

>>>Pollutants are contained Through recycling in to the proper waste stream.

the only waste stream I know of that comes close to proper is to ship it off with the old computer salvage to China, questionable at best

>>Fluorescent lamps have evolved more than any other type known to man, and will continue to do so.
.
lamps have evolved, we now have HID, Sodium, and others, advances in producing far greater lumens from Fluorescent lamps have mainly been in the fixtures that hold them
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #91
98. No, none of your points were valid, actually.
1. more energy&pollutants&resources to make CF L's

More energy than what? Than not to make them? If that is your point, it is a dishonest one because you're ignoring the energy CFL's save. If you're including the energy CFL's save then please demonstrate how the manufacture of a single CFL created 450lbs of C02.

2) they cannot be dimmed, so don't work well in all situations,

You've been told they make dimmable CFL's, and subsequently ask for a link. Here:

If you're interested in dimmable compact fluorescents, Environmental Defense has the information you need (along with links to retail outlets).
http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2007/01/05/compact_fluorescents/


3) do not fit well in many fixtures.

Of the 21 fixtures in my home, I cannot put a CFL in only one. And even that one it's an issue of the surrounding decorative hangings impeding the bulb size, not the socket size.
They fit almost all fixtures, and come in a variety of shapes and socket sizes..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nedbal Donating Member (675 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #98
135.  You are correct 100% on available cfl that dim
some time ago I spent a few hours reading the net data on cfl's and my memory was what I relied on.

I did previously state when they function for their full stated lifetime they save operating energy. While I am not going to spend the time on further researching the energy and resources used in the manufacture of the electronics and other materials in a non-dimming cfl vs. a standard bulb I was interested in the technology behind this dimming design.

there is little that I did find on the technical details of the design or verified lifespan, I did find the following thread that contained many positive comments from those that have yet to use the dimmers or new users and negative comments from experienced dimming cfl users.

http://www.terrapass.com/terrablog/posts/2006/02/fighting-climate-change-with-cold-cathode-compact-fluoresce.html
<<<<<
The litetronics do use mercury but they are careful to make that clear on the bulb. I purchased 25 such bulbs for a coffee shop. They are a nice warm color and available in a range of spectrum. Get outside if you really need full spectrum!

The bulbs dim nicely but have been horrible in terms of life. In the year we have lost nearly half of them and they very expensive.

Will NOT buy them again until they have the bugs worked out. We will switch to home depot purchased non-dimmable bulbs. They are much cheaper, last years in my home, and give great light!
>>>>

I do use cfl's myself where possible, they have far better
life in outdoor cold weather fixtures than convential lamps

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jbnow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 12:38 AM
Response to Reply #98
275. After I had many CFLs burn out quickly
I did a little more research. Although they produce less heat than a normal bulb they tend to have a short life in a recessed enclosed light fixture like those on my ceiling.

Some electronic timers and photocells aren't incompatible with cfls,you have to check with the manufacturer of the timer or photocell. That's why my outdoor photocell light kept burning out CFLs. You also have to make sure the bulb is OK for outdoor (cold weather) use.

They are best in areas where the light will stay on a couple hours. Lights you switch on and off just briefly will shorten the life.

If broken special care must be taken. Sweep, don't vacuum, wipe up with damp towel, place it all in a sealed bag and they even suggest ventilating the room.
Broken or used bulbs aren't to be tossed in garbage, usually treated as hazardous waste type disposal.

So if I had lamps around little boisterous kids I might consider it a bit more too.

I use them in all of the lights that I can but they do have some limits.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-07-07 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #62
368. i love these lights. i've replaced 25 in my house so far.
and i've started giving the boxes that hold four lights out as presents (along with an article about them)

here is the problem i have run into: i have an electric garage door and there are two light sockets for two bulbs that go on and off each time i open or close the garage door. for some reason the cfl don't work in those sockets (and i can't figure out why) which is a shame because the lights stay on for four minutes every time the door is opened or closed.

also, i have a lamp that uses a candle shape bulb (i've looked on the energy star website and i think the bulb is called a torpedo) but i hesitate to buy light bulbs through the mail. i wish one of my local stores would carry the torpedo shape.

and i use the regular bulbs in my dimmer lights--if i don't need all the light i simply loosen one or two bulbs to self dim.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KitchenWitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 11:55 PM
Response to Reply #27
240. It would be wasteful for her not to let them burn out.
They only last a couple of months anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 12:21 AM
Response to Reply #240
266. See post #66. And incandescents last more than a "couple" months.
They are slated to last 6 months, and often last much more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KitchenWitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 12:26 AM
Response to Reply #266
268. ...
:eyes:

Waste is waste. Wasting perfectly good incandescent lights is still waste.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 12:33 AM
Response to Reply #268
271. What an intellectually lazy/dishonest response!
Edited on Mon Jan-29-07 12:34 AM by Harper_is_Bush
you didn't even look at post 66, did you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KitchenWitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 12:35 AM
Response to Reply #271
272. Read it earlier
Thanks for the accusation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pathwalker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 02:03 PM
Response to Original message
2. Maybe her arms are sore from the cancer surgery???
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PCIntern Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 02:03 PM
Response to Original message
3. With all due respect...
can't anyone do anything right? If she said she was throwing out bulbs which work, people would be decrying her as wasteful. Let's all try to lighten up a bit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #3
11. Oh please
getting rid of the old bulbs - even if they're working - is a far more useful and environmentally valuable thing to do.

Anyone "decrying" her for that would be in the minority, and likely skeptical of climate change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doremus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 08:34 AM
Response to Reply #11
298. It's irresponsible to throw out perfectly good bulbs.
Not because she can't afford the few pennies they cost, but because their manufacture consumed energy. The same energy we're trying to conserve.

To make a valid case for immediate replacement, you have to factor in how much energy went into their manufacture.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KitchenWitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 11:56 PM
Response to Reply #3
244. Thank you!
:tinfoilhat:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xultar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #3
306. ZING!!! BANG!!!! BOOM!!!! Exactly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 02:04 PM
Response to Original message
4. Yes, because, by all means, "trendy" is far more important than
being frugal and showing common sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #4
12. Fighting Global warming is "trendy" in your view?
:wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #12
40. This is why liberals get condemned for their beliefs.
Actually, it's not their beliefs, but their obsessive natures.

You push too hard and you're going to turn people off. This is how the right-wing, white male neanderthal got the better of us all. Because they didn't want to be told what to do. So it became a national pass-time to knock down any government regulation. It didn't matter how well-intentioned the government mandate was, people don't like to be told what to do.

So, use your damn fluorescents until they're spent, THEN buy the energy-saving ones. For God's sake why can't you bend a little?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #4
19. Ok I have a hard time combining 'frugal' and '30,000 sq. ft'.
The whole faux controversy is just that: bullshit, but people building neo-gilded age mansions are not 'frugal'. And the Edwards can drop the dining at Wendys bullshit too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hfojvt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #19
44. It was not built
I do not believe that. The house, the barn, the walkway were probably already there. Nobody would spend two or three million to build something like that. So 2/3 of the 30,000 square feet come from a previously built, already existing barn. A big old barn, that the Edwards' refurbished.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #19
45. Who knows what the future has in store for all of us?
Perhaps, someday in the future, it might not be so farfetched for several generations to live under the same roof. Actually, it's happening now, but I guess it's difficult for people to understand that what cash-strapped American families might do out of necessity, might actually be what a rich person who can afford to build a 30,000 sq. ft. house actually wants. Because, maybe, they're thinking of making things comfortable for grandparents, children and grandchildren.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #45
72. Oh please spare me.
Do you have any idea how big a 30,000 sq ft house is? Like I said this is a false issue. I don't care how big the Edwards' house is, every other officially annointed serious candidate is wealthy too, but a mansion is a mansion. Trying to pretend otherwise just makes you look dishonest or silly. You aren't going to successfully neutralize this idiotic attack on Edwards by responding with an equally inane counter-attack.

Edwards built a big house. So what?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #72
75. Actually, he added to an existing house.
And if this weren't an issue, you wouldn't waste your time responding to this thread, now would you?

The one thing I do want to see, is that people who use more electricity, should pay a higher rate after a certain level. This might cut down on the only thing that should be of concern on a public level.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #75
76. I've actually ignored this non-issue for days.
What I am responding to is nonsense like "he just added on to an existing house" or "its just so he can keep his grandparents with him". It is a huge expensive house. So what?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #76
87. House rebuilding plans intrigue me.
Edited on Sun Jan-28-07 04:53 PM by The Backlash Cometh
And, apparently, it intrigues everybody else too. I just laid out some furniture in the backyard to revamp and I have already had three people trespass on the lot next door to see what I'e been doing.

But then, again, I live in a community the FBI should take more interest in, if they really gave a damn about the little games of intrigue that good ole boys play.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #19
114. I'm tired of the Wendy's bullshit, too
Eating fast food isn't something to brag about. The implication is that they are more real, more American than those who don't eat fast food. They're ever-so-subtly enforcing the liberal elite meme everytime they bring that up.

Here's what would impress me: eat local, eat sustainably, if you can afford to. Why not brag about supporting local farmers, instead of a fast food chain?

Ditto on shopping at Target. It's a big box store. Why do they act like they deserve kudos for shopping there, when they can afford better options? (Better as in labor and environmental practices, not status)

"Conditions at some of Target's supplier factories have included up to 180 hours of unpaid monthly overtime and the failure to provide legal minimum wages to 40 percent of workers. Groups fighting the environmental and community damage caused by urban sprawl have organized against Target and other big box stores. While Target is a partner in the EPA Waste Wise program to reduce municipal solid waste, the company has yet to show significant signs of reducing its overall environmental impact." (Oct 2006)

http://www.coopamerica.org/programs/rs/profile.cfm?id=295

They have a long way to go before they really get the whole concept of living green, and in the meantime they seem to be embracing the exact opposite of those ideals, and then holding them up as something we should admire about them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 02:04 PM
Response to Original message
5. FFS!
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlCzervik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 02:04 PM
Response to Original message
6. because she hates the environment?
Edited on Sun Jan-28-07 02:09 PM by chimpsrsmarter
Jesus christ give it a rest
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. She hates it for its freedom.
:rofl:

NGU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #6
16. I did not say or imply anything of the sort. You need to realize
that any critisism you see on DU will be 10-fold once the campaigning starts in ernest.

I'm a little surprised that she posted a blog on this issue yesterday. It was well-written, but ill-conceived if it was meant to quiet down questions and comments about it here or elsewhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MyNameGoesHere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 02:07 PM
Response to Original message
8. because throwing away
working bulbs is fucking moronic. Just like most of these posts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PCIntern Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Thank you...
I was afraid to say that. I have been insulting too many people around here lately, and don't feel like getting arbitrarily tombstoned just as things are getting interesting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MyNameGoesHere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. If i am tombstoned for
pointing out morons so be it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PCIntern Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. I think I came a millimeter away a few months ago
and for me, since I really admire and enjoy most members, don't want to sacrifice my favorite outlet by pontificating too loudly (read profanely) for relatively insignificant issues, but you haven't been around long enough to make as many enemies as I have.

Thank again!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #8
18. Do you accept global warming and that we are causing it?
Yes or no?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MyNameGoesHere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #18
35. Sure
So get the hell off the computer because your causing more greenhouse gases. These posts aren't about that. These are deliberate infiltrations by fr operatives. Why has no one posted images of the Bush family complex, or the Cheney house in St. Michaels? This is so obvious a smear campaign to a decent but imperfect human being.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #35
52. Then you wouldn't call throwing away incandescent bulbs "moronic".
A CFL saves 450lbs of C02 in it's lifetime over incandescent. It's that simple.

Either you accept that we have a problem and need to act as quickly as possible, or you don't.

If you're unwilling to throw out your .$50 incandescent because you think it's a waste then you're just not clear on the concepts here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MyNameGoesHere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #52
125. No but replacing it when it burns
out makes perfect sense to me. Thanks for your math or statistics though i can roll em up and smoke em. Do you live in the real world? In my family we replace things when they go bad, and hopefully with better or more efficient items. If we cannot afford the 7 dollars rep pack for Fluorescent then we are forced to buy regular ones. But we thank our lucky stars that their are so many snooty people in the world to show us how evil we are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 10:05 PM
Response to Reply #125
180. In my family, we do what's necessary in a given situation for the benifit of the earth.
Which is why we've replaced ALL our incandescents with CFL's

The incandescents went into the garbage, and I'm proud to say it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MyNameGoesHere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #180
196. Alright ! Amazing! Wonderful!
And those went into a landfill i presume? How many years until they decompose? Hmmm throw any stones in glass houses lately?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 09:20 PM
Original message
So why don't you confront Elizabeth Edwards directly about this
rather than bitch about her behind her back???? Nasty gossip and petty sniping isn't very nice.

I would think it would be quite easy to contact her given her internet presence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 10:03 PM
Response to Original message
179. "rather than bitch about her behind her back"..."nasty gossip and petty sniping"...
Excuse me, but where have you seen these things? Not here.

You are way out of line. Elizabeth Edwards is known to visit DU, so I'm doing nothing "behind her back". As well, there has been no "nasty gossip" or "petty sniping", other than your recent posts here, that is.

