# AOC's "Green New Deal" pipe dream **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 8, 2019, 8:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aocs-green-new-deal-pipe-dream/829160 "2019-02-08T08:48:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Gary\_Kumquat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4491bb/32.png) [@Gary\_Kumquat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Kumquat)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2019, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aocs-green-new-deal-pipe-dream/829160/221 "2019-03-07T15:21:06Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > it’s clearly pushing for the end of jet plane use as soon as is technically/politically feasibl No. “overhauling transportation systems in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in (i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing; (ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transportation; and (iii) high-speed rail” No part of that is calling for a ban on air travel. Your position is akin to saying that if I try to encourage people to switch from smoking to vaping, I am calling for a ban on cigarettes. It is nonsense. So, onto the FAQ: “We set a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, in 10 years because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast.” Which part of that statement calls for a ban on planes? ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2019, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aocs-green-new-deal-pipe-dream/829160/222 "2019-03-07T15:31:38Z")
:smack: Your reading comprehension is that poor, that you cannot parse the phrases “‘ban’ is too strong a word”, “half true”, or “mostly false”? Or is it just a weak attempt to strawman me, when my plain words are _right there_? ETA: Bonus Q. What does “get rid of airplanes” mean to you? :dubious: There’s a blatantly partisan attempt to here to avoid the obvious meaning of plain English, which is both really offbrand for the mission of this board as well as being a disgrace to the Pulitzer-winning PolitiFact. ---
**Author:** ![SingleMalt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/singlemalt/32/3961_2.png) [@SingleMalt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SingleMalt)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2019, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aocs-green-new-deal-pipe-dream/829160/223 "2019-03-07T16:01:18Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > :smack: Your reading comprehension is that poor, that you cannot parse the phrases “‘ban’ is too strong a word”, “half true”, or “mostly false”? Or is it just a weak attempt to strawman me, when my plain words are _right there_? > > ETA: Bonus Q. What does “get rid of airplanes” mean to you? :dubious: > > There’s a blatantly partisan attempt to here to avoid the obvious meaning of plain English, which is both really offbrand for the mission of this board as well as being a disgrace to the Pulitzer-winning PolitiFact. That’s an interesting perspective on what appears to be a bit of rhetorical flourish. What does “fully” mean to you? “We set a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, in 10 years because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able **to fully get rid** of farting cows and airplanes that fast.” Is there some ignoble purpose in working to reduce the number of flights - certainly domestic ones - in favor of high-speed rail or other green alternatives? The strawman is in this interpretation that the GND is calling for a ban on air travel. ---
**Author:** ![CaptMurdock](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/captmurdock/32/11736_2.png) [@CaptMurdock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CaptMurdock)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2019, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aocs-green-new-deal-pipe-dream/829160/224 "2019-03-07T16:14:08Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > :smack: Your reading comprehension is that poor, that you cannot parse the phrases “‘ban’ is too strong a word”, “half true”, or “mostly false”? Or is it just a weak attempt to strawman me, when my plain words are _right there_? > > ETA: Bonus Q. What does “get rid of airplanes” mean to you? :dubious: > > There’s a blatantly partisan attempt to here to avoid the obvious meaning of plain English, which is both really offbrand for the mission of this board as well as being a disgrace to the Pulitzer-winning PolitiFact. > [@SingleMalt](#): > > That’s an interesting perspective on what appears to be a bit of rhetorical flourish. What does “fully” mean to you? “We set a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, in 10 years because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able **to fully get rid** of farting cows and airplanes that fast.” > > Is there some ignoble purpose in working to reduce the number of flights - certainly domestic ones - in favor of high-speed rail or other green alternatives? > > The strawman is in this interpretation that the GND is calling for a ban on air travel. **SingleMalt,** you’re being too kind. He’s pissing on our leg, telling us it’s raining, and then claims victory because we’re looking for a towel. Given what a PITA air travel has become nowadays (expense, security concerns, etc.) you’d think any reasonable person would be thrilled for a reasonable alternative to domestic flights. But then, look who we’re talking to. Never mind. