I guess it's the thought that counts...

Still, we're barking up the wrong tree here. I'm a fan of supporting the good instead of punishing the bad. We need real incentives so that real innovations like electric cars, solar power, and public transit gain the overwhelming economic advantage for the average American.

Outlawing the lightbulb seems just silly. It will go the way of HDTV, which most consumers don't have the brainpower to use. Simply doubling our public transit ridership will do more good than some wishy-washy rules about gas consumption.

Besides, these actions need to take root at the local and state levels. We've just seen how that transpired in California. So get out there and vote for new trains for your city.

" I have already replaced about 80% of my household lighting with the compact fluorescent ones"

I'm sure you look real attractive.

"The law creates a 15 billion gallon renewable fuels standard for grain based fuels, which will be met primarily by corn based ethanol."

At the same time that the UN is calling a world wide food shortage on cereals because cereals are being diverted to bio-fuel.
Wonder how all those countries we send cereals to are going to feel when we have to tell them we can't feed them any more.
The law requires a five fold increase, so that should cut them out.

Did these nitwits think there was a massive over abundance of corn when they thought of this plan?
The greenies are going to be hysterical when they figure out how much more land, water, fertilizer, perticides, and herbicides we are going to need to grow more corn. A five fold increase.

Just wait until the bubbas figure out that beer is made from corn.

"--35 mpg standard mandated by 2020, which is the first increase in vehicle fuel economy standards in 32 years."

This is the only part that makes sense.

As with government over the last 20 years, this is far too little, far too late. The biggest problem is that our law makers can sleep at night after passing such a watered down ineffectual law.

Inept law makers are too easily swayed by political pressure and lobbiest to effect a meaningful law. This will have to taken more seriously by the private citizen and corporate mandates. The Federal law is only meant for the stubborn brew who are steadfast against change.

We should look under the sheets to see what kind of pork was slipped into this bill in the 11th hour.

I think it is incredible that people are buying into the bunk that Mr. Gore put out. Won't argue that the temperatures might be rising, but don't agree with the causes or that people feel they can change a lightbulb and make a difference.

Personally I would have liked to have gotten us off of foreign oil with a real plan. This bill will not do that.
If we can think with our heads and not our emotions we can do better. Building more efficient housing is a great idea if the ideas make sense. I wish it had provisions for retrofitting existing structures and preventing local governments from increasign local property taxes because of "your improvments"
Hey its a start but I'd like to read the entire bill.
Brett- When you ask these questions please put a link so we can read the bill first before just reading somebody elses ideas of the Highlights. Thats how we all get in trouble.

Fair enough Ted

The UN says that the world food supply is getting dangerously low. Converting lands which would have grown food to fuel production will make the problem worse.

The C/H ratio of gasoline (CH3(CH2)6CH3) is about the same as the C/H ratio of ethanol (C2H6O) In other words, ethanol generates nearly as much CO2 as gasoline.

There are much simpler ways to reduce gasoline consumption and simultaneously improve the quality of life. Roundabouts, one way streets, timed traffic lights, telecommuting, etc.. The amount of time and money people waste sitting at traffic lights, driving back and forth to work every day, is obscene. The Internet is mature enough now to allow tens of millions of people to stay home most days.

If the auto industry achieves 35 MPG by 2020 through weight reductions in automobiles making them less safe then what have we really accomplished? What will happen to our insurance rates? Everyone wants better fuel economy but the question is, what do we give up to get it?

CFLs are reputed to be hazardous if they break because of the mercury they contain so I am not sure we aren't simply trading one problem for another.

Brett: How do you dispose of CFLs safely? Is there a cost for proper disposal? Reply: I have not had to yet, since none of them have died, but that is a good question.

Most provisions appear to be inflationary with questionable benefits to the environment. According to reports in the press, the cost of food is rising sharply because of the move to corn and ethanol.

It's the law now so we will have to wait and see if our legislators have simply substituted one problem with another.

35 mpg by 2020? Cars in Europe and Japan already are getting 35-40 mpg. This does not strike me as terribly ambitious. The US auto industry is bleeding market share year after year. Why should they determine our public policy?

Cynical gesture by Bush to try to pretend his government isn't the most environmentally destructive in world history.
Too little, too late.
However, it is welcome (if overdue and unimpressive) progress.
A much needed step in the right direction at last. If some other policies had been this sensible, the US wouldn't be in the sorry mess it's in today. And, if Bush hadn't been urinating into the wind for 7 years on the environment, the USA wouldn't be viewed by the rest of the world as eco-terrorists.