Again kestrel, please reign in your attacks on me. ty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 12:28 AM
Response to Original message
314. Please note I am taking your advice. Waiting for a reply on her blog n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roguevalley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 01:55 AM
Response to Reply #35
291. I'm not a freeper or an infiltrator or whatever. I find their house
Edited on Mon Jan-29-07 01:57 AM by roguevalley
appalling for the environmental issues. I also live in Alaska, where the rivers are melting along with the glaciers, polar bears are drowning trying to swim to ice that isn't there anymore and the permafrost is melting and destroying villages that have been where they are for thousands of years. No one doing these things gets a pass on the other side but these two people seem to by a lot of people that should have to live with the effects of global warming directly. I love John and Elizabeth Edwards but this is bad thinking. It isn't treason to point it out. Perhaps if global warmings effects on the environment was more in your face wherever you lived, you would understand the feelings of those who have that problem now. It isn't abstract to all of us. Some of us understand what it means and how its happening and are SOUNDING A WARNING TO ALL OF YOU. EVERYTHING people do, ALL PEOPLE is contributing to our extinction. Its damned time people understood that it is coming hard and fast and ALL of us are responsible, as well as ALL OF US are going to pay for this.

I really resent having names called to me and a few of the others that make an attempt to point out that GLOBAL WARMING IS ALL OUR RESPONSIBILITIES. IT'S MELTING IN ALASKA, GOD DAMN IT! IN JANUARY!

EVERYONE needs to do EVERYTHING THEY CAN RIGHT NOW! No one gets a pass. No one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katmondoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 02:08 PM
Response to Original message
9. I hate Fluorescent. I would rather be in the dark
They give me a headache and are so unflattering as to cause one to hide from oneself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. Yes they are a bit difficult to get used to.
As for geothermal - I have a geothermal heat pump and it COSTS A FREAKING ARM AND A LEG to operate. Other than that it is fine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MuseRider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #15
26. I hate to ask you this
but since my house will be done in 6 months and the geothermal is already installed (THAT was a freaking arm and leg) what do you mean by it costs that much to operate? Now I am a little afraid, yikes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #26
32. I'm in NH and that is not an optimal location.
Although it will get more optimal as we progress into this catastrophic climate change thing.

Also my house has a lot of glass so it leaks energy like a sieve. To answer your question: $600/m electric bill. Of course that is my only energy bill but it is frightening and most of it is the cost of running the pump.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MuseRider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #32
83. Yes it should get better for you
as life gets worse. At least you will be able to enjoy smaller bills!

We sunk ours in the pond, we are in Kansas and everyone here who has one loves it but there are not many. My house is going to have entire walls of windows since we are out on the farm without many close neighbors so I will have to watch this carefully. Our point is to get off the grid after we add solar panels and the man who designed and put in our system thinks we can do it. My fingers are crossed.

Those are very large electric bills.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #83
115. I've considered solar and wind for power alternatives.
I don't think my field gets enough wind on a consistent basis. Solar might work, and it is both cheaper and more efficient these days. I should probably pave my roof with silicon. I keep hoping that our government will revive the tax program from the 70's that cut us all a huge break for going solar, but what's the chance of that?

My pumps are old. At some point I will have to replace them and when I do I'll see if there is something better out there that doesn't cost as much to run. Also power here is pretty damn expensive to start with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #9
20. You should check them out again, they've come a long way...
...they are now brigher for a given wattage, and in softer incandescent-like light tones.

You should read Elizabeth Edwards comments on them, linked in the OP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #20
29. Agree
I've switched, and they're actually more comfortable to read to -- very little heat generated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lisa0825 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #20
69. I only notice two minor differences...
When I drive up to my house, I see that my porch light is slightly pink and the other houses' lights are rather yellowish. I do not notice that in side the house. The only thing I had to get used to was that they don't seem to get fully lit for about a minute, so it seems kind of dim for a bit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TornadoTN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 08:43 AM
Response to Reply #69
300. We've done the same
We added CFL's to the exterior of the house and it gives off a brighter, more distinct light than any of its incandescent counterparts. We've had a few people ask us about the lights and how reliable they are and as you can guess, I'm a strong advocate of them. I'm currently initiating a CFL swap-out program through our local Ruritan Club. We only have a couple incandescents left in the house for reading.

Our only issue with them is when it gets very cold (25F or lower), they take a little while to get "warmed up" and producing their peak output.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProfessorGAC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #20
342. Just Gotta Buy The Right Kind
Some of them still have that garish blue tint. But some (including the three ways we use) are a nice orangish, incandescent type glow to them.
The Professor
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Edith Ann Donating Member (213 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #9
21. light bulbs
I agree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. Welcome to DU. Question: do you believe that global warming is happening and we're causing it? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #9
22. I use fluorescent in utility areas - basement, garage, front porch...
...and use incandescent in my living space. Hey, we all have to weigh the options and make choices. I feel lighting is important enough to my state of mind to spend a portion of my carbon footprint on it. I make up for it in other ways.

NGU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #22
104. Todays CFL's are pretty much undistinguisable from incandescents
They give off a soft light similar to incandescent.

Read Elizabeth Edwards blog (linked in OP). She explains it.

I hope you consider trying them in your living space.

And watch out...although most sold now are the soft/pleasent variety you can still get the "daylight" (white) type that are not so pleasent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shallah Kali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 03:22 AM
Response to Reply #104
292. I like 'em better because they give better amount of light for fraction of watts
Also don't bother my migraines any worse than any other light source. My state had a rebate program recently which made the compact fluorescents 50 cents so I bought as many as the program allowed. The kind I got can't take cold temperature so I am using up the old incandescents only in unheated areas of the house.

also I used to use night lights to keep me from stumbling if I got up at night which I have switched to little square LED night lights which use 0.03 watts :) I have found if I stick 'em in a power strip surge protector so they face the ceiling it will light up most of the room quite nicely. There is the additional bonus that LEDs don't give off heat so I worry about anything touching it and starting a fire. I hope LED bulbs come down in price so I can try those made for regular fixtures
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smirkymonkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #9
25. I hate them too - I also get headaches from them, and I just
find them harsh and unpleasant. I would rather go completely on natural light and candle light than switch to flourescent. I pretty much do anyway already. I have one small lamp w/ a 40 watt bulb to light my room in my apartment and only turn on the big lights if I need to find something on the floor.

I even had the bulbs taken out at work above my cube because of the terrible headaches. Since they've been gone, no more headaches. I think they are evil.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #25
33. Read Elizabeth Edwards blog entry linked in the OP.
She explains how they've gotten a lot better.

They're not "harsh and unpleasent" anymore.

Note we're not talking about the fluorescent tubes like the ones at your workplace, which is typically a very white and extremely bright form of lighting that a small minority of people (such as yourself) have your type of reaction to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Madspirit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #25
41. Headaches
There's tons of info out there on how fluorescent bulbs are not that good for you. They can even cause slight anemia. They give me excruciating headaches.


"It could be that the cause of your headache is over your head--literally. That's because fluorescent lights--the most popular choice of lighting in most offices (and gaining popularity in homes)--appear to be "on" all the time, but they actually flicker about 60 times a second. This constant flickering, though not noticeable, fatigues the brain, causing headaches, according to Robert A. Baron, Ph.D., an industrial psychologist and professor at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, New York, who has done extensive research on how lighting affects mood and health."


...and anyone who says I don't care about the environment because I am not willing to get excruciating headaches can jump up and kiss my Texas ass.
Madspirit
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #41
60. again, a CFL is not the same as office fluorescent lighting.
They are much the same in tone and brightness as incandescents today.

Read Elizabeth Edwards blog entry, linked in the OP. She testifies to that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lurking Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #60
67. For some people the brightness isn't the issue.
For people with lupus or fibro, the UV exposure from fluorescent light is flat out dangerous.

I actually got skin lesions from having a meeting go too long in a fluorescent lit office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #67
70. True, people with Lupus are sensitive to UV.
There are options for fluorescents for those cases.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beastbitten Donating Member (16 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #41
118. I have a friend who has epilepsy...
Her seizure frequency spiked right after she replaced the incandescents in her house. Took out the CFLs, and went back to her normal frequency. I felt terrible since I'd suggested them to her. I use them without problems myself, love the energy savings. But when she visits, I swap out a few for incandescents and use those. I worry how she'll manage if they ever stop making incandescents... but maybe LEDs will be mainstream by then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 01:21 AM
Response to Reply #118
287. I get headaches from them
So we have flourescent bulbs at home, but I keep them off. I don't really need lights for most things, if I'm on the computer I've got the monitor light, and I pretty much touch type anyway.

It's a good conservation method - get bulbs that make you want to leave them off. :D

(actually I think it's just bright light in general, to be fair)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 02:09 PM
Response to Original message
13. Why throw good bulbs in a landfill, requiring more carbon creation
to manufacture new ones?

Anyway--I wonder how much CO2 the construction crews generated building her castle, or how much CO2 the acres of trees which were cut down would be pulling from the air right now.

The light bulbs are the least of her environmental problems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #13
23. Because on balance, the 75% energy use reduction of the CFL's
makes it the smart move, in a carbon usage sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #23
28. Your point is moot
because you are wasting the carbon used to create the lightbulb -- processing the materials used, and its actual manufacture, require far more energy than the light bulb will ever use in its lifetime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. I'm going to have to ask you for a link supporting that claim
and if you can't provide one, I'm calling bullshit.

Absolute BS that the manufacture of one lightbulb is causing more than 450 lbs. of C02.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #30
34. I was hoping you wouldn't
On re-read, I can't back it up. It seemed logical, but maybe not. Where are you getting your 450lbs figure?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. It's the EPA estimate. Elizabeth Edwards also sites it on her blog entry.
Every CFL can prevent more than 450 pounds of emissions from a power plant over its lifetime.
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=cfls.pr_cfls
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #36
85. The largest power plant emission, by far, is water
so I'm not sure what that statistic means in terms of carbon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #23
31. delete
Edited on Sun Jan-28-07 02:25 PM by wtmusic
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katsy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 02:31 PM
Response to Original message
37. Interesting website for zero energy homes:
http://www.zeroenergydesign.com/ZEDbookPreface.htm


(snip)... "Politicians should demonstrate their deep energy concern and live in Zero Energy Homes, drive Zero Pollution Electric Cars, and work in Zero Energy Office Buildings. The desired new energy infrastructure should be subsidized. The old energy infrastructures that created Global Warming and escalating price dependency on deadly imported foreign energy, should NEVER be subsidized ever again (as they still are in the 2005 Energy Policy Act).

MORE money needs to be spent to create the desirable future, than to prop up the declining dirt road to the rapidly-approaching dead end of petroleum, which the American government has wrongfully subsidized for a century. It is now past the point where REVERSE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST PETROLEUM should begin – just like the way we have a high “sin tax” on deadly alcohol and tobacco. We need the same type of thing to discourage further dependency on Global Warming man-made climate changing energy implementation.

Today’s American Energy Crisis clearly impacts people the most, who are the least able to afford high energy prices. It is only fair that law-abiding, deserving, low-income people (especially those with disabilities who need economical assisted living) be significantly subsidized in the application of home ZED concept retrofit implementation to quickly eliminate their monthly utility bills. Tax credit subsidies do NOT work for people in poverty who pay no taxes. Most lack the capacity to investigate and understand the need for ZED. Low-income energy audits should provide specific recommendations, and the direct ZED retrofit implementation assistance is clearly required.

Politicians who still refuse to enthusiastically support clean, renewable, sustainable energy applications (like distributed direct solar energy) should make immediate plans to retire and support the new enthusiastic ZED generation."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skidmore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 02:31 PM
Response to Original message
38. Are there no issues in the universe more pressing than this?
Elizabeth Edwards deserves a public flogging for her decisions around the type of light bulb she uses in the privacy of her home? I do think that it would be a better use of time to focus on tossing out the Dim Bulb in the White House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. No, there are no issues more pressing than Global Warming
actually.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skidmore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #39
64. Global warming is a huge problem and this whole thread
has probably wasted more energy than if she burnt all her lights all night.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #39
106. Enjoy your time at the Kucinich-concedes party.
That'll sure take care of global warming!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
monmouth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #38
42. So......is this the stupidest thread on DU today, or what???
Edited on Sun Jan-28-07 02:37 PM by monmouth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Madspirit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #42
46. So......is this the stupidest thread on DU today, or what???
Yes!!
Madspirit
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
etherealtruth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #42
61. Can't say for sure ...
but, it's right up there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 10:11 PM
Response to Reply #42
182. Probably
But there's some stiff competition!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
knitter4democracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 02:37 PM
Response to Original message
43. Oh, for the love of Mike. Leave Elizabeth alone.
Yes, I believe in global warming. I've also had a serious cancer scare. She not only had a cancer scare but had it, fought it, and lived through it. She's not on my attack list. She's lived through poisons pumping through her body trying to kill the cancer before killing her off, so I think she can wait to replace some lightbulbs, and she's entitled to the house she wants. We don't know all of their plans, we don't know all of their appliances and such, and we should not be judging them on how they live but instead on their actions and effectiveness as leaders.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #43
49. This is not an "attack" on Elizabeth Edwards. I empathize with her cancer battle...
...but she was the one who chose to post a blog entry on the subject yesterday.

