If energy needs to be saved, there are good ways to do it.
                                                               Government product regulation is not one of them

Tuesday, August 14, 2012

Paul Ryan New Vice Presidential Candidate "Change your Leaders Not Your Light Bulbs"


source  thoseshirts.com

Of relevance not just in the USA... for anyone against the ban ;-)
Admittedly in the SovietEUnion it does not seem to make much difference who rules or where.

Republican Vice Presidential candidate Ryan voted against the light bulb ban last year
[Roll Call 563, 12th July 2011].

While otherwise not apparently having commented on the issue, or stated any position on it on his website, it seems from other sources as if he might be pretty committed about it:
As reported, Paul Ryan is "a virulent denier of climate science", "slashed clean energy investment" and "voted to eliminate light bulb efficiency standards" (for some reason efficiency is always equated with energy efficiency in some quarters!).

Mitt Romney meanwhile has indeed in his campaign questioned the light bulb regulations - as for example reported by TPM Livewire earlier this year...
..."and the [Obama] government would have banned Thomas Edison’s light bulb"

Any complete repeal of the ban of course first has to work its way through Congress,
and it unfortunately seems a particularly partisan issue
(unfortunate, since on a "liberal" tax and spend ideology a taxation policy that could pay for reduction on energy saving alternatives and so "not just hit people with taxes" while keeping choice, would surely be seen as preferable to a ban also by a Democrat electorate if properly presented and promoted, while of course a competition policy in turn is better on a Conservative agenda - regulatory bans being the worst choice of all both in choice and energy saving as covered and referenced in the "How Bans are Wrongly Justified" section and on the Ceolas.net website)

In other words, the Congress elections are at least as important, and so only Republican majorities in both House and Senate would give any likelihood of progress.

The presidential position is simply to sign or not sign the Bill coming through.
President Obama would veto any such bill, a President Romney would now almost certainly
sign it, given his more pronounced ideological stance underlined by his vice presidential choice.

That said, as always there are workarounds...
If the President considered it important enough, given his executive powers, he could conceivably act to interfere with the implementation side of the law, such as supporting the funding block measures that have been attempted by House Republicans.


Anonymous said...

A bright idea
The leaders should stop the ban like Canadian Gov did. Also New Zealand

Anonymous said...

Thanks for reminding me that Ryan is a climate denier, I had forgotten about that.

For the first time, I will be voting Republican this November.