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2019, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aocs-green-new-deal-pipe-dream/829160/225 "2019-03-07T17:08:07Z")
> [@CaptMurdock](#): > > **SingleMalt,** you’re being too kind. He’s pissing on our leg, telling us it’s raining, and then claims victory because we’re looking for a towel. > > Given what a PITA air travel has become nowadays (expense, security concerns, etc.) you’d think any reasonable person would be thrilled for a reasonable alternative to domestic flights. > > But then, look who we’re talking to. Never mind. And, to be fair, should we end up with a robust passenger rail system, then that will decrease the amount of air travel. As it is, rail travel takes much longer, doesn’t go to all that many destinations, and is not significantly cheaper, and can even sometimes be more expensive than air. If that is changed, to where travel by train is a reasonable alternative, then domestic air travel will be reduced considerably. This is a good thing, and everyone wins. If someone calls for incentives to compete against an existing industry, you could realistically make the claim that that person wishes to decrease the use of that industry, but it would take a motivated liar to make the claim that they want to ban it. (Or someone who is gullible and stupid enough to fall for those motivated liars.) Never quite sure with SlackerInc, whether he is a motivated liar, or is just easily fooled by them. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Kumquat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4491bb/32.png) [@Gary\_Kumquat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Kumquat)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2019, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aocs-green-new-deal-pipe-dream/829160/226 "2019-03-07T17:46:15Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > What does “get rid of airplanes” mean to you? It means “get rid of airplanes”. What does “we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of airplanes” mean to you? And why we’re asking specific questions, here’s another. Please quote the part you think Politifact were inaccurate or evasive on. Not your summary (or, you know, a link to a completely different article) Just quote precisely the bit you have an issue with. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Kumquat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4491bb/32.png) [@Gary\_Kumquat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Kumquat)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2019, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aocs-green-new-deal-pipe-dream/829160/227 "2019-03-07T18:13:47Z")
> [@CaptMurdock](#): > > Given what a PITA air travel has become nowadays (expense, security concerns, etc.) you’d think **any reasonable person** would be thrilled for a reasonable alternative to domestic flights. I found your problem. ---
**Author:** ![CaptMurdock](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/captmurdock/32/11736_2.png) [@CaptMurdock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CaptMurdock)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2019, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aocs-green-new-deal-pipe-dream/829160/228 "2019-03-07T18:41:01Z")
> [@Gary\_Kumquat](#): > > I found your problem. FTR, I did add: > [@](#): > > But then, look who we’re talking to. Never mind. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2019, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aocs-green-new-deal-pipe-dream/829160/229 "2019-03-07T18:41:40Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > :smack: Your reading comprehension is that poor, that you cannot parse the phrases “‘ban’ is too strong a word”, “half true”, or “mostly false”? Or is it just a weak attempt to strawman me, when my plain words are _right there_? > > ETA: Bonus Q. What does “get rid of airplanes” mean to you? :dubious: > > There’s a blatantly partisan attempt to here to avoid the obvious meaning of plain English, which is both really offbrand for the mission of this board as well as being a disgrace to the Pulitzer-winning PolitiFact. Are you trolling? ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2019, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aocs-green-new-deal-pipe-dream/829160/230 "2019-03-07T23:16:20Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > Are you trolling? No, and furthermore I could ask you the same, since it in no way made sense for you to quote what you did and ask that question. As the younguns say, “that’s random.” :rolleyes: I guess you are trying to gaslight me? > [@Gary\_Kumquat](#): > > It means “get rid of airplanes”. And you believe “get rid of airplanes” could not possibly be paraphrased as “ban airplanes”? Really? 😕 > [@Gary\_Kumquat](#): > > Just quote precisely the bit you have an issue with. Sure, that’s easy. I already did it, in fact; but here you go again: > [@](#): > > False (Not even preceded/modified by “Mostly”) ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2019, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aocs-green-new-deal-pipe-dream/829160/231 "2019-03-07T23:32:22Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > And you believe “get rid of airplanes” could not possibly be paraphrased as “ban airplanes”? Really? 😕 Sure, get rid of airplanes is something that you could _possibly_ be paraphrased as ban airplanes, even though one does not follow from the other. If we create subsidies on trains and build maglevs, so suddenly, most people choose to use those services, rather than airplanes, and therefore, airplane use goes way down, would you paraphrase that as a ban? And then there is the fact that you seem to be having trouble grasping that the GND doesn’t say to get rid of airplanes. You do seem confused. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2019, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aocs-green-new-deal-pipe-dream/829160/232 "2019-03-07T23:43:57Z")