By telling us what her family is doing, she is holding her family up as a model for others...especially considering that her husband is running for President. Given that, it's reasonable for me to critisize an aspect of that. It's not an attack.

Global Warming is bound to be a huge issue in 2008, and any blog entries slapped up in perhaps a quick response to critisism had better be carefully considered, and the response to this one will perhaps hold some helpful lessons for the Edwards.

Also understand that the voyage her family is embarking on will be 20 times more harsh than anything seen on DU in the last couple of days. If she's not strong enough for it, as you seem to be implying, then perhaps it's ill-advised. I think maybe you should give her more credit and stop invoking her cancer as a shield for her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
knitter4democracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 08:48 AM
Response to Reply #49
301. Where is she holding herself up as a model wife and mother?
She's got a blog. So do I. I don't blog to hold myself up as some model but instead to keep people informed as to what's going on in our family. Maybe she thinks of hers the same way.

Cancer as a shield. Wow, that's a new way to look at it. :eyes: You've never lived through it if you really think that way. It's not that she isn't strong enough--she beat it, remember--it's that it changes a person and entitles her, in my opinion, to having the house she wants.

You're mad, I get it. Fine. I just think it's something that should be lower on the list to be mad about. Edwards is in a huge pack, so his odds of winning aren't great, so all this nastiness will be for naught. Why waste time on the house Elizabeth wants? You've made your point that it's not environmentally perfect. The reality is, though, neither is the White House--by a far longer shot than the lightbulbs they use. Let's fight them instead of each other.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #43
55. Yes, and cheney had a heart attack
so can we please just all be nice to him? :eyes:

The cancer scare and treatment suck. However, that is completely unrelated to whether her family is willfully contributing to the destruction of the planet now, although they can afford to do otherwise.

"Entitled" was a good word choice. Probably more apt than you meant it to be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
knitter4democracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #55
299. I also said we need to hold them accountable for leadership.
I think holding Cheney accountable for what he's done with his position of power makes a hell of a lot more sense than getting all ticked off at a Dem leader who hasn't been in a position of power for a couple of years getting a new house.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nutmegger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 02:42 PM
Response to Original message
47. I don't drive a hybrid.
Edited on Sun Jan-28-07 02:43 PM by Nutmegger
I await your flames.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #47
50. If you were a millionaire, would you?
And please don't accuse me of "flaming".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dorktv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #50
149. I make $95,000 a year...and I am still not getting a hybrid.
I also await your flames.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hfojvt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 02:44 PM
Response to Original message
48. I wonder why they are so behind the curve
I am pretty sure that I have been using CFs for at least 12 years. They used to be bigger, dimmer, and more expensive, but they still seemed like not only the environmentally conscious thing to do, but also the frugal thing to do.

Like them, though, I have been sparingly using the incandescents that came with this house I bought five years ago until they burned out. It seems too wasteful to me to throw out a working bulb.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 02:50 PM
Response to Original message
51. Maybe she doesn't want to create more trash than she has to.
Also, if she donates them to someone else, they will burn them out, so I think this is a trivial matter. The fact is that she is replacing them with CFLs down the line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #51
54. She should start saving 450lbs of C02 per CFL over incandescent right now...
...and throw out the incandescents, don't donate them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tektonik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 02:52 PM
Response to Original message
53. could we have a more pointless thread?
she's going to make the switch, so what's the problem? there are many more pressing issues one could be addressing that being nit-picky over someone's good intentions
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #53
58. "she's going to make the switch, so what's the problem". It's simple...
...the problem is that she is wrong. Don't wait until they burn out, switch now.

The reduction in C02 usage demonstrates clearly that it is the smart move.

Waiting years for your incandescents to burn out is not an advisable course of action if you're concerned about Global Warming.

She's made a mistake in that, but I'm sure someone will tell her and she'll rectify it.

Dems are open to constructive critisism and changing in response when appropriate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nonconformist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #58
117. Years?! Apparently you are not familiar with incandescents
Most of those incandescents you are so worried about will likely burn out in a month or two.

For what it's worth, I did the exact same thing when I bought my house - as lights burned out, I replaced them with compact fluorescents. The whole house was replaced in within a few months, including seldom-used lights. Incandescents have a VERY short life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #117
122. I just replaced a still-working incadescent in my parents house that was 25 years old.
Sure, that's not the average, but they can (and do) last a lot longer than 6 months.

Regardless, it's really not the point. Even if they all burnt out after 6 months right on schedule, the smart move is still to replace them with CFL's immediately.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 09:26 PM
Response to Reply #122
167. Throwing out perfectly good bulbs that still work is also wasteful of
energy and so it is inappropriate. Especially if it's only another 6 months before they go.

USE IT UP, WEAR IT OUT, make do, or do without. You know the old adage.

DEAR ELIZABETH: Replace the incandescent bulbs AS THEY WEAR OUT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #167
174. See post #66 n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Madspirit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 02:55 PM
Response to Original message
57. toilet paper
I have read, on more than one occasion, that you use more toilet paper if you install your roll so the sheets come under the roll rather than over the roll.
With that in mind, I think we should send a spy over to the Edwards new home and while Elizabeth is distracted by her lighting problems, our spy should sneak into her bathrooms and see which way she installs her toilet paper. :rofl:

This is getting Beyond the Absurd.
Madspirit
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Garbo 2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #57
81. I was wondering if someone was going to mention toilet paper.... ;-) n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OilemFirchen Donating Member (535 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #57
132. That's ridiculous
Edited on Sun Jan-28-07 06:45 PM by OilemFirchen
Over-the-roll hanging allows for the roll to spin freely, resulting in a paper pileup. Conversely, the roll's weight stops under-the-roll sheets dead in their tracks.

Moreso, my own empirical evidence shows that women almost universally mis-install toilet paper, while men rarely move the roll off the back of the toilet (which, btw, is probably - albeit accidentally - the most environmentally-friendly solution).



Edit: spelunking
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JerseygirlCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #57
150. LOL. See, I KNEW there had to be a comment on this somewhere!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #57
168. I have a playful cat. For seven years I have been forced to hide the
roll of toilet paper on top of the hutch in the bathroom so he can't see it. If I put it on the holder, I come home the next day to a completely mutilated, shredded mess all over the bathroom, in the hall, and even into the living room and bedroom.

So I don't have to deal with the over or under issue..............
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 03:00 PM
Response to Original message
59. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
phylny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 03:09 PM
Response to Original message
63. Waste not, want not.
we're doing the same thing, replacing as we go. It's easier for our pocketbooks this way, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicole Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 03:13 PM
Response to Original message
65. Maybe for comparison purposes?
If she replaces them as they burn out, she will have an idea of the difference in energy usage. If they are all replaced at once there would be no comparison.

If they would have had them installed to begin with, which would have been my choice, this would be a moot point. However the choice wasn't mine, or your's, which is an even bigger moot point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 03:17 PM
Response to Original message
66. Ok, to all those who have said that tossing working incandescents would be irresponsible/wasteful
Edited on Sun Jan-28-07 03:27 PM by Harper_is_Bush
Consider that CFL's use 75% less energy and take 450 tons of C02 out of the atmosphere.

If your incadescents last another 2/3/4 years, that's a great deal of preventable C02 production.

The cost of the CFL's was also mentioned by one poster. Consider that the cost of one CFL (about $2 at WalMart/HomeDepot) will be recouped in about 3 months.

Also mentioned was the C02 of manufacture. I have never seen it mentioned anywhere that the manufacture of a single bulb would create anything near 450 tons of C02, and actually the one poster who did mention that admitted they had no information to back it up.

EDIT TO ADD: From syncronaut seven's post above (#62):
The average lifetime savings of a 23W CF is 770 Kilowatts, it takes about 5KW to make one and put it on the shelf.

It would appear that it's far more wasteful not to switch working incandescents to CFL's.

If you're pissed off becuse you see this as an attack on Elizabeth Edwards, you shouldn't be because it is not.

If you truely don't see the overall environmental value of changing to CFL's immediately I can't really tell you anything more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #66
79. Yawn
Edited on Sun Jan-28-07 03:44 PM by HughMoran
Who gives a flying fuck about the type of bulb used - the fact that she even brought it up makes it clear to anyone who wonders why our politicians are so closed to criticism just why they don't tell us ANYTHING. Jesus fucking Christ people - get a fucking life damn it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-07-07 12:25 AM
Response to Reply #66
363. Too much logic
don't you know that being lazy, thoughtless, superficial, and burying your head in the sand about climate change is trendy right now? Hey, wastefulness is a PERSONAL CHOICE and FREEDOM issue! Using a quote from a public figure to remind us to live consciously now so that we can live at all in our limited future is being "holier than thou". Limiting our CO2s? Why, that's just trivial nonsense. Now, let's get back to talking about tasteless advertising by candy manufacturers!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 03:19 PM
Response to Original message
68. it is pure waste to throw it out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #68
73. see post #66
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lisa0825 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 03:28 PM
Response to Original message
74. No good deed goes unpunished.
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #74
78. For gawdsake, how is this "punishing" anyone? Global Warming
is the most serious issue we face.

If Elizabeth Edwards wants to post a blog entry about what they're doing about it, great, and I applaud everything they're doing.

Does that mean I shouldn't speak up if she's wrong about something on said blog?

I should just stay silent and not correct the mistake (which might be duplicated by others who might follow her lead)?
Why?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 09:32 PM
Response to Reply #78
170. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 10:00 PM
Response to Reply #170
177. You are on thin ice. How am I "ATTACKING HER PERSONALLY"?
I clearly am not.

And your comment about me having a "deal with KKKarl" is equally on thin ice.

Check yourself kestrel91316, before you wreck yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 03:40 PM
Response to Original message
77. Of for fucking christs sakes!!
This place is turning into an insane asylum. :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #77
80. My point is quite valid, and quite politely made.
Unlike many others points here.

It is not unreasonable (and SHOULDN'T cause anyone to flip out) to point out a mistake, especially if it's by someone who's not only advertising the mistake but who might become a role model for others.

thx.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #80
82. We are so fucking lucky EE is so open and naive
But idiotic criticisms like this will be sure to teach her a lesson about being open and honest.

What the fuck!!!??!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #82
84. My critisism/point is due to my concern about Global Warming..
..and my concern that our response be solid and effective. Immediate replacement of CFL's is the solid and effective response in that regard.

As for your concern about EE and your profane anger over my polite and mild critism of one specific aspect of her many efforts to address global warming (which I applaud) I think you're being overly sensitive. I also submit that you should prepare yourself for far worse than my mild and accurate critisism, because there's going to be a great deal of harsh and innaccurate critisism to come, and if this is any indication your head is set to explode when things heat up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #84
88. After all the Edwards house threads yesterday, this is piling on
..and it is NOT polite to pile on after yesterday's debacle. Shame on you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #88
90. EE reads DU, no? Perhaps she will read the information herein and change her bulbs immediately
preventing several more tons of C02 being released into the atmosphere over the next few years AND demonstrating an ability to learn and adjust.

If so, the thread will have been more than worthwhile.

If not, at least it has shown me which posters are so blinded by their candidate loyalty they are unable to differentiate a reasonable critisism from a "pile on". As well, a few DU'ers have learnt some facts about CFL's and the value of immediately incorporating them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #90
95. Well, at least there is no reasoning with you
So I don't have to bother posting any more!

There are bigger issues in the world ya know - if only the world didn't revolve around you...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #95
99. oh, the "fuck fuck fuck" guy can't reason with me. Gee, must be my fault.
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OilemFirchen Donating Member (535 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #90
138. OTOH
Perhaps you could have responded directly to her blog. Perhaps she would have taken your recommendation to heart. Perhaps you would, then, have been able to report on your mutual success.

Perhaps that wasn't your intention, eh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #138
139. Perhaps
you're implying something, and need to find the courage to come right out and say it, eh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OilemFirchen Donating Member (535 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #139
140. Not really.
I thik my implication is clear enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #140
142. No, you're implication is not clear at all
and apparently you do not have the cajones to come out with it.

I do not wish to get an account at the Edwards blog because I would rather not receive email from them and judged that my post would be read by her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tkmorris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 03:57 PM
Response to Original message
86. You have got to be.......
You have got to be the nitpickingest nitpicker to ever pick a nit. Seriously, this is absurd.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #86
89. Why is it absurd?
And if you could refrain from name-calling, that would be appreciated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostInAnomie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 04:08 PM
Response to Original message
92. Why does Elizabeth Edwards exhale so much!? Doesn't she care about all the CO2 she puts out!?
Edited on Sun Jan-28-07 04:08 PM by LostInAnomie
Congrats, this has to be the most nit-picky post I have ever witnessed on DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #92
103. You think asking people to change to CFL's is "nit-picky"?
why?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostInAnomie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #103
120. Because she is going to do it.
It's just not fast enough for your taste.

This thread is the worst type of purist bullshit, and helps to push people away from being environmentally conscious. Instead of congratulating EE ( a person respected and listened to by many) on her decision to change over, you've decided to publicly state that it is not good enough for you and admonish her.