I changed all of my bulbs two years ago just to lower my electric bill and four of them have died already. Two in the bathroom and two in the livingroom. I'm sure that being made in China rapidly decreases their lifespan. They should have mandated that the bulbs be made in the USA, at least for a couple of years to bring some jobs back here.

Rick R,

If the auto industry achieves 35 MPG by 2020 through weight reductions in automobiles making them less safe then what have we really accomplished?

I'd like to think that future cars will still have to meet the same safety requirements and undergo the same consumer safety inspections that they do today. That combined with the (relatively) free-market economy should lead automakers to come up with new means of reducing weight, drag, and other hindrances to better gas mileage rather than sacrifice consumer safety. Automakers that are more innovative in this respect will have given themselves an advantage in the industry. If American automakers can adapt quickly, this is the best chance they have to make a return to dominance.

Since innovations in materials and technology rarely stay confined to the sectors in which they originated, I look forward to the advances that will emerge from this new market in the next decade.

On another note, I am concerned about the increase in food-stock based biofuels. I think biofuels have great potential to help eliminate our dependence on foreign oil, but not through corn and soy. They simply don't provide enough energy per unit. I think much more funding should be directed toward the research and development of other biofuel sources that are more efficient and require less fertile acreage to produce. It's my opinion that too much talk and far too little action has been taken on this front.

In the case of CFLs, the story is that the energy savings due to using a CFL means actually less mercury is spilled into the environment than would be otherwise. This assumes the electricity comes from coal-fired plants, which is not the case here in the Pacific Northwest or other places that get their energy from alternate sources. Nationally, however, the reduction will be significant until recent laws governing mercury emissions at coal-fired plants take effect.

The biggest problem with CFLs is that there is not a well-established program for disposal and recycling of old bulbs, and existing programs are typically local. There is one website I've come across that tries to hook people up with places to recycle spent CFLs, but there's no guarantee it will be convenient. I think in the coming years such programs need to be established. Here's a link to the site:

http://earth911.org/

Type in "Fluorescent Bulbs" and your city in the search box to look for matches. It is, of course, a "green" site, but in this case it has its practical uses.

No one has pointed out that 35 mpg is with fuel sold in 2020, which will be probably 50% ethanol. Since ethanol is a lower energy fuel than petro-gasoline, I estimate that the 2020 CAFE standard would translate to 40 or 42 mpg using current fuels. What are such cars like now? Hybrids or Geo Metros. If 42 mpg would be current fleet averages, every SUV would have to be balanced by about about three 60 mpg midgets to meet the law. Think this is possible?

Does anyone know about mileage standards for diesel semis?

For those who are that concerned about global warming and carbon emissions then who wants such an increase in corn based ethanol production? It's an extremely energy intensive process to make, and banning incandescent light bulbs won't make up the difference. I'm for using green technology as long as it's also economical to do so. Plus the price of corn will be and has adversely affected those who have lower incomes.

This bill also doesn't find enough ways to produce and find new sources of energy. We seriously need to look at nuclear power and clean coal. These are resources that are abundant in the country and can be used substantially reduce our dependency on foreign oil.

Well Brett, while I do think we need to conserve energy and be more efficent I don't think we should destroy our economy while doing so. My father owns his own trucking company and he is making about 100,000 year per truck. Now minus tolls, maintance, road taxes, corrupt D.O.T policemen giving tickets he still makes a good 85,00 a year, not bad! Now minus diesel fuel which costs him 1,300 a week. That comes out to about 17,500 a year. Now pay for a mortage, support a family, car payments, food, electric, sewer, taxes, cloths, gas, heating, water, and other supplies. Well it comes out negative.

When its time to get state aid or health insurance because your in the poor house they look at your gross income at 100,00 a year. You get NOTHING. Not to mention rates began to decrease on doing loads! Needless to say, he went out of buisness just recently along with the rest of his friends. This is the begining of a depression because everything you own, everything is shipped by trucks, if you make it so that they can't deliver, stores begin to suffer. When stores suffer employees suffer. Consumers suffer. Its a ripple effect. It's a big mistake consider fuel costs will go up even more, its the begining of the GDII (Great depression 2).

Does this 35 mph standard for big trucks as well? If so that is a joke because its not going to happen anytime soon... Do you know Brett? Reply: I do not know for sure, but I highly doubt it.

Does anyone else see my logic???

Dave Cooper,

Do you really, honestly believe that the United States of America is the most enviornmentally destructive gov't in the world? Really?
If so, I suggest you do a little research into air quality in just about any Chinese industrial city.

I really think this question needs to be answered first:::

Has global warming stopped?
David Whitehouse

Published 19 December 2007

I have heard it said, by scientists, journalists and politicians, that the time for argument is over and that further scientific debate only causes delay in action. But the wish to know exactly what is going on is independent of politics and scientists must never bend their desire for knowledge to any political cause, however noble.