_You_ are confused if you think the PolitiFact scale is binary, with “True” meaning “100% true, no caveats and nothing exaggerated or misleading”, and “False” encompassing every other position on the scale. When the reality is that in between are also “Mostly True”, “Half True”, and “Mostly False”. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2019, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aocs-green-new-deal-pipe-dream/829160/233 "2019-03-08T00:26:30Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > _You_ are confused if you think the PolitiFact scale is binary, with “True” meaning “100% true, no caveats and nothing exaggerated or misleading”, and “False” encompassing every other position on the scale. When the reality is that in between are also “Mostly True”, “Half True”, and “Mostly False”. You are confused if you think I made any claim of that sort, or even if I have even mentioned politifact whatsoever. Are you trying to say that the GND _did_ say that it was going to get rid of airplanes? If so, please cite. You are under two severe misconceptions here. The first is that the GND said it was going to get rid of airplanes, when it did not. The second is that, even if someone did say that they wanted to get rid of airplanes, there are many more effective ways of doing so than banning them. With those two misconceptions of yours cleared up, you can now see that the claim that AOC wants to ban airplanes is completely false, right? Or is there something else that you are confused about? ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2019, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aocs-green-new-deal-pipe-dream/829160/234 "2019-03-08T00:51:33Z")
I am not confused. You are either confused or lying. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2019, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aocs-green-new-deal-pipe-dream/829160/235 "2019-03-08T01:20:35Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > I am not confused. You are either confused or lying. Then you tell me where in the new green deal that is says that it is going to ban airplanes, as that is the claim that you think that I am either lying or confused about. I give you the benefit of the doubt here that there is something that you are misunderstanding, so lay it out as to why you think that the GND is banning airplanes, and we will see if I am the one who is incorrect on this, or we can work together to see what it is that you missed. I have laid out my argument as to why the GND contains no such language, if your only counterargument is that I am confused or lying, then that means you have no ground to stand on. Or you can keep insisting on something that you have not shown any support for whatsoever, and claim that it is true, whichever makes you happy. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2019, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aocs-green-new-deal-pipe-dream/829160/236 "2019-03-08T01:31:18Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > I am not confused. You are either confused or lying. Meh, other fact checkers already reported on who is lying, here is a hint, they are coming from the right wing again: > **[Analysis | Liz Cheney’s claim that the ‘Green New Deal’ would eliminate air...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/02/14/liz-cheneys-claim-that-green-new-deal-would-eliminate-air-travel/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.26e495a0d3d6)** > > Death panels, but for deciding who gets to board a flight? Nope. > [@](#): > > The Pinocchio Test > > Cheney conjured up an apocalyptic vision of life under the Green New Deal: Outlawed cars, outlawed gasoline, outlawed plane travel and even possibly no military and a roster of “vacation commissars.” Even allowing for political rhetoric, there’s very little to support these claims. > > In reality, the Green New Deal resolution has no teeth and wouldn’t become law if it passed. So these claims are based on a retracted FAQ about a nonbinding resolution. In these documents, proponents of the Green New Deal mused about ending air travel and stopping cows from passing gas. Problematic as those lines were, none made it into the resolution. > > Moreover, the FAQ was discarded days before Cheney brought it up at a House hearing to raise the specter of some government bureaucrat deciding whether you can board a flight. There’s nothing like this at all in the plan, not in the resolution and not in the retracted FAQs. > > Cheney goes further than many of her Republican peers and earns Three Pinocchios. We were tempted to make it Four Pinocchios, given Cheney’s line about “vacation commissars,” but the ineptitude of the Ocasio-Cortez staff certainly gave Republicans a lot of material for these attacks. > > **Three Pinocchios** ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2019, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aocs-green-new-deal-pipe-dream/829160/237 "2019-03-08T01:37:38Z")
