Comments on: Businesses and Regulation

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:59:38 +0000

GE has a lot to gain from CO2 legislation. I was listening to a talk show, and a caller called and told a story that he had watched a program on the History Channel on man made Climate Change. Yeah, it was a program about the *future* on the History Channel.

The radio host suggested that the reason the History Channel broadcast such a program had to do with who owned the network. The History Channel is a subsidiary of MSNBC. MSNBC is owned by GE. So it would make sense, that anything owned by GE would be influenced by the higher ups in GE.

Visit GE’s website. There you will see their commitment to the development and manufacture of high efficiency gas turbines. Wind turbines. Photovoltaics. Just mouse over “Innovation” and look for yourself.

I bought shares of GE a few years ago, before this Climate Change thing really got going. I’m going to keep those shares. While I am not your investment adviser, I personally believe that companies that invest in man made Climate Change stand to make a lot of money because of legislation.

By: charleywhiskey

charleywhiskey — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 01:55:30 +0000

There are no small CFL spotlights or floodlights because the light source is so much larger than an incandescent bulb that it cannot be efficiently focused. Thus it wastes a considerable amount of light in many applications by illuminating areas where light is not needed or wanted.

By: charleywhiskey

charleywhiskey — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 01:54:04 +0000

By: Bob Smith

Bob Smith — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 20:37:02 +0000

But high-efficiency bulbs don’t pay for themselves. They’re too expensive. It’s normal, of course, for environmental moonbats to tout operating costs while ignoring capital costs. They also ignore how the bulbs actually work: you can’t pop into your bedroom for 10 seconds and pick up your keys when a CFL needs 30s to warm up (plus it uses a lot of power during that warmup).

By: markm

markm — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 18:00:12 +0000

GE would also be a likely beneficiary of any regulations that caused power generation and transmission equipment to be replaced earlier – probably with much larger sales and higher profit margins than are involved in light bulb sales.

By: Bearster

Bearster — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 17:01:39 +0000

Consumers may pay a premium for a more efficient bulb. If a standard bulb is $1 and an efficient one is $1.50 but it saves $1 per year in electricity, it makes sense and most people will do it. But if the efficient one is $12, few would.

Also, if quality goes down (for example a cold blue light, or 30 seconds of flickering and dim useless light before the bulb turns on, then it's not worth it to save a buck a year in electricity).