Environmental Law costs Jobs
By bobmnu
@bobmnu (8157)
United States
October 11, 2010 1:18am CST
It seems that the Green thinking Members of Congress passed a law saying that incandescent light bulbs will be outlawed starting in 2012. The law has already cost Americans their jobs and given a boost to the economy of China. General Electric shut down a plant that produced incandescent light bulbs costing over 200 American jobs. The new bulbs compact fluorescent lights will be made in China due to the high cost of producing them in the US. This is just another example of the Politicians listening to one group and making a law to suit them. When they think they are solving one problem the have ended up creating more problems and will cost the economy in the long run. Like so many of the actions of the political leaders they have no idea of the Law of Unintended Consequences. The politicians see a problem and come up with one way to fix it and they fix one problem without looking at the consequences of their actions.
Maybe it is time that our elected officals took the time to study the laws they are proposing and study what the consequences will be and if the law is really necessary or will it just be more big government telling the people how to live.
11 responses
@spalladino (17891)
• United States
11 Oct 10
Do you have any information as to why it would cost GE so much to produce these bulbs that closing the plant was necessary? Let's face facts here. I don't know about other states but our electric bills here in Florida have risen dramatically. I would be willing to pay a higher price for an american made fancy new bulb but, if industry is going to make that impossible, I will buy what is available to me because I'm the one who pays the electric company.
1 person likes this
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
11 Oct 10
Those curly pasta lights seriouisly last a long time. I've had mine for going on three years and haven't had to replace one yet (except one I broke when I was installing it in the kitchen). They're not as bright, and somedays they don't want to really light up well at all. But they haven't had to be replaced yet.
My electricity bill has never really reflected the change, though. But that might be because my town simply charges whatever they want for electricity. One month, we're loooking at $300, and the next we're looking at $200 with more electricity actually used.
If you ask me, it's ALL a friggin' scam - from the hyperbole of dying polar bears and the need to electrify the home fusilli to the political trade-offs and the save-the-planet folk lining up to take over business for the so-called "good" of our planet.
These bulbs are awesome if you don't like taking store trips to buy bulbs every other week.
1 person likes this
@TTCCWW (579)
• United States
11 Oct 10
spalladino,
When they passed this they were trying to get everyone to switch to the curly pasta lights because they save a ton of electricity and pollution. What will be replacing the flourescent in the next year or two will be the LED lights that will last 40 to 50 years and use a tenth of the electricity as a flourescent.
GE is one of the leaders in LED manufacturing.
GE has been pushing for this change and are not once again playing off how they had to shut down jobs while at the same time they payed lobbyiest for these changes.
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
11 Oct 10
spalladino It was in a news article where GE reported that the high cost of US labor and the cost of retro fitting the factory was figured into the decision to move the plant to China.
I use the traditional light bulbs, the CFL and the LED in various places in my home. I would agree that Traditional lights do burn out faster but I have noticed that CFL tend to dim over time and where I have them for reading or work I have to replace them before they burn out. I can not use them outside in the winter they are very slow to light up and then they are not as bright. The LED lights do not give off the same amount of light as a traditional light. I have used equivalent wattage and notice a difference in the light output.
My problem is the government requiring me to use one type that happens to be produced mainly by a single company seems wrong to me. If CLF's are as good as they say then people will buy them and save money but I have not read any real proof that they save money based on the total cost.
@elmiko (6630)
• United States
12 Oct 10
you left something out. its not just about the consequences of having jobs outsourced to china but also about the consequences of global warming. the older incandescent light bulbs produce more co2 emissions which is the primary cause of global warming. the consequences of global warming is much worse then having jobs outsourced to china. also there's no need consumer wise to have the incandescent light bulb around. they cost more in the long run by adding costs to the power bill and because they quit working sooner.
1 person likes this
@flpoolbum (2978)
• United States
11 Oct 10
I think that instead of giving large corporations tax cuts for sending jobs overseas, they should be charged for it. Tax credits should only be given to businesses that actually create new jobs in the United States. Countries that charge heavy import taxes on American (USA) made goods should have heavier fees or taxes put on their products being shipped to the USA. Our representatives should be giving tax breaks to companies that want to create jobs in the USA, especially all these new jobs for building solar and wind generating equipment. Our representatives should make it more expensive for companies to take their factories overseas then import the finished goods back to the USA to sell to us.