> [@SingleMalt](#): > > Is there some ignoble purpose in working to reduce the number of flights - certainly domestic ones - in favor of high-speed rail or other green alternatives? I don’t like to see PolitiFact undermining its credibility regardless of what my policy preferences are. But if the question is how I feel on the substance? (1) I would love to see a sleek network of high-speed rail that mostly replaced domestic air travel. Heck, I already love traveling Amtrak and would do it a lot more if it were cheaper (or I were richer). (2) I don’t OTOH want to get rid of cows. I love cheeseburgers and ribeyes too much for that. But politics is not about just putting forth our ideal platforms and hoping against hope there’s a majority who will support us. Experience has taught me that people go apeshit over threats to change stuff that seems like a no-brainer. I lived in a rural area of an increasingly red state (MIssouri) for many years, so I witnessed this firsthand. Two examples from the past decade or so: light bulbs and school lunches. Two modest progressive reforms that are the epitome of good sense and on their surface should not be controversial or partisan at all: replacing incandescent bulbs with CFCs or LEDs; and MIchelle Obama’s initiative to make school lunches healthier. People lost their everloving MINDS with outrage over being told what light bulbs to buy, or that maybe their kids should get some whole grains and leafy green vegetables on their school lunch tray, instead of white bread pizza and tater tots. To go way further and make them feel like Democrats might take away their beef (or their cows, in the case of farmers) and make them all ride bicycles and eat tofu is not good politics. If in a few decades we are somewhere close to this goal where it won’t seem radical or scary, revisit it then. ETA: Obviously I meant the “bicycles and tofu” line as sardonic hyperbole. But in all seriousness, we actually need to reassure these kinds of voters that they can continue to drive gas-guzzling SUVs, water their lawns in the desert, and all kinds of things I do honestly wish we could restrict. But the politics of it does not allow us to do that, and if we try, we will end up worse off because Republicans will do much worse. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2019, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aocs-green-new-deal-pipe-dream/829160/238 "2019-03-08T02:17:40Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > I don’t like to see PolitiFact undermining its credibility regardless of what my policy preferences are. But if the question is how I feel on the substance? > > (1) I would love to see a sleek network of high-speed rail that mostly replaced domestic air travel. Heck, I already love traveling Amtrak and would do it a lot more if it were cheaper (or I were richer). > > (2) I don’t OTOH want to get rid of cows. I love cheeseburgers and ribeyes too much for that. > > But politics is not about just putting forth our ideal platforms and hoping against hope there’s a majority who will support us. Experience has taught me that people go apeshit over threats to change stuff that seems like a no-brainer. I lived in a rural area of an increasingly red state (MIssouri) for many years, so I witnessed this firsthand. > > Two examples from the past decade or so: light bulbs and school lunches. Two modest progressive reforms that are the epitome of good sense and on their surface should not be controversial or partisan at all: replacing incandescent bulbs with CFCs or LEDs; and MIchelle Obama’s initiative to make school lunches healthier. People lost their everloving MINDS with outrage over being told what light bulbs to buy, or that maybe their kids should get some whole grains and leafy green vegetables on their school lunch tray, instead of white bread pizza and tater tots. To go way further and make them feel like Democrats might take away their beef (or their cows, in the case of farmers) and make them all ride bicycles and eat tofu is not good politics. If in a few decades we are somewhere close to this goal where it won’t seem radical or scary, revisit it then. > > ETA: Obviously I meant the “bicycles and tofu” line as sardonic hyperbole. But in all seriousness, we actually need to reassure these kinds of voters that they can continue to drive gas-guzzling SUVs, water their lawns in the desert, and all kinds of things I do honestly wish we could restrict. But the politics of it does not allow us to do that, and if we try, we will end up worse off because Republicans will do much worse. Uh, that light bulb thing was originally a republican idea: > **[Stop Blaming Obama for Your Lightbulb Problems](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/09/stop-blaming-obama-for-your-lightbulb-problems/244463/)** > > The much-derided new lightbulb efficiency standards were a Republican idea, even if Republicans have come to hate them > [@](#): > > But the standards were initially proposed by a Republican, Fred Upton of Michigan, the current chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. President Bush signed the new lightbulb standards into law in 2007 along with the rest of the bill, and they generated little partisan controversy at the time. For Republicans, the main legislative sticking points were over auto fuel-efficiency standards, mandatory