How exactly is this puritanical behavior going to draw anyone to your cause?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #120
123. So changing to CFL's now is "purist bullshit" and "puritanical" and will
push people away from being environmnentally conscious?

Bullshit.

Reign in your anger just long enough to answer me one question, truthfully:

If you accept that our planet is in the midst of a climate crisis that requires fast and effective C02 reduction then which is the best policy/plan for individuals:
1. replace your incandescents with CFL's now
2. wait until your incandescents burn out before replacing them.

If you are being honest, #2 is your answer.

So, what's the problem? Why is that so "puritanical" in your view?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostInAnomie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #123
126. I'll give you a very good reason.
Edited on Sun Jan-28-07 05:55 PM by LostInAnomie
"A CFL saves 450lbs of C02 in it's lifetime over incandescent."

With the average life of a CFL being 5 years (avg. 40+ hours a week use) that equals 90lbs a year over incandescent. Now incandescent bulbs last no where near one full year at 40 hours a week, so maybe 5-6 months tops until she makes the switch. That would come out between 38-45lbs of savings per bulb which comparatively amounts to jack shit. She could turn the thermostat down two degrees and save far more CO2.

Look at the value of the example being set by EE. She is a person that people listen too and follow. With her announcement she has probably made thousands more interested in CFLs. These are normal people that would not be interested in throwing away good lightbulbs. Add those thousands together and you have thousands of tons saved over a year, possibly millions over a lifetime.

Now compare the value of her example to the example you and similar purists are setting. It would be a safe assessment to say that easily 90% of the responses to this thread have been negative, and these are people that tend to actually care. How many people do you think at going to be persuaded to switch by the example you have set? Is it your experience that people like to be judged and called our on their ideological purity? Because it sure as hell isn't mine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #126
127. Let me ask you a very simple question to which you can give a simple answer
is it better to change your bulbs now, or to wait until they old incandescent ones burn out?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostInAnomie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #127
131. Alright
Simple answer, it would be better if she changed her bulbs.

Longer answer, it would be better for the environmentally conscious if instead of going after people that are trying to set a good example for not doing enough, they would applaud them for doing something. It turns people off and comes off as extremely self righteous when people lambaste others for ideological purity. Ultimately, it hurts your cause because the resentment causes people to not want to change their ways.

45lbs of CO2 is not worth turning off people that more than likely want to do the right thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #131
134. Thankyou. And as a prominent figure and possible role model she should
advocate the thing that's better - changing bulbs immediately.

As well, I have applauded her for what she's done, and I'm not "going after" or "lambasting" anyone. There's a right way and a wrong way to deal with this very serious issue. Rather than being "turning off" Mrs. Edwards, I'm sure she'd be appreciative of reading the commets in this thread. Except for the needlessly angry and defensive ones, perhaps.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 12:01 AM
Response to Reply #92
252. LMFAO!!!!!!! JEFFR WHERE ARE YOU???? LOL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Little Wing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 04:08 PM
Response to Original message
93. Because it makes you cry at night
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evergreen Emerald Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 04:12 PM
Response to Original message
94. I can't take much more of this.
Seriously. Oh.My.God. When she changes her light bulbs? What has happened to DU? We used to be so reasonable in our beliefs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #94
102. "we used to be so reasonable in our beliefs"....can you explain please
what is unreasonable about advocating for the immediate changing to CFL's rather than waiting for the incandescents to burn out?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evergreen Emerald Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #102
110. Yes I can explain.
How far down the slippery slope do you want to go? For example: shouldn't we have our computers off? Why are we wasting time and valuable energy on posting on DU, or any website for that matter? What a waste of electricity and, frankly the computers cannot be good for the environment--think of the pollution it took to create them. Further, the time we are spending here, shouldn't we be out recycling or going door to door to assure that no one is misusing bulbs or energy or shouldn't we be selling our computers and giving the money to the poor?

The idea that Ms. Edwards is transitioning to environmentally friendly products should be applauded. And instead, the action is twisted to look as if she is doing something wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #110
116. She IS doing something wrong, that's the point
If she (and I believe she obviously is) is concerned about doing the best she can to reduce C02, then she should replace her lightbulbs now, not wait for them to burn out.

It's not a "slippery slope" at all. Yes, we use electricity. We are right now. I'm not saying we all need to live in the forest in a loin cloth, but we can at least develop good policy and behavior which is easily within our reach, no?

Note that Mrs. Edwards posted a blog on this yesterday. It is she, not me, who has drawn attention to her C02 reduction efforts. If she can easily adjust one aspect of that to improve them, then what the hell is wrong with that?

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evergreen Emerald Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #116
121. so are you.
glass house, meet stone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #121
124. Yes, I am producing C02. The thing is I don't have a blog where...
I'm telling people what I am doing to reduce C02, and I'm not a possible future first lady.

If I did have a blog of that nature, and especially if I was as public a figure as that, I would be THANKFUL to have someone point out an aspect of my C02 reducing behavior I've publically shared on my blog which could use improvement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Goblinmonger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #124
147. You don't have a blog
but you are posting on a public forum. Why doesn't that hold you up to those really high standards? Are you a vegetarian? Do you wear leather? Have you ever shopped at walmart? Amazon.com? Where do we stop holding people up to impossible litmus tests for being a liberal?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #147
151. I am not applying a "litmus test", impossible or otherwise
what are you talking about?

What, exactly, have I said that constitutes a litmus test?

And how, exactly, is it "impossible" to replace incandescents with CFL's right away instead of waiting for them to burn out?

Elizabeth Edwards is a high profile person. Her blog entries could become national news. Therefore, I'm interested in seeing them as accurate as possible, as I'm quite sure she also is.

thx.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Goblinmonger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #151
152. Of course you are
She said she wants to move to CFLs. She will replace them as her lights burn out. That seems to be a good role model for the average person who cannot afford to buy CFLs for their entire home at one time. If she said she was doing it in one shot, the average person might look at that and say fuck it. That's how it might be "impossible." Believe it or not, there are A LOT of people out there without the funds to do it all at one shot. Hate to shock you.

But my point is that you don't like her timeline so you condemn her. In a public forum. Yet you are wasting more energy on your computer than she is with her old bulbs. Why don't you condemn her for posting it on a blog which calls for more emissions to be wasted every time it is read? Perhaps should could walk across the country and tell everyone she meets that they should change?

How is her blog not accurate? You don't like the timeline, but the rest of her information you have said you agree with.

Isn't is OK to just say that someone doing something that is a move in the right direction a good thing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 09:03 PM
Response to Reply #152
155. I have not condemned her, and I'm not applying a litmus test.
Period.

If I were applying a limus test, would there not be some item that is granted/denied if the test were passed/failed respectively?

Perhaps you are falsely seeing this as an attack on the Edwards Presidential run. That might explain the false characterization of what I've done in this thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Goblinmonger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 09:11 PM
Response to Reply #155
159. Define "condemned"
because it seems pretty clear to a lot of people on here that you are doing something pretty damn close to condemning her.

Litmus test: She isn't changing bulbs on your timeline--you are denying her your support for her changing to CFLs. Seems to meet your criterian

I don't think you are attaching the presidential run. I think you are incapable of applauding someone's efforts if they do not meet your goals or timeline. Why isn't this a good move as a role model for those that can't afford to replace all at once?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #159
164. "you are denying her your support"...how am I doing that?
Maybe you should stop reaching and reading into what I've posted here.

Consider that yesterdays exchanges, which I largely missed out on, might be coloring your view of this topic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Goblinmonger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 09:26 PM
Response to Reply #164
166. You are not supporting her move
to CFLs on her timeline. You refuse to admit that there is good to her plan, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #166
172. "her timeline" has nothing to do with it. I'm interested in best practice...
as I'm quite sure she is too.

Maybe you should support her in that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Goblinmonger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #172
178. Her timeline has everything to do with it for you
She said she will switch. You agree with that. She said she will switch when bulbs burn out. You have taken GREAT issue with that. How is that not about the timeline?

What about her being a role model for those people that can't afford to replace all at once. My wife is an attorney and I am a teacher with a masters so we are doing alright. We would feel the pain of having to switch all of our light bulbs to CFL at the same time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #178
181. No, because it's not about her. It's about what's best for the earth. Period, n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Goblinmonger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #181
183. Unplug your computer
and stop posting on the internet because it's not about what is best for you, it is about what is best for the earth. Period. If you can't live up to that standard while you post on a public internet forum, how can you stand the hypocrisy of requiring Mrs. Edwards to the same standard? She is trying and she is making steps in the right direction. The same steps that would be able to be undertaken by those that look up to her. I applaud her. Electronically. And without her ever knowing about it. But still.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #183
185. So because I use fossil fuels I have no right to talk about the issue?
Is that your point?

What's ironic is you flame-bait me below as making "republican talking points". Pathetic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Goblinmonger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #185
189. Yes.
You said that it is ONLY about what is best for the earth. PERIOD. Which means, clearly, that decisions should be made based only on what is best for the earth. How many pounds of emissions do you think you cranked out with your last post? How many pounds of emissions have you created on this thread alone? More or less than one of the evil light bulbs that will not be changed to CFLs until it burns out? Two? Probably a hell of a lot more. If you are going to hold people to the standard that they do what is best for the earth PERIOD, then, yes, you have to hold yourself to the same standard or you are a hypocrit. I think that is pretty clear.

And you are doing the same thing that republicans are doing in attacking Edwards. "Ooooh, Edwards claims to like the environment but look at his house. Look at his light bulbs. It's all a hoax to get you to vote for him. Vote for our fuckwit candidate instead." Don't fall for it. Edwards is a good man. He cares about the environment. He cares about average Americans. Give him a break. Especially when you give yourself that same break to yourself by allowing yourself to spew pounds of emissions into the air while posting about doing what is best for the earth on the internet. Period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #189
195. In that case I can talk, because I'm carbon neutral. thx.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Goblinmonger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 10:32 PM
Response to Reply #195
197. Really?
Are you riding your bike to power your computer? Clearly you must create emissions by your life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #197
198. Are you not aware of cabon offsets? Check it out:
http://www.nativeenergy.com/Splash/ClimateCrisis/ClimateCrisis.html?ClimateCrisis

Give up a night out once a month and offset your carbon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Goblinmonger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 10:51 PM
Response to Reply #198
203. So if Edwards gave up a day's salary
every year, he would be fine.

I get the point of the program, but it kinda seems like "do whatever you want, pony up some ching, and all is well with the environment." Maybe I'm too cynical of a son-of-bitch (well, no maybe about it, but I meant on this particular subject).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #203
207. You critisized me, and I told you what carbon offsets, which you were seemingly unaware of
What Edwards does is irrelavent to our exchange.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Goblinmonger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #207
209. I was unaware
and I read what you provided me. After some more time to think about it, my initial thoughts about it being kind of a cheap way out still stick in my mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #209
218. What is some "kind of cheap way out"? Buying carbon offsets?
Listen friend, you need to back up and get informed. Don't allow your knee-jerk reaction to the Edwards postings of the last couple of days turn you into a bull in a china shop.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Goblinmonger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 11:21 PM
Response to Reply #218
221. Listen friend
you need to back off the cliches. I frickin admitted that I hadn't put a lot of thought into it and I was giving you my first impression. I wasn't claiming that my statement of carbon offsets was the gospel truth.

My point is, if I am some jizzbag that drives a hummer and basically leaves several spotlights on my house 24/7, I could fork over some cash and claim that I was carbon neutral. Doesn't change the fact that my practices are horrible, now does it? That is my first reaction to the program. I will continue to think about it. Seems like a good point to me at the moment, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evergreen Emerald Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #189
205. well said goblinmonger
That is exactly the point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Goblinmonger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 11:23 PM
Response to Reply #205
222. Thanks
It does help to know that I am not just on my own in this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 11:25 PM
Response to Reply #222
224. What are you "in" though? I still don't know what your objection to me or my post is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Goblinmonger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #224
228. I think I have been pretty clear.
1. You are criticizing Mrs. Edwards for something that she is trying to do to help the environment just because of her timeline.
2. You have said that it is all about what is best for the earth PERIOD. Yet you just claim that your carbon offsets are enough for you to be able to post on the internet on an emissions-creating computer even though that is not what is best for the earth. Not having the computer would be the best for the earth. Your hypocritical stance on this drives me crazy.
3. You are falling into the trap of criticizing a democratic candidate for spurious reasons which, at least in some regard, seems to fall into the trap the republicans want you to fall into. I am not saying you have to lockstep behind Edwards, but this level of scrutiny (when you don't hold yourself to the same level only adds to it) is just ridiculous.
4. You have never addressed my argument that she is being a role model to those people in the world that would have no prayer of changing all their lightbulbs to CFLs all at one shot. She is showing the average american what they can do and a cost-reasonable way to do it. If she came out and said "Change all your lightbulbs right now. There is no other way to do it." That would turn most people off because they couldn't swing the finances and they would see it as too extreme. I say she is getting more converts with her method than you would with yours.