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
12 Oct 10
If you check with business owners they will tell you that the major reason for moving is government regulations and taxes. One small business owner, a restaurant, reported that with the extension of unemployment benefits his cost of UC increased $3200 a year. To expand and build new facility takes years as you have to do an environmental impact study, do a check to see if the land is or was ever a wet land then you have to get the approval of the zoning board. Once the building has been approved and built and you are ready to hire more employees you have to collect racial data on every applicant to prove that you did not discriminate against a minority. It is time consuming and expensive to expand your business just doing the required government paper work and reporting. Then you have to keep all the paper work in case the government decides to challenge you down the road.
@sierras236 (2739)
• United States
11 Oct 10
Unfortunately, we are also looking at the environmental consequences for having fluorescent light bulbs. Simply put, they are hazardous material. As of 2014, every single light bulb will be a health hazard. Think of all that Mercury that is being dumped into local landfills because people are simply throwing them away instead of disposing of them properly. China may build them but America will suffer the repercussions of Mercury.
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
11 Oct 10
Bob, actually Wal Mart and congressional republicans who gave tax breaks to companies who export jobs to a communist country should be blamed for this. The other people that should be blamed is GE who has no problem at all using cheap labor to make billions and not pay a dime in use corporate taxes. Republicans love to complain about our corporate tax rates as being the highest in the world, yet GE paid ZERO last year in taxes. Blame congressional republicans, and Wal Mart, not the people are that trying to save this country from middle eastern terrorist.
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
12 Oct 10
I am not blaming one party or the other, but rather those politicians who support anything that is labeled "Green" and blindly voting for it. I don't GE know about and not paying taxes but they are a big benefactor of "Green" laws. GE benefited from $24.9 million in stimulus money according to CNN. My problem is that they only look at how a law will impact the environment and not any other effects or consequences for the rest of the economy or Society.
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
12 Oct 10
Bob, the other thing you have to look at is the future of our country. We all know that oil will get back up to $100 a barrel, and that Gas will be back up to $4.00 a gallon. We also know that some of the money that we spend on oil goes to terrorist. If you don't start to create alternative energies, than you are only making the future worse. Don't you remember when gas was $5.00 gallon, and people were complaining about why we haven't found an alternative to oil. Well, here we are, do you want to keep the status quo, or do you want to change the world. You have to start somewhere.
@6precious102 (4043)
• United States
14 Oct 10
What does Congress know or care about life outside of Washington, D.C.?
@djbtol (5493)
• United States
12 Oct 10
You have made a number of really good points, and I could not agree more. With our current Congress it is almost beyond imagination that they would truly know not only the bill they pass, but also have studied any consequences that may come from that decision. When the healthcare bill was passed, it was made obvious that many in Congress were not even reading the bill. McDonalds and 29 othr companies noticed that the cost for them was higher.
The truth is that government taxes and control through environmental regulations have driven much business out of the country. The left goes on and on about how terrible big business is, yet they will not take responsibility for driving jobs away.
@bestboy19 (5478)
• United States
11 Oct 10
Do you remember some years back when they decided to put a higher tax on luxury items such as yachts? Many of the American yacht builders went under because buyers went to other countries to buy at lesser cost to them. I believe the response from the powers that be was, "Whoops."
@millertime (1394)
• United States
13 Oct 10
This is what happens when the "experts" in government think the answer to every problem is more legislation. They never seem to look ahead or even think at all about what the consequences of their actions will be. They always seem to want to BAN something too. Is there anything that they don't want to exert their control over? Instead of just coming out with a program to encourage people to switch over to more efficient bulbs, they think it's better to MAKE you do what THEY think is best. Every time they do something like that, they are taking more personal freedom away from every American and taking away our freedom seems to be the main goal of those in power at the moment.
@mattic (282)
• United States
11 Oct 10
The law of unintended consequences is always at work in government intervention. Ever tightening regulations are necessary to address each subsequent round of problems created. This is the road to tyranny and always the end of statist policies. Rather than let the free market determine the value of the "new light bulbs" the government tried to legislate consumer choice and created the resultant mess.