renewable/petroleum blending at refineries, and then-House-Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) failed attempt to include a requirement that more of the nation’s electricity come from renewable sources. When the Senate passed the bill, The Washington Post’s writeup mentioned nothing about lightbulbs. > > But the changing of the lightbulb standards without remark in 2007 and the hue and cry over them today show just how significantly attitudes toward climate and energy reform have changed since the waning days of the Bush era, when both parties were approaching agreement that energy consumption and global warming needed to be dealt with. > > In 2008, the Republican Party nominated Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) as its presidential candidate, after he pushed multiple iterations of a cap-and-trade bill with Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.). Apart from the issue of oil drilling, the Republican and Democratic parties offered virtually the same energy and climate agenda during the 2008 presidential election. > > A lot has changed since then. House Democrats passed a cap-and-trade bill in the summer of 2009. Republicans dubbed the legislation “cap and tax” and successfully ran against it in the 2010 midterm elections, using it in swing districts across the country to take control of the House. In the spring of 2010, as the Senate seemed able to pass a less aggressive climate-change bill by perhaps one vote, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who had been working with Lieberman and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) to draft an amendable compromise, withdrew his support out of anger at Democratic plans to push an immigration-reform bill first. It was one of many stories about the death of bipartisanship in the last three years. > > Upton has since renounced his support for the very lightbulb standards he made law, voting this summer for a GOP bill that would have repealed his provisions. The bill failed. > > It’s odd to remember a time when lightbulbs – not to mention sweeping efficiency requirements – were relatively uncontroversial and accepted even by Republicans as necessary to preserve the environment and reduce dependence on oil-producing states. > > But since 2007, the Republican Party has become more conservative, and the consensus around efficiency standards, emissions reforms, and climate change has completely fallen apart. > > The controversy over lightbulbs is just one of many reminders. The point here is that it was a bipartisan effort back then, and now thanks to deniers and ideologues from the right is that we got the talking point that it is the democrats who are to blame. **But, as usual, the blame is also a misleading talking point**. The most serious thing here is that once again we can see the Slacker falling hook line and sinker for the new anti environmentalist Republican talking points, that usually happens because of the sources an easy to misled guy like him uses. > **[The Overly Dramatic Demise of the Light Bulb](https://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/plugged-in/the-overly-dramatic-demise-of-the-light-bulb/)** > > Remember when the fight against phasing out inefficient incandescent light bulbs was a big deal? Well it seems the sky didn't fall. Just recently, Canada joined the United States, the European Union, and Australia among several countries (see map... > [@](#): > > Remember when the fight against phasing out inefficient incandescent light bulbs was a big deal? Well it seems the sky didn’t fall. Just recently, Canada joined the United States, the European Union, and Australia among several countries (see map below) to phase out the production and import of inefficient incandescent light bulbs. While the jury is out on what exactly the best next standard is, at least they’re all much, much more efficient. > [@](#): > > More recently, the LED (light emitting diode) inventors were awarded a Nobel Prize for their efforts, and where some lauded their achievement in being able to reduce electricity consumption, naysayers believe a rebound effect will wipe out efficiency increases, which is as exaggerated as it sounds. Nevertheless, energy efficiency and monetary savings are happening, and while the world is not really a color shade different today, it’s arguably a less wasteful one. Kill The Myth: Incandescent Bulbs Are Not Banned [https://www.fastcompany.com/1678387/kill-the-myth-incandescent-bulbs-are-not-banned](https://www.fastcompany.com/1678387/kill-the-myth-incandescent-bulbs-are-not-banned) > [@](#): > > There is a race is on to build better incandescent bulbs that meet the next generation of energy standards. But there’s a ban, you say? To listen to Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, you would think that the FBI will soon be breaking down our doors in search of illicit illumination. > > Despite what you’ve heard, Congress’ Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) “doesn’t ban any type of lighting,” says Laura Moorefield, a senior researcher at Ecos Consulting. “It just raises the efficiency standards a small amount.” Understandably, you may have been misled by error-laden columns and news stories about a “ban” in the Wall Street Journal, Fox News, New York Post, [Forbes.com](http://Forbes.com), and Washington Times (chronicled by Media Matters). There is also at least one at MSNBC. They all suggest that incandescents have been