Other than that I have no problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 11:46 PM
Response to Reply #228
233. I'm sorry. I read #1, recognized a lie, and left the rest.unread
I know that's rude, but I'm afraid you and I will have to agree to disagree and move on. I have nothing else to say to you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Goblinmonger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 11:59 PM
Response to Reply #233
249. Pretty big claim to call someone a liar.
Here is what you said in your OP

In regard to her claim that she would replace burned out lightbulbs with CFLs:
I applaud the rest of that paragraph on CFL's...well written and informative. This opening line doesn't sit well with me though. Why on earth would they wait to do the replacement? Ms Edwards should sacrafice that $.50 bulb to help with C02 output right now,


In regard to her decision to integrate geothermal
This should not be delayed any longer. If I had the money, I would do geo-thermal tomorrow.


That's it. That's what you complain about in the OP. Please explain to me how you are not criticizing her for her timeline. You seem to be applauding her decision to go with CFLs and geothermal but argue that it should be done now and not in the near future. Seriously, how is that NOT about the timeline. There may be a liar here, but I don't think it is I. You seem to have some knee-jerk reaction to the word "timeline" but that is what the OP complains about loud and clear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #94
107. If you think back to 2000, Al Gore wasn't pure enough either.
And many still haven't learned anything from that experience.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChiciB1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 04:12 PM
Response to Original message
96. Just A Small Suggestion Here.... And Then I'm NOT Responding To
one more of these asinine threads, because this stuff is just getting WAAAAAAYYYYY out of hand!

To all of you defending Edwards.... JUST STOP! If these posts don't get any attention perhaps they will GO AWAY!

My goodness, I've never seen such childish stuff! I'm one of his supporters, but I really think it's COMPLETELY useless trying to keep on arguing with those that keep harping on this HOUSE business!

And NOW, I will not reply to another one of these things.... Edwards or any other candidate! As one other said here... this IS the nit pickiest of all nit picks, or something like that!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #96
100. No, this is NOT nit-picking. Changing CFL's prior to your incandescents burning out
is the correct move for people concerned about global warming.

Anyone claiming to be an ally of the Edwards should not object to me taking this opportunity (ie. THE DAY AFTER HER BLOG POST ON THE MATTER) to offer the correction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shakespeare Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 04:15 PM
Response to Original message
97. This is the stupidest fucking shit I've ever seen in my life.
Stupidest fucking OP, stupidest fucking flame trend--just all-around fucking stupid.

Lunacy. Idiocy.

:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #97
101. Can you please be specific? Do you believe immediate replacement of incandescents with CFL's is
stupid?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Madspirit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #101
105. stupid and stupid what is stupid
I know I can't speak for Shakespeare above but maybe what they think is stupid is that in this world falling down around our frakking ears, in this world of People Dying Right This Very Minute, in this world of Walking Wounded, you seem oddly obsessed with when Mrs. Edwards changes her godfuckingdamn light bulbs.
Madspirit
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #105
108. I am not "obsessed with when Mrs. Edwards changes her....light bulbs"
You are extremely angry for some reason, and maybe that's blinding you to the fact that Global Warming is already, and is poised to, cause the world to "fall down around our frakking ears" moreso than all other things.

Mrs. Edwards - a respected person with a blog that will be widely read - posted a blog entry yesterday which is on the whole admirable and worthy of applause.
However, her decision to wait until her incandescent bulbs burn out is the wrong one for someone concerned about taking what actions they can against Global Warming. Therefore, far from being "stupid", my point is worthy and will surely be appreciated by Elizabeth Edwards (if she can read around all of the anger and knee-jerk attacks this thread has generated).

I have no doubt she wants to make the right decisions and be the best role model for others on this issue as she can be. Do you doubt that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Puglover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #97
344. Spoken just like the Bard.
Truly, I'm almost embarrassed for the OP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 04:42 PM
Response to Original message
109. How many candidates' wives does it take to change a light bulb?
Yes, my question is as asinine as the one in your OP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #109
113. What is "asinine" about it?
If Elizabeth Edwards is doing something that is

A. Not producing the best results in C02 reduction and...
B. Is easily rectified

then why should I not inform her so she can make a correction?

What would you say to her if she changed her mind and decided to change all of her light bulbs right now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mick Knox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 04:44 PM
Response to Original message
111. This is lame and irrelevent n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 04:46 PM
Response to Original message
112. You're right
People who can afford it should do more, I don't care who they are. I would love to see EVERY Democrat with more than a million in assets to become energy independent TODAY. Lead by example for one goddamned time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #112
119. Thankyou. People are interpreting this thread incorrectly....
it's not an attack on EE.

She WANTS to do what she can to reduce her C02 output.

Pointing out that replacing her incandescents now instead of waiting for them to burn out is the smarter move for C02 reduction is a valuable thing, considering that her desire is to reduce her C02 output AND be an example to others (evidenced by her making a blog entry advocating for C02 reduction).

Doing it is not all that expensive, and the bulbs pay for themselves in just a few months.

Now the geo-thermal thing, THAT'S more expensive! I'm glad to hear they're talking about doing it, and look forward to hearing about it when it happens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 06:16 PM
Response to Original message
128. That's what I do
They already paid for the other bulbs...and we encourage use of what we already paid for...why criticize this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #128
129. "we encourage use of what we already paid for.."
Who is "we"?

If your concern is reduction of GHG then the best move is to switch your incandescents for CFL's now.

It's that simple.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #129
130. "We" is my me and my family
I work fucking hard for my money.
I am not going to throw away perfectly good bulbs to satisfy anyones ignorant litmus test. I am replacing as they burn out.
Period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #130
133. You are clearly confused about a variety of things.
First, the money you "work hard for" and don't want to "throw away".
The $.50 you spent on your incandescent bulb will be recouped in about a month or less. That's replacing ONE bulb.

Second, regarding your accusation of an "ignorant litmus test", i have no place said that Edwards should not run becuase his wife hasn't replaced the bulbs. This issue is bigger

If you don't want to do the simple steps that you can do as best as you can do them to reduce your C02 emissions then that's your fucking business. If Mrs. Edwards, a possible future first lady, wants to make a public blog entry about what her family is doing to reduce GHG and there is room for simple yet significant improvement, I'm speaking out.

If you or anyone else doesn't like it, to bad. But do not show up here and misrepresent/lie about what I've done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrSlayer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 06:59 PM
Response to Original message
136. It's an obvious shot at Al Gore.
She's thumbing her nose at him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OilemFirchen Donating Member (535 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 07:00 PM
Response to Original message
137. Not good enuf.
I blinded myself so as to obviate the need for light entirely. Next up is an extremity-ectomy and out goes the goddamned furnace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 07:21 PM
Response to Original message
141. It seems so odd that someone imagines his ability so rare he can
go to a Democratic message board, and use one Democratic concern to try to savage a Democrat for whom Democrats have the highest regard.

Damned peculiar, isn't it? Very silly at the core.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #141
143. "savage"?
You have a knack for the melodramatic.

How about this:

It seems odd that a someone (you, actually) would go on a Democratic message board and try to savage another poster for doing nothing more than pointing out an innaccuracy by another Democrat regarding an issue near and dear to Democrats.

Damned peculiar.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Feron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 07:47 PM
Response to Original message
144. Oh For Fuck's Sake...
The woman is trying to raise awareness about the issue. She isn't putting herself on a pedestal declaring herself the Green Goddess.

Throwing out working lightbulbs IS wasteful no matter how you try to spin it. Honestly you'll do a better sell advocating a replace-as-regular-bulbs-burn-out schtick rather than shoving a CFL up someone's ass.

Most people will only be interested in CFLs because they last longer and save on the electric bill. They don't give a shit about the carbon jargon you rattle off in your post.

If I'm tainted because I haven't replaced all of my bulbs, then so be it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #144
145. "Throwing out working lightbulbs IS wasteful no matter how you try to spin it."
How do you figure?

1. You save money.
2. You reduce C02.
3. You save money.

How exactly is it wasteful?

And please don't act like I'm condemning Elizabeth Edwards, because I'm not. Never have. There's a bit of a false bandwagon happening in this topic that's accusing me of attacking/savaging her and/or her husband John.

I just believe that someone who is advocating action and has a high profile as she does should advocate the correct action, and if reducing C02 output to fight Global Warming is a persons concern then replacing light bulbs now is the correct action.

I'm quite sure Elizabeth Edwards would not be the least bit insulted or offended by my comments. Although I have no desire to do it, it looks like I'll have to sign up for her blog and get her opinion on it.

And I think you couldn't be more wrong to say that people don't care about the "carbon jargon". Most people are quite aware that Global Warming is a serious problem, and reducing C02 is the way to tackle it. And they do care.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Madspirit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 08:14 PM
Response to Reply #144
146. Thank-you Feron!
Edited on Sun Jan-28-07 08:15 PM by Madspirit
**Feron...The woman is trying to raise awareness about the issue. She isn't putting herself on a pedestal declaring herself the Green Goddess.**


Thank-you, thank-you, thank-you.

...and I do give a shit about the environment but this is picayune beyond belief.

Madspirit
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JerseygirlCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 08:47 PM
Response to Original message
148. Oh good grief
Did I miss the post critiquing their choice of toilet paper, too?

Can't we focus on the real issues instead of this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 08:59 PM
Response to Reply #148
153. Global Warming is a real issue.
Sorry if you don't think so.

Be clear, I am not condemning anyone or implying that anyone should not be running or applying a litmus test. I saw a prominent US citizen advertise what she is doing to help fight global warming and I disagree with one small part of it, and am mentioning it.

How about you sign onto Elizabeth Edwards blog and post the same thing? Ask her why she's wasting time posting about it when there are "real issues instead". I'll look for that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JerseygirlCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #153
154. Never said global warming isn't a real issue
the light-bulb habits of a particular citizen are not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 09:09 PM
Response to Reply #154
156. Sometimes they are though:
If that person is prominent (ie. a possible future First Lady) and they are putting out the information regarding their "light-bulb habits" in a public forum with the obvious intent of demonstrating/educating others regarding action to reduce GHG, then they are worth responding to.

It is not as much of an issue to me as it is to others who've objected to my observation and/or think I'm "savaging" or attacking Mrs. Edwards. Regardless of that, when it comes to correct education and setting an example in global warming action it's always worth open discussion and pointing out items needing improvement.

I have little doubt Mrs. Edwards would have no issue with anything I've written in this topic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JerseygirlCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 09:10 PM
Response to Reply #156
158. Discussion and education are good
It's the idea that that's best done through finger-pointing at someone trying to do better that irks me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #158
160. It is your assessment, one that I don't agree with.
I just re-read my OP, and don't see it as "finger-pointing" at all.

Maybe you're "irked" because you ran the gamut of more condemning/finger-pointingish topics yesterday and are projecting some of that irk onto this topic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JerseygirlCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 09:20 PM
Response to Reply #160
165. Entirely possible
And without that deluge, might have interpreted your post differently.

For that, I apologize.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #165
169. Gratefully accepted, thank you.
I sensed this morning that the Edwards house was an issue of some controversy, and perhaps should have avoided it today, but after reading Elizabeth's blog item (which I thought was great) this was the only thing that stood out to me and I thought it was worth mentioning, especially given the attention she commands. In hindsight it might have been better to avoid the topic for a while, but I am dedicated to saving this planet and cannot let an opportunity to advocate for better C02 reduction pass me by.

I have to admit, I'm a little upset and resentful of some DU'ers calling me a "purist" or "puritanical" who will drive people into not making changes to reduce C02. I think they're full of shit, firstly, but I'm bothered that they can't recognize legitimate comment and react with a "how dare you correct the wife of the candidate I support" intollerance and angry condemnation towards me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JerseygirlCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #169
171. I'm not a particular supporter or detractor of most anyone
seen to be running now. I've got time to make up my mind.

But yes, it seems there's been a awful lot of righteous indignation at the Edwardses and it seemed to be getting a bit much to me.

I applaud your actions and concerns on behalf of the planet. We'd do better if we all had your dedication to the issue. And education is absolutely the key.

But it also seems people are already choosing up sides and attacking others -- which I think is counter-productive at this point. I'm sorry I mistook your post as more of that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1932 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 09:10 PM
Response to Original message
157. Because the energy it consumes to make them is more than the energy consumed
to burn the old ones down. So the best thing to do is wait til your current ones burn out.

No?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 09:13 PM
Response to Reply #157
162. No, not true. See post #66. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1932 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #162
202. That's not proof.
Edited on Sun Jan-28-07 10:49 PM by 1932
And you're not taking into account the energy and resources required to make the new bulbs and the energy and resources wasted by throwing out the old bulbs. And where'd you get 2.75 years?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 10:51 PM
Response to Reply #202
204. I didn't claim it was....but it's common sense really...
that the production of a CFL does not produce as much C02 as it saves compared to an incandescent.

What you're suggesting is that there's no benifit to switching because the manufacture of the bulbs offsets any benifit to them over incandescent.

That reeks like a global warming denial talking point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1932 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 10:58 PM
Response to Reply #204
206. Do you think elves make the CFL bulbs? It takes energy and raw materials to
make them.

And your "common sense" isn't taking that into account.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 11:02 PM
Response to Reply #206
211. Save your sarcasm, and see post #66.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 09:13 PM
Response to Original message
161. How do you know FOR A FACT that they haven't bought energy offsets??
That's right. You don't. You couldn't possibly know one way or the other. But you sure are quick to judge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #161
163. That's right, I don't. Elizabeth Edwards surely would have mentioned it in her blog post though
if they had, no?