The science is fascinating, the ramifications profound, but we are fools if we think we have a sufficient understanding of such a complicated system as the Earth�s atmosphere�s interaction with sunlight to decide. We know far less than many think we do or would like you to think we do. We must explain why global warming has stopped.

http://www.newstatesman.com/200712190004

"The incandescent light bulb that you can get for 90 cents or 50 cents at Wal-Mart is going to be outlawed," said Barton. "That's a cause for recession."

Oh man, the extreme Right continues to get more hilarious by the day. Now changing light bulbs is going to cause a recession? Newflash, Joe Barton: If the economy slides into a recession, it is because of the market correction caused by the overheated mortgage market. In fact, most of the recessions during the 20th century were caused by market corrections, not changing light bulbs. LOL.

Apparently, the big bad government is going to usher in a wave of Communism and we're all going to starve to death....and it's all starting with changing light bulbs!

The climate warms and cools in sync with solar output.

When I was in college in 1975, the Earth Day activists were preaching man made doom from global COOLING, and the onset of a new ice age.

They said that the exhaust gasses from our cars, factories, and power plants were causing increased cloud cover that was blocking sunlight from warming the earth's surface.

My solar astronomy professor chuckled, and showed us data proving that the sun was cooler than average, thereby reducing the climate temperature.

My professor went on to show more data demonstrating how the sun's activity rises and falls, leading to warmer climates followed by cooler climates.

I recently asked a friend/climatologist why the earth was warming. He smiled and said, "The sun is hotter right now."

One more thing, the last ice age produced glaciers that dredged vast quantities of soil and rock from the place we now know as Hudson Bay, and dragged it all south to create the Appalachian Mountains.

QUESTION: Whose fume-belching SUV's created the so-called "greenhouse gasses" that ended the last ice age?

I see that with one exception the posts here show more intelligence than the Congress and President. That's not hard. Increase the safety in your car easy: Drive less. Stand by a busy road and count the vehicles, number of drivers, traffic jostling etc. We need to move closer to our jobs if there's no mass transit. If changing jobs, try to cut your commute. I know that is very hard, as jobs are getting scarce. When we export jobs we export the technology and the infrastructure. Pretty soon we'll all be in service industry to each other and importing everything manufactured. When we move the manufacturing to other places in the world, they don't have health care for their workers, they don't have environmental controls or conservation. Heck, we hardly have them here especially since Bush & Co. had reversed a lot of that. I could go on.. He invaded Iraq to support thr Military Indistrial Complex. Note Cheney and Halliburton. And Bush himself failed in the energy business so his Daddy's pals bailed him out and set him up as the dummy head of a corporation. He was in the military. Another absentee job that he had.
- Ben W

Well, God forbid that it may cost a few thousand dollars extra to build more energy-sucking mini mansions. And what a shame that they'll no longer be able to use standard heat-producing, energy-wasting light bulbs to illuminate every arched window when every light in the home is on every evening, as seems to be the norm in most developments I drive by on a regular basis. And energy -efficient appliances??? Such demonry! And I guess an apology should be sent out to Detroit - what a shame that these nasty enviornmentalnuts expect fuel efficiency standards to be raised (marginally) every 35 or 40 years. At least Joe "voice of reason" Barton realizes that either he'll be dead and buried or Jesus will have returned by the time global warming/energy crisis really comes around to take a bite outta his bottom line, which (if truth be known) is probably why he feels the way he feels.

Reality sets in

Shell and StatoilHydro have scrapped plans to build a green power plant that would capture and store carbon dioxide because the project was found to be uneconomic. The decision to shelve the gas-fired power project, which was to be built at Tjeldbergodden in Norway, casts further doubt on the financial viability of power schemes that capture and safely store greenhouse gases.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article3080952.ece

and

"I know that whatever we do, the radical edge of the environmental movement that gets most of the press will not think it's enough.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=187629

�Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007� "There are many meteorologists, climatologists and other scientists who under normal circumstances would jump at the opportunity to appear on this list. However, they can not because they fear for their jobs." from ICECAP
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
Just watch this list during the next 6 months

Thinking that legislation can change sea level is hubris. I did a calculation on what 1000 new nuclear power plants operating by 2020 would do for the IPCC best guess in the year 2100. The answer is 1.4 cm - about half an inch (if you accept the IPCC projection A1B for the base case.) Also, there doesn't seem to be any acceleration of the slow trend

IPCC lead author, John Christy

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=37cd65f0-802a-23ad-4a69-5a1509a4a551