outlawed by Congress. > > They have not. Once the law begins to take effect next year, wattages for 100 watt bulbs are required to drop by about 30%. That means a former 100 watt bulb will use only 72 watts, yet emit a comparable amount of light. The law will be phased in over the next several years affecting 75 watt bulbs in 2013, then 60 watt and 40 watt bulbs in 2014. The new incandescent bulbs employ a small halogen capsule with an incandescent element that looks and operates just like a conventional bulb, while producing the same quality of light and using less energy. These halogen incandescents already meet or exceed the standards set by the EISA. To say it another way, incandescent bulbs are not banned. In fact, you may even have been buying EISA-compliant incandescents since 2009 when they first hit store shelves. Indeed: [https://www.homedepot.com/p/EcoSmart-75-Watt-Equivalent-A19-Dimmable-Eco-Incandescent-Light-Bulb-Soft-White-2-Pack-52607/204848822](https://www.homedepot.com/p/EcoSmart-75-Watt-Equivalent-A19-Dimmable-Eco-Incandescent-Light-Bulb-Soft-White-2-Pack-52607/204848822) ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2019, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aocs-green-new-deal-pipe-dream/829160/239 "2019-03-08T03:16:41Z")
GIGO, clearly your English failed you there, in understanding my comment. I will try to spell it out for you: I STRONGLY SUPPORTED the transition to those light bulbs. Every light in my house is an LED currently, and for many years they were all CFCs. I did not expect the pushback against the bulbs. I think the people who freak out about it are being stupid. It’s really annoying. The lunch thing bothers me even more, because I had been a strong advocate for better school nutrition as soon as my eldest child started school in 2005. I was delighted that Michelle Obama made it a signature issue. But then I saw how people lost their damn minds, as they also did with Bloomberg’s very reasonable soda tax. What I’ve learned from these things is that the smartest move is to apply your progressive regulations to things that most everyday people don’t see. Like the way power plants work, or protecting the rights of the accused in the court system, stuff like that. When you make even reasonable, scientifically justified moves on Americans’ daily lives, they get super cranky. Look also at the metric system and our stubborn continuation with using paper dollar bills and pennies instead of changing to dollar coins and eliminating pennies, both of which Canada has done. Just as my special education teaching wife learns to pick her battles and be flexible to take into account her students’ irrational foibles, we have to do the same here and not stubbornly insisting on holding fast to any approach just because it’s the logical, rational, proven superior one. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2019, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aocs-green-new-deal-pipe-dream/829160/240 "2019-03-08T03:31:08Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > GIGO, clearly your English failed you there, in understanding my comment. I will try to spell it out for you: > > I STRONGLY SUPPORTED the transition to those light bulbs. Every light in my house is an LED currently, and for many years they were all CFCs. The one that needs spelling is you, I know that that is your fig leaf already, what you intentionally miss is that the blame is also a misleading talking point from the right and you still fell for it. > [@SlackerInc](#): > > I did not expect the pushback against the bulbs. I think the people who freak out about it are being stupid. It’s really annoying. > > [snip] > > What I’ve learned from these things is that the smartest move is to apply your progressive regulations to things that most everyday people don’t see. Like the way power plants work, or protecting the rights of the accused in the court system, stuff like that. When you make even reasonable, scientifically justified moves on Americans’ daily lives, they get super cranky. Missing the point spectacularly still, again, it was mostly the right wing that became super cranky, and thanks to talking points pulled up out of their asses of right wing leaders and interests groups. > [@SlackerInc](#): > > Look also at the metric system and our stubborn continuation with using paper dollar bills and pennies instead of changing to dollar coins and eliminating pennies, both of which Canada has done. Your special gift of avoiding the obvious is clear, Canada has less stupid media or politicians. > [@SlackerInc](#): > > Just as my special education teaching wife learns to pick her battles and be flexible to take into account her students’ irrational foibles, we have to do the same here and not stubbornly insisting on holding fast to any approach just because it’s the logical, rational, proven superior one. Only that in the case of the bulbs (and with with a lot of other subjects) you are spouting nonsense, in this case the foibles are ideological and irrational at the same time among the Republicans, and worse of all, the ones you are blaming (still!!) were not the democrats, and even worse, the bulbs were not banned. It is really you the one that is demanding that we all become irrational like you. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aocs-green-new-deal-pipe-dream/829160.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aocs-green-new-deal-pipe-dream/829160.md?page=13)