And I didn't "judge". Consider that you are perhaps being overly sensitive. All I said is they "should" buy them, and mentioned that I have. I will contend that everyone should buy them, whether they're already buying them or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #163
173. It is entirely possible that they have bought energy offsets and she hasn't
thought to post it.

Why don't you contact her directly and suggest it?

I know. Because you'd rather spend hours dissing her here............
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #173
176. I have not "dissed" Elizabeth Edwards. Quite the contrary,
I have applauded her eforts to fight global warming.

It's hard to know what to say to you and others who show up and go on the attack against me with a ream of assumptions.

I have already said they may have bought offsets. If so, great. If not, and they decide to do so, great. If they have not and decide not to, too bad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 09:45 PM
Response to Original message
175. Is this satire?
Edited on Sun Jan-28-07 10:09 PM by Marie26
Thanks for PM'ing me the definition of satire, I had no idea what the word meant! (Now, that's sarcasm). If this isn't a satire of the nit-picky, self-righteous way Dems will attack their own candidates, then it's just a really, really dumb post. Maybe we should count all the lights in the background during the candidate's speeches & then flagellate them accordingly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Goblinmonger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #175
184. I wish.
At least the republican talking points make there way everywhere these days.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #184
187. "Republican talking point" = becuse you use fossil fuel you can't talk about the issue of global
Edited on Sun Jan-28-07 10:23 PM by Harper_is_Bush
warming.

Surprise, you made that point above in post 183!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Goblinmonger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #187
192. Yeah, I answered you above, too.
You hold people to standards that you, yourself, are not willing to conform to. I might have a problem with keeping that straight in my head. Apparently you don't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #192
199. Please see post 195 and 198. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neshanic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 10:18 PM
Response to Original message
186. I think that when installed, because of the price, most electricians
just put bulbs in there, instead of the ultimate product, because of the chance of them being busted on the job.

I think she and her electricians deserve some slack on that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #186
188. Ok, but that has nothing to do with my point, which is
that it's better to replace incandescents with CFL's now rather than to wait for them to burn out.

That's basically all I'm saying, and I direct it to E.Edwards only because she's a prominent and possibly influencial figure who has a personal blog indicating she's doing something different than that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neshanic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #188
191. Believe me, I am in your camp. One day long bulb change would do it,
considering the staggeringly crass size of the edifice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NastyRiffraff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 10:24 PM
Response to Original message
190. Hey, I know!
Let's just demand that all candidates and their spouses give up all electricity, and driving. No public transportation, either, since it, too, pollutes. Walk!!

And no shopping at ANY big-box store, no fast food, learn to grow veggies and fruits, and can them. Oh, and we'll have to check everything they wear, use around the house...no chemicals!! All laundry detergents, cleaning products, etc. have to be biodegradable!

No doctors who prescribe medications that use chemicals of any kind. Only herbs are allowed. In fact, no going to a hospital...many use chemical-based products, and God only knows how they prepare food!

Oh, and houses can be 2500 sq.ft., max. After all, if you burn wood for heat and light, you don't want a lot of space.

(BTW, this IS satire....somehow I feel the need to make that clear around here)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neshanic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #190
193. Well considering the candidates do not drive themselves, or take
public transportation, or do any of the myriad of things that us do, I suppose the dinners can be served late on a Sterno.

Maybe that would do it.

Wait! A candidate camping trip! They all go. That would be perfect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #190
194. Thankyou for yet another sarcastic and misleading post.
We all need to use fossil fuels. Note that the tact you've taken is one commonly taken by those looking to mock any action on global warming, which I'm sure wasn't your intent.

I am making one main point about Elizabeth Edwards blog entry - that if C02 reduction is our true desire then immediate CFL usage (switching out working incandescents) is the way to go.

And btw, your pose was not satire, it was sarcasm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neshanic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #194
201. I really do agree with you. I just was at an APS meeting about the
changeout of lights. APS has donated thousands of the bulbs, and at the meeting they had about a thousand people there. The centerpieces on the tables were bouquets of fixtures that you could pluck out and take. Very cool.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 10:41 PM
Response to Original message
200. ONE OF MANY CARBON OFFSET SITES:
http://www.nativeenergy.com/Splash/ClimateCrisis/ClimateCrisis.html?ClimateCrisis

It's not out of reach of middle-class America to offset the excess carbon inevitable in modern life. Please consider doing so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 10:59 PM
Response to Original message
208. Um, that's what we are doing
We bought several and will be replacing them as our bulbs burn out.
I guess that throwing away working bulbs seems wasteful, even if perhaps it really does save energy when you work it out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #208
215. May I suggest you replace them before they burn out...
on balance, it's a better move in the fight against global warming.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 11:02 PM
Response to Original message
210. I'd Swear, Some Of You Make It Sound Like You Even Capture The Methane Of Your Own Flatulance And
recycle it into usable energy or somethin.

Cracks me up so much. It really does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neshanic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #210
212. Likewise, You slay me, you really do. But do try it sometime, we have Methane
generation parties all the time at the commune here in the wash out by Tucson.

We are working on getting the Javelina to help. Gassy lil' guys.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 11:06 PM
Response to Reply #210
213. And I'd swear, to some people global warming is just a big joke..not worthy of
serious consideration.

Doesn't crack me up. Not at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #213
214. So How's That Computer Of Yours Doin. Runnin On Solar Power I Hope?
Please tell me it does; lest you be damned to hell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #214
216. What is your point?
Should I stay silent about something I feel is incorrect on Elizabeth Edwards blog because I use fossil fuels?

Is that it?

The fact that I buy carbon offsets is irrelavent.

More important is the question of why are you slinging a typical global warming denial talking point at me.

Do tell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #216
217. The Point's Pretty Obvious There, Buddy.
Edited on Sun Jan-28-07 11:16 PM by OPERATIONMINDCRIME
Also don't know what the fuck typical global warming denial talking point you're talking about either.

I believe every bit that global warming is a serious fucking problem. Has nothing to do with my challenging the hypocrisy of your premise though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 11:18 PM
Response to Reply #217
220. Let me explain it again. Typical global warming denial talking point is:
"you use fossil fuels so you have no right to talk about global warming and what needs to be done".

That's basically what you just did to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 11:23 PM
Response to Reply #220
223. Nope.
Edited on Sun Jan-28-07 11:24 PM by OPERATIONMINDCRIME
I implied no such thing.

And I find it to be an AMAZINGLY arrogant premise you are putting forth that Elizabeth Edwards needs you to fuckin preach to her about the impacts of global warming.

Do you SERIOUSLY think she doesn't know? According to your statement above, the only reason you are posting this thread is under the premise that you wanted to talk to her about global warming and what needs to be done. You must think she doesn't know. I consider that to be amazingly arrogant in its premise, with all due respect.

The fact is, they have and will continue to do plenty to do their part towards the problem, just like you. My criticism is that you are demanding nothing short of PERFECTION from them, when you haven't even demanded the same from your goddamn self.

That's my issue, if I may be so blunt. Had absosmurfly nothing to do with any goddamn global warming denial blah blah, and all to do with you acting as if you had a leg to stand on in demanding their green perfection.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #223
225. I did not put forth the premise that Elizabeth Edwards needs me to "preach" to her about global warm
ing.

Why are you attacking me and making something out of nothing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neshanic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #223
226. No one demanded perfection from them. They made choices.
Choices that at face value, fly in the face of the little oath for energy that they want you to take.

They had a army of people that could of and would of helped them with environmental advice to have the house they want, yet not loose any liveability in it because of how it was designed.

He is candidate with the big energy front page on his site. Don't blame us for pointing out some descrepancies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 11:36 PM
Response to Reply #226
229. To Each Their Own Perception. I See Nothing Short Of Some Who Refuse To Be Satisfied With Anything,
and must constantly preach no matter how much someone does, since it never will be good enough, all the while not taking extra steps themselves. Makes me laugh really.

Until you and the other dump your computers, I stand firm on my premise that neither of you have the right to admonish the Edwards for the things they have not yet done, when they've already done plenty. Unless you are serious enough about the problem to be as perfect as YOU can towards it, then I fail to see how you have any legitimate right to judge or admonish ANYONE else who is also doing what they can and working towards doing even more.

Elizabeth Edwards is the last goddamn person that should be the focus of global warming criticism right now. Choosing her as a target for some self-righteous rant is perplexing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neshanic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 11:53 PM
Response to Reply #229
236. Oh, I see, the little master checklist of what a person wanting MY vote
has done to be compared with a list I must keep for myself.

"I stand firm on my premise that neither of you have the right to admonish the Edwards for the things they have not yet done, when they've already done plenty."

Oh he's been busy, and not just with the architect of that monstrosity.

How does the list work? I check off his support for the war, and an Iran foray on my list, then he checks off his ignoring the basic human rights support for a gay person? Is it like that?

You seem to forget he is looking for a job. The job of running this country. We do not have rights to admonish? Where is that? Is that on the Edwards site?

The last time I looked, him wanting the job, meant US letting him have it by our vote, and OUR review of what he has done to deserve it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 12:01 AM
Response to Reply #236
250. No More Food For You.
Goodnight now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 11:38 PM
Response to Reply #226
230. I have precious few allies in this topic, but please don't
make this about the house.

The main thrust of the topic is to point out that Elizabeth Edwards blogged about waiting for incandescents to burn out before changing to CFL's, and from a standpoint of fighting global warming that is not the preferred plan of action.

I realize the house has been an issue of contention, and this topic sorta spawned from that whole thing, but this thread is not about the house and although I of course don't dictate what you or anyone else can do I'd be truely joyous if the house were left out of this topic. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neshanic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #214
219. No, Ready Kilowatt from Palo Verde Nuclear is my source.
But I do/did accomplish the following.

All my bulbs have been changed out.

The heat pump/air conditioner does not get turned in the winter...Phoenix you know.

The water heater is turned off on April 1st, and is not turned back on until Halloween, and when it is on, it is weekends only. The water that comes from the tap is warm enough to shower in very comfortably during that time.

I do not use my Dryer.

I do not use my Dishwasher.

In the summer the west windows get foam panels, and on the outside they have sun shade screens.

I live in an apartment, so if you can suggest more, I would be happy to hear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShaneGR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 11:30 PM
Response to Original message
227. What is with peoples infatuation with the Edwards home?
Seriously, I we going to see threads complaining about the Edwards choice of toilet, perhaps its using too much water when it flushes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 11:43 PM
Response to Reply #227
231. This thread is not about the Edwards home, nor is it complaining about choice of toilet...
it only points out - in the interest of fighting Global Warming - that Elizabeth Edward's blog about C02 reduction action describes replacing incandescent bulbs only after they burn out, which is not the best course of action if the goal is reducing GHG that cause Global Warming.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RetroLounge Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 11:46 PM
Response to Original message
232. Dumbest. Fucking. Post. Ever.
:eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes:
:eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes:
:eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes:
:eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes:
:eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes:
:eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes:

RL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 11:52 PM
Response to Reply #232
235. I would be interested to know why you think that, but first realize...
1. This is not an attack on Elizabeth Edwards.

2. I am not critisizing the Edwards house.

3. Changing incandescents for CFL's now (regardless of the incadescent still working) is the preferred method of fighting global warming through C02 reduction in regards to home lighting.

4. Elizabeth Edwards is; as any intelligent and reasonable person would be, grateful for constructive comments about her blog posting.

thx
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RetroLounge Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 11:55 PM
Response to Reply #235
241. Yawn...
How's the lightbulb lobby doing up in Canada?

You're not voting for Edwards no matter what, right?

People are dying in Iraq and you're posting about FUCKING LIGHT BULBS???

DUMBEST. POST. EVER.

But I repeat myself...

RL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 11:58 PM
Response to Reply #241
248. Is Iraq more important to you than Global Warming? In terms of human suffering...
..which do you think will come out the winner, so to speak?

Do me a favor, don't abuse the topic and the discussion board with anymore posts dedicated to nothing but insults and attacks. thx.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RetroLounge Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 12:06 AM
Response to Reply #248
257. Do me a favor.
Don't ask for any favors. You won't get any.

_!_

RL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 01:34 AM
Response to Reply #257
290. Instead of harassing me, you could always just
buzz off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neshanic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 11:54 PM
Response to Reply #232
239. Add. Something. Usefull. Since. You. Posted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RetroLounge Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 11:57 PM
Response to Reply #239
245. Not surprised to see you as the SOLE DEFENDER.
Since you have been bashing Edward's house in every other thread.

So I vote your post the 2nd Dumbest Post ever.

Congratulations. :eyes:

RL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neshanic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 11:58 PM
Response to Reply #245
246. Thank you, my Republican masters will award a bonus for this.
Edited on Mon Jan-29-07 12:01 AM by Neshanic
Is this a certificate or trophy? please let me know as I have plans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 12:08 AM
Response to Reply #232
259. The competition for that honor is intense,
but I think you're right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neshanic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 12:14 AM
Response to Reply #259
263. Right that I should get a certificate of some type, or on the topic?
Please say award, my self esteem is very low now that I am second stupidest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 12:36 AM
Response to Reply #232
274. Sweet!
I could have saved on typing if I had thought of you way of putting things!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 01:32 AM
Response to Reply #274
289. You are far departed from "saving on typing" in this topic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnceUponTimeOnTheNet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 11:48 PM
Response to Original message
234. another for ignore, to join the other ignored edwards threads.nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 11:54 PM
Response to Reply #234
238. You act too hasty my friend! This topic contains valuable life-saving information!!!
please, puruse at leisure!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnceUponTimeOnTheNet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 08:19 PM
Response to Reply #238
309. This Morning I saw a Group of Mayors meet on Cspan
Talking about light bulbs. The guy that did An Inconvenient Truth was there speaking.

This must be what this thread is about. I've had what we call Dairy Queen light bulbs, in our light sprockets for over a year now.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neshanic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 11:56 PM
Response to Reply #234
243. Then ignore it. Is there an announce feature now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 11:53 PM
Response to Original message
237. I was so certain this was satire when I first read it
Edited on Sun Jan-28-07 11:55 PM by jpgray
Light bulbs!?!!

:o

Everyone on DU agrees that living in excess is irresponsible, and everyone agrees that fighting for the poor is good and more admirable than doing nothing, even if it is not "enough" in the view of some. So why are we arguing about this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 11:55 PM
Response to Reply #237
242. What is it you think the argument is about in this topic? I suspect you've missed something...
by your description of:
"Everyone on DU agrees that living in excess is irresponsible, and everyone agrees that doing something for the poor is better than doing nothing, even if it is not "enough" in the view of some. So why are we arguing about this?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 11:58 PM
Response to Reply #242
247. I don't think so
All these threads imply that the Edwards family leads an irresponsible overly-luxurious lifestyle. The reason it is brought up in his case and not in the case of any other candidate is his work for the poor, no? People believe these two are somehow contradictory. And yet everybody agrees with the above--one can wish he lived more responsibly while still admiring his focus on poverty. I can do that with Ted Kennedy (compound with yachts / minimum wage hikes), or with FDR (palatial estates / lifting millions out of poverty). Why is it so particular with Edwards?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 12:01 AM
Response to Reply #247
251. No, this thread is not commenting in any way on the Edwards "overly-luxurious" lifestyle.
Please do not make false claims.

This thread is very specifically about me objecting to one specific global warming fight tactic described by Elizabeth Edwards in her blog.

Clear?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 12:02 AM
Response to Reply #251
253. And other candidates? Have you started threads about them?
Why or why not?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neshanic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 12:03 AM
Response to Reply #253
254. I suppose because the others have better advisors with brains.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 12:05 AM
Response to Reply #254
255. Nonsense--I don't think I remember a single "Kerry is living irresponsibly!" thread
Though clearly he was. Why is it so particular with Edwards?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neshanic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 12:09 AM
Response to Reply #255
260. How so? Hookers? If you need a recap, just read ....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 12:05 AM
Response to Reply #253
256. You are not being honest with me..not reading and responding directly to my words..so I will bid you
farewell.
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 12:07 AM
Response to Reply #256
258. It's a simple question--why is this focus so particularly on Edwards?
If it's because of his spotlight on poverty as an issue, then I think it's silly. DUers don't admire excess and wish those living overly luxurious lifestyles would change, but they do admire fighting for poverty, even if the person in question doesn't fight "enough" in the view of some. I don't imagine anyone disagrees with that, so why is this a huge issue?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neshanic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 12:12 AM
Response to Reply #258
261. It's not about that. Go to his site now and see what is on the screen.
Then come back and argue that his home/complex is s sensitive study in site planning that required the clear cutting of many trees, and a hous that is rated "enegy star", a rating that the most basic of homebuilders can do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 12:13 AM
Response to Reply #261
262. I don't think anyone is arguing that this is "responsible living"
But many who didn't live responsibly made a huge difference in the lives of millions of poor people. Can't I wish the former would change and still applaud the latter?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neshanic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 12:20 AM
Response to Reply #262
265. My what a "Atlas Shrugged" point. That was a surprise.
I guess that you are correct, but it does not entirely let Mr. Edwards off the environmental hook.

Responsibility has changed through the years.

He's the one running for President. I hope his future choices are not as lame.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 12:22 AM
Response to Reply #265
267. How is fighting for the poor in any way objectivist? It's the exact opposite!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neshanic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 12:30 AM
Response to Reply #267
269. But many who didn't live responsibly made a huge difference in the lives of millions of poor people.
I am not calling you an objectivist. Yes you are correct. But in some circles, some lattitude that is not deserved is given to the ones that did not live "responsibly."

Responsiblity and what is considered responsible is shifting as we speak. In communications, business ethics, and political arenas. Edwards was the VP for Gore. Does he carry some responsibility or was that a show? We know where Gore stands. As of this little mishap in judgement, I am not so sure we know the real Mr. Edwards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 12:36 AM
Response to Reply #269
273. You don't have to be rich to fight for the poor, but you don't have to be a hermit
Yes, Edwards could do a lot more. Yes, his lifestyle is wasteful and excessive. So is Ted Kennedy's lifestyle, whose minimum wage fight will help millions more people than his yachts can ever hurt. So was FDR's lifestyle, whose New Deal did more to narrow the rich-poor gap than almost any other legislation in the history of this country. I refuse to believe that these people had no right to do what they did, or that what they did has no value simply because they lead or have led deplorably wasteful private lives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Neshanic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 12:45 AM
Response to Reply #273
276. Please do not lump it into absolutes.
Again,

He has the money, and the knowledge to build a home exactly as garish as the one that sits there today, with all the creature comforts intact, but with one difference. He could of for a bit more money, set a standard higher than the "energy star", like the LEED standards, and not only would it be big and over the top, it would be a centerpiece to show off.

Not brain surgery by any means.

When the monkey has a better designed home, with it's waste water reclaimation system, geothermal heating and other items, then there's an issue.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 12:18 AM
Response to Original message
264. THE QUESTION HAS NOW BEEN ASKED ON ELIZABETH'S BLOG.
Edited on Mon Jan-29-07 12:19 AM by Harper_is_Bush
If an answer is given I'll transcribe it here.

Until then, peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alittlelark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 12:33 AM
Response to Original message
270. ....sigh........ n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
huskerlaw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 12:49 AM
Response to Original message
277. It must be SO nice to be perfect
You would know, since you obviously are.

Otherwise you wouldn't have standing to attack people for their fucking choice of LIGHT BULBS.

And really, you should be applauded for your priorities. Most of us are so absorbed in the deaths of thousands of people in Iraq that we have completely overlooked Elizabeth Edwards' light bulbs.

Thank you so much for showing us the light, as it were.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 12:56 AM
Response to Reply #277
278. Excuse me, but your sarcasm is uncalled for.
I do not claim to be perfect.

You, like many before you, have misinterpreted the topic entirely.

I am not attacking anyone, as you so angrily claim.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
huskerlaw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 01:01 AM
Response to Reply #278
281. How did I misinterpret
this?

"Why on earth would they wait to do the replacement? Ms Edwards should sacrafice that $.50 bulb to help with C02 output right now..."

You are calling Elizabeth out over her use of light bulbs. It's patently ridiculous and I absolutely do not apologize for my sarcasm. Because, frankly, your post doesn't warrant anything but a hearty :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #281
308. you misinterpreted it as an "attack"
And you fail to explain why it's ridiculous. Perhaps because it's not ridiculous at all, you're just angry and incorrectly believe I'm attacking or "calling out" Elizabeth Edwards, so you're lashing out in blind fashion.

When you're done consider that switching lightbulbs right away IS the recommended way to fight global warming. Given that, Mrs. Edwards (or you) should have no problem with me pointing it out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 12:58 AM
Response to Original message
279. Good grief, now it's on to light bulbs. The most important issue about Edwards is light bulbs.
Edited on Mon Jan-29-07 01:03 AM by w4rma
Why don't you have the honesty to attack him on the issue that is your real problem with him?

'free' trade.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 01:02 AM
Response to Reply #279
282. you have missed the point of the topic. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 01:09 AM
Response to Reply #282
285. The topic is lightbulbs. The point is you don't like Edwards because you are a strong supporter of
'free' trade and he isn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 01:26 AM
Response to Reply #285
288. what absolute bunk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 04:41 AM
Response to Reply #288
294. So you do not support free trade? (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fujiyama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 01:00 AM
Response to Original message
280. I suppose the Edwards
Edited on Mon Jan-29-07 01:01 AM by fujiyama
could have done a bit more to ensure more optimal energy efficiency. Being that they have money, they could have got an electrician that installed the CFLs in the first place.

But they have made some steps. They are ensuring Energy Star compliance for one.

Buying the CFLs down the road is better than not doing it...and a lot better than tossing out perfectly usable bulbs in place now.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 01:09 AM
Response to Reply #280
286. See post #66. It is better to change now and toss out the incandescent. n/'t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donheld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 01:03 AM
Response to Original message
283. Some of you folk seriously need to get a life!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 01:07 AM
Response to Reply #283
284. Excuse me? Is concern about global warming not a worthy thing?
I think some people need to read the topic before comment. It's a long thread, so maybe we're destined to put up with the knee-jerk stuff from now on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 03:25 AM
Response to Original message
293. She's waiting for Lowe's to offer rebates on the fluorescent bulbs.
Penny saved and all that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nedbal Donating Member (675 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #293
302. any good rebates on the fluorescent bulbs out there?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GeorgeGist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 06:57 AM
Response to Original message
295. Because they need an electrician...
to change their light bulbs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 08:22 AM
Response to Original message
296. How long until we're treated to a thread wondering if the Edwards
use septic-friendly toilet tissue? Or is it already here somewhere?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donheld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 08:29 AM
Response to Original message
297. Why is it Elizabeth's job to change the light bulbs?
:shrug: Maybe she can't reach them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmowreader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 06:31 PM
Response to Original message
303. If Chapel Hill's power is anything like Fayetteville's...
those incandescents won't be in her home long.

I seem to replace about one bulb every three weeks. There's a LOT of crap in the power around here, and it raises havoc with light bulbs.

It even manages to shorten the lifespan of CFLs. And that's all over town, no matter whose house they're in--half the people who've tried CFLs in Fayetteville won't try them again, because they "don't come close to meeting the claimed life."

130v industrial bulbs, OTOH, sell well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Geek_Girl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 06:44 PM
Response to Original message
304. I'm not going to criticize I'm doing the same thing
Edited on Mon Jan-29-07 06:45 PM by Geek_Girl
As my bulbs go out I'm replacing them with CFL's.

My next vehicle is also going to be a Hybrid but right now my car is paid off and I don't want a car payment. I'm working on changing my lifestyle but I guess it may be a slow change for some, but I'm making progress.
I can't criticize someone else for doing the same thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #304
331. Ok, but realize that the RIGHT thing to do is to change your bulbs now.
There's no question about that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xultar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 06:47 PM
Response to Original message
305. So, she should waste more shit by replacing things that don't need to be replaced?
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #305
307. good grief. SEE POST #66.
and do a little reading next time to see if your comment has already been addresed. Six times.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 11:07 PM
Response to Original message
310. Still no answer to the question posed on her blog.
Edited on Mon Jan-29-07 11:18 PM by Harper_is_Bush
It's only been 24 hours. I hope she can find the time to check in and respond....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-30-07 09:21 PM
Response to Original message
311. Still no answer on Elizabeth's blog to this question.
I'll check it same time tomorrow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XOKCowboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 12:30 AM
Response to Reply #311
315. Haven't you beat this horse to death?
With the passing of Molly Ivins and all of the other things going on in the world right now, the Edwards choice of light bulbs seems a little petty, to say the least.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #315
317. No.
And it's not petty. Molly Ivins has died, but life goes on. Iraq is a mess, but life goes on. Global Warming isn't being dealt with, but life goes on. For now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-30-07 09:28 PM
Response to Original message
312. Bulbs!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 07:29 PM
Response to Original message
313. Still no answer.
She may have not been back to her blog since the 27th. I hope she can find the time.

To anyone wondering wtf I'm referring to, go to Elizabeth Edwards blog here:
http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/1/26/15303/2358
and scroll down to the "Elizabeth, question for you about bulb replacement" comment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-01-07 09:08 PM
Response to Original message
316. Still no answer. It's an inconvenient question, perhaps?
Or perhaps she's just ignoring her blog for a few days. In a couple more days I'll ask her directly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-03-07 01:59 PM
Response to Original message
318. Still no answer.
Hope she can find a minute to do some blogging this weekend...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 07:46 PM
Response to Original message
319. still nothing. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 08:17 PM
Response to Reply #319
322. Gee. Guess Maybe You Aren't As Important To Her As You Thought. Maybe, She's Laughing At You As
much as we are...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Straight Story Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #322
325. Everytime they kick the thread think of the electric used up :)
server space, transmitting all that data back and forth....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #322
326. If she's laughing at me over this issue then perhaps she's not fit to be first lady.
Not being able to deal openly with serious questions is not a good precursor to the job of first lady.

But I somehow doubt that's the case. I have faith she'll address the question eventually.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #326
332. If she's laughing at this thread she's closer to qualified to be president.
I appreciate a sense of perspective in a candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 12:24 AM
Response to Reply #326
334. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 07:58 PM
Response to Original message
320. I wish the mods would put this stupid thread out of its misery
Enough already.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Katherine Brengle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 07:59 PM
Response to Original message
321. Um, bc throwing something that still works in the garbage is irresponsible too?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 10:12 PM
Response to Reply #321
327. No. See post #66.
Either you believe it's time to get serious about global warming, or you're hung up on wasting a $.30 bulb. Either way, the reality is it makes much more environmental sense to do the switch now and toss those working incandescents in the garbage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Katherine Brengle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 12:39 AM
Response to Reply #327
335. Your obsessive myopia is charming, really.
I read all through this thread after initially posting, and I still don't agree with you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #335
339. Why bother
to tell me you don't agree with me if you won't (or can't) explain your reasoning.

If you choose to, please address why you think it's better to wait until incandescents burn out before changing them. That's really the only think here to agree or disagree with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 08:30 PM
Response to Original message
323. Die, stupid thread! Die! Die!
*furiously spraying Thread-Killer* They told me this stuff would work on pesky threads, but this one just keeps coming back. Maybe I need the extra-strength version?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 08:38 PM
Response to Original message
324. You are planning to do the right thing, informing others... but not fast enough!
Ergo - bad, bad Elizabeth... :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #324
328. What is the "right thing"? It's to switch the bulbs now.
Ergo, should be Elizabeth to have been informed of that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #328
329. She is doing so - just not fast enough for your taste
I am not even a big Edwards fan - but would rather attack the MAJORITY of folks who aren't even working to change their living habits in order to be responsible - they are moving in this directions *and* and explaining HOW and WHY to a large swathe of folks who haven't nec. even considered that personal moves can contribute to the bigger picture. I would rather criticize everyone who isn't making a move rather than those who are switching over AND working to educate others. But that's just me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 10:27 PM
Response to Reply #329
330. No, she's not. It's very simple, if you're concerned about global warming the RIGHT thing to do is
replace your bulbs now.

She is a high-profile person, and thus the comments she puts out about how she's reducing GHG acts as advice to others.

If she wants to do the correct thing then she should change her bulbs now.

This isn't an attack on EE, it's a desire to see the right advice/information out there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #330
333. Can we agree - regardless of speed - that the # of folks
learning about what they can do - and who may make changes is a good thing?

Frankly if you don't live in a college town or a large metro area - there is almost NO info about these changes that can be made that would make reductions toward global warning - and getting the info out there is a *good* thing and might (hopefully) have a ripple effect. Let us hope that is the case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #333
337. Absolutely, on all counts. And can we agree
that between the choices of:
A. waiting until incancescents burn out the change to CFL's. And..
B. changing to CFL's now.

That B is the preferred (ie. correct) environmental choice?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nemo137 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 02:05 AM
Response to Original message
336. Because that's what people do?
My parents have a pack of CFL's sitting on the kitchen counter, ready to replace the overhead light when the bulb that's in there now burns out. Light bulbs aren't exciting, they're not sexy; they're something you buy, and use, and then replace. CFL's aren't any different; if you know about them, you get them, and then when your old bulbs burn out, you put the CFL's in. It's not a particularly big deal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #336
338. No, that's not what the people around me are doing.
I see people who haven't changed and will never change...so is that therefore correct because that's "what people do"?

The people in my circle are changing now. We realize light bulbs aren't "exciting" and they're not "sexy"...not sure why you're making that point. We also realize that the planet is facing a crisis, and so we're doing every little thing we can to help. It's not particulaly hard to do, but it is a big deal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JNelson6563 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 12:45 PM
Response to Original message
340. With plagues, war, pestilence and famine
Edited on Mon Feb-05-07 12:45 PM by JNelson6563
goin' on in the world, I can see how this would be one of the hot topics on DU. Oy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #340
341. Quiz: what will cause more plaugues, war, pestilence, and famine than anything else in the next few
centuries?

Is it:

A. global warming
B. global warming or
C. global warming


Question 2. What can our considered actions today slow down and prevent for the future generations.

Use the same answer key as above..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JNelson6563 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #341
343. Elizabeth Edwards Lightbulbs
I thought you had made that clear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #343
345. First you complain that more important items aren't being discussed instead
and now you make a joke about it.

I'm sorry that you don't see the point here (ie. it's not about EE's light bulbs), but spare me your flippent sarcasm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JNelson6563 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #345
348. Yes, making fun of your post. Correct.
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Puglover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #341
347. God, you're making me wish global warming
would speed up and burn everything up. Maybe that would put this thread to a merciful end.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 01:21 PM
Response to Original message
346. Under bulbs of whatever kind in the Edwards' home two parents
Edited on Mon Feb-05-07 01:31 PM by Old Crusoe
read to their children.

The light they turn on with that reading is the only light that counts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KamaAina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 01:43 PM
Response to Original message
349. 'Cause their house is so darn big it'd take too long to replace them all at once?
:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #349
350. Please don't make this thread about the size of the Edwards house.
Besides being off topic, there were more than enough threads about that. thx.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KamaAina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #350
351. It was a sarcastic quip deserving of not one but three sarcasm emoticons.
The intent was to point out the bizarre depths to which scrutiny of the Edwards' personal life has sunk hereabouts. What's next: "Edwards' Longhair Cat Sheds Like Crazy, Requires Constant Grooming?"

Wonder if Elizabeth is still reading after all this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-06-07 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #351
355. "bizarre depths to which scrutiny of the Edwards' personal life has sunk"
Is that how you characterize this thread?

I question the correctness of a GHG reduction step that Elizabeth blogged about on the intranet, and that's "scrutiny of the Edwards' personal life"?

Give me a break.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Herman74 Donating Member (429 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 07:42 PM
Response to Original message
352. I myself was in this quandary faced by Ms. Edwards.
So I relish the chance to address this issue!

An opportunity arose allowing me to buy some flourescent bulbs, and I did so. But I still had incandescent light bulbs that hadn't burned out. Now on the one hand, the flourescent lightbulbs are more energy efficient than the incandescent bulbs, but on the other hand, it seemed wasteful to throw out the still-working incandescent bulbs, especially since some amount of energy had been used in their production.

At first, I thought I would just simply continue using the incandescent bulbs until they wore out, then replace them with the flourescent. But then it occurred to me, "I am essentially using the flourescent as the back-up, why not use the incandescent for this purpose instead? Hey, why not save money straight away?"

So now I use the flourescent, and have the incandescent to use later just after the flourescent break down whilst I await for new replacement flourescent bulbs to arrive. Consequently, the incandescent shall be used rarely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #352
354. Interesting solution, and gets to the same end. I've thrown out my incandescents
The energy use put into the production of incandescents is irrelevant, because it's overshadowed by the energy use of continued use.

Post 66 might be of some interest to you.

as well as this link: http://nema.org/lamprecycle/epafactsheet-cfl.pdf

You can see there that not only is the incandescent creating significanlty more C02, but releasing more mercury directly into the atmosphere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nonconformist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 07:45 PM
Response to Original message
353. Holy shit, this thread is still alive?
*shakes head*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beelzebud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-06-07 11:35 AM
Response to Original message
356. Has DU gone completely crazy?
What is eveyrone drinking?

We are ripping each other up over a fucking super bowl commercial.

Now we act like what type of light-bulbs the Edwards' have in their house is THE issue of his campaign...

I'm seeing something more and more here, and I don't like it. Political Correctness totally running amok. We are basically instituting "thought crime" here for certain issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-07-07 12:03 AM
Response to Reply #356
357. You are mischaracterizing this topic.
It's not about Edwards' campaign, or even what type of light-bulbs they have.

It's about the advice Elizabeth Edwards is giving on the subject in her blog, and the question of what is the correct thing to do if you plan on changing to CFL's: do it now or wait until incandescents burn out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-07-07 12:08 AM
Response to Original message
358. How on fucking earth can this insaned lightbulb thread still be going on?
Isn't there a civil right being violated or an illegal war going on that might matter than Elizabeth Edwards' lightbulbs?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catchawave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-07-07 12:11 AM
Response to Reply #358
359. I guess the "terrorists" are winning?
So to speak. :cry:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-07-07 12:15 AM
Response to Reply #359
360. I swear, every time this thread appears again in the top half of the first page
of GD I will buy another incandescent bulb, and I will fucking use it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-07-07 12:33 AM
Response to Reply #360
364. You would screw the planet to spite me?
How progressive of you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-07-07 12:34 AM
Response to Reply #364
365. Ka-ching! There goes another bulb!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-07-07 12:49 AM
Response to Reply #365
366. whatever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-07-07 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #366
379. Oh there's another!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-07-07 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #379
380. That's very funny!`
:)

Have you given this a read yet: http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-07-07 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #380
381. Read? Let me turn on another incandescent bulb.


Nope - didn't read it. But I did just walk over to a bedroom and turned on the light, even though I won't be in that room for a few hours!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-07-07 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #381
382. all you need is the bottom spreadsheet on page 13 and ...
scenario explanations on page 18.

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

Turn on all the lights in the house, by all means, and aleviate your ignorance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
951-Riverside Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-07-07 12:18 AM
Response to Original message
361. A fucking light bulb should be the last of your fucking concerns
How about worrying about this mildly retarded president we have in office. I don't give a flying fuck who uses which light bulb in their own fucking house. :mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-07-07 12:24 AM
Response to Reply #361
362. Why should I waste my beautiful mind on him?
I will focus on global warming instead. It gives me more satisfaction. Others will have to carry the torch against your mild retard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-07-07 01:14 AM
Response to Original message
367. Still no answer. I respect Elizabeth Edwards, and believe John would be a good President....
but I find it unfortunate that replies to blog entries would be completely ignored. It's not like there's hundreds of replies to her blog, and if she is commited to her blog and what she writes in it she should answer all direct questions.

In my case she has not. I know a small minority of DU'ers think that's a great thing....they think I'm "attacking" Elizabeth and deserve to be ignored. Any objective person can see I am certainly NOT attacking her though.

I'll keep my fingers crossed for an answer, and keep posting updates as pledged.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-07-07 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #367
370. Would you go on a hunger strike until Elizabeth Edwards changes the bulbs?
Edited on Wed Feb-07-07 02:45 PM by LoZoccolo
That would show her that you are serious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-07-07 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #370
373. My goal is not to have her change her bulbs
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marie26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-07-07 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #367
372. I'm sure the bulbs have burned out by now. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-10-07 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #372
388. I doubt that very much. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-07-07 02:41 PM
Response to Original message
369. OMG this thread just proves
That the shit always floats to the surface. I thought it had finally died.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ronnykmarshall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-07-07 02:46 PM
Response to Original message
371. Just when I think I've seen everything on DU ....
along comes this gem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-07-07 08:09 PM
Response to Original message
374. Still nothing. I'm going to assume Elizabeth is either very busy
or doesn't revisit her blog entries beyond a couple of days.

So, no more "still waiting posts". If she catches up with her blog I'll update this thread with that news.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-07-07 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #374
375. Great.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-07-07 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #375
377. Great in what way?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goodhue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-07-07 08:21 PM
Response to Original message
376. funny, I was just having this debate with my spouse
CFs Now! I don't care that the incandescent has not yet burnt out. Get rid of it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-07-07 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #376
378. You are correct my friend! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-08-07 11:55 PM
Response to Original message
383. Kick.
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JCMach1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-09-07 12:31 AM
Response to Original message
384. Why are we asking the question? It is also wasted resources to toss out the old bulbs
Sheesh already...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-09-07 12:32 AM
Response to Reply #384
385. No because you can use them as spares.
And the electricity would cost more if you kept them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JCMach1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-09-07 05:11 AM
Response to Reply #385
387. So, which processor does your computer use... don't you think
you should switch to one that uses less power???

We can play these kinds of games ad infinitum.

I just seems a very silly reason to criticize John Edwards...

There are plenty of other MUCH bigger fish to fry (IWR anyone). I would argue that is a MUCH bigger mistake in judgment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-10-07 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #387
389. This is not a critisism of John Edwards, and it's not a game...
don't pull the old "why don't you live in the forest with a loin cloth" routine please.

We all need to do everything we can starting right now. No game.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-09-07 12:37 AM
Response to Reply #384
386. See post #327. Also.........
...we are asking the question becuase it's important.

We have little time to get things right, so it's important that we promote the correct behavior.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-10-07 07:30 PM
Response to Original message
390. I just thought of another way that we can do all that we can do.
I'm wondering if maybe we shouldn't all carry around a half-dozen of the famed "ice cream bulbs", and just start replacing any accessible incandescent bulbs we can that we see in public places. I see the bulbs of death all over the city in subway tunnels here in Chicago; a good pair of gloves or one of those grippers might come in handy to get the Chicago Transit Authority on the right track.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harper_is_Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-11-07 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #390
391. That's not a bad idea, but better I think to distribute them to willing and knowing folks
If you find them for cheap (hate to say it, but Walmart has 'em cheap in Canada) then buy up a bunch and give them to friends and family.

I've been distributing them for free in the neighborhood with the following note:



Check out this old thread if you're curious to know how I'm packaging/distrubuting them:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x120133


.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 06:33 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC