The U.S. House of Representatives voted yesterday to hold back funding to enforce a 2007 law that would make light bulbs more energy efficient.
The new standards spelled out by the law would require most light bulbs to be up to 30 percent more efficient by 2014 and at least 60 percent more efficient by 2020.
"The federal government has no right to tell me or any other citizen what type of light bulb to use at home," said Representative Michael C. Burgess, the Texas Republican who introduced the funding restriction as an amendment to a 2012 energy and water spending bill.
Traditional incandescent light bulbs--the kind found in most American homes--are nearly identical in design to the bulb that Thomas Edison invented in 1879. According to the Congressional Research Service, incandescent bulbs use only 10 percent of the energy they consume to produce light. The rest is wasted as excess heat that offers consumers no practical benefit.
Many other light-bulb technologies are more efficient, including halogen incandescent bulbs, compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) and light-emitting diodes (LEDs). Energy-efficient light bulbs cost more in the short-term--many of the newer designs cost $2 to $3 per bulb compared to about 35 cents for a standard incandescent bulb--but they are far cheaper over time due to their longer life and the lower electricity bills they generate.
But let's get back to those House Republicans and their concern that mandating more efficient light bulbs for massive energy savings is an example of government run amok and infringing on the rights of individual consumers.
Keep in mind that U.S. politicians have objected to just about every step forward the republic has taken since it was founded. When the first seat-belt laws were proposed, for example, there was a hue and cry that forcing automakers to include seat belts in vehicles would bankrupt the industry and infringe on the rights of drivers. The automobile industry survived without noticeable damage and seat belts have saved countless lives.
Without so-called government interference, meat wouldn't be inspected for safety, traffic signals and speed limits wouldn't exist, and our national park system would be a dream that never came true.
The lawmakers who are objecting to more efficient light bulbs are among those who say that energy is so vital to economic growth and national security that the government should allow oil and gas companies to drill wherever they want, permit coal companies to blow the tops off mountains, and give power plants free rein to pollute our air and water with toxic emissions--all without regard for public health or environmental consequences. So why wouldn't using our national energy supply more efficiently--getting more bang for our energy buck--fit right into their world view?
Whatever reasons the House had for passing this ill-considered amendment, let's hope the Senate puts public and national interests first and keeps the original provision intact.
Also Read:
Comments
Why not let the free market decide? I switched from old incandescent bulbs to the new fluorescent bulbs a few years ago and haven’t looked back. The cost savings over the long run are self evident to those who use them. If people still want to buy incandescent filament bulbs then let them (they might have a special reason) but by and large, most people are interested in saving money and will switch to more efficient bulbs. My issue with legislating “efficiency” is that people don’t like to be told what to do, and while you make valid points about environmental harm, the average person only cares about what effects them, and money is much more personal than a mountaintop in West Virginia to most folks (unfortunately). I also doubt that incandescent bulbs will stand a chance against LED’s once they start being mass marketed and then, ironically, it might be the fluorescent bulbs that are touted as the bad guys.
Efficiency of CFLs is over-rated. If a CFL was a 10Watt rating the power plant supplying actually has to generate 20Watts. This is because the CFL contains a capacitor which phase shifts the current.
The so called ‘efficient’ lights do not emit the promised level of light – even after their warm up period – which means many users trade up to a higher wattage to compensate.
The long warm up period – and the fact that these lights are sold on the basis of being economical – means people tend to leave them on rather than switch them on and off like the used to witn an incandescent globe.
Further, many people switch to halogen lights in preference to CFLs – most often halogen downlights. In most cases one incandescent light is replaced with several halogen downlights – and so net electricity usage goes up.
In short, the concept that a government edict banning incandescent lights ’saves power’ cannot be supported.
The fact that the heat generated by the incandescent lamp is also one of the contributing factors of global warming and this is the reason for promoting CFL, etc. No doubt, the points are valid, but considering the after effects of the global warming, can’t we avoid something that adds more fuel to fire in the issue of global warming. See, many underdeveloped countries and developing countries have realised this fact and they have started practicing the same. Yes,we can compromise on this issue.
Both comments above are quite valid. The first CFs were very expensive, but quite durable. The bulbs now made in China have a much shorter lifespan, and, given that only about 10% of the average family’s electric usage is for lighting, the energy savings is offset by the bulbs’ cost. Secondly, the light given off by the CFs is not adequate for some applications and incandescents are still superior. And thirdly, there are potential Hg pollution issues with the CFs. Even if we do save 10% of energy with these bulbs, and coal will last us 200 yrs, then we’re only prolonging the use of coal by 20 yrs- not a very big savings, considering the disadvanages. Down with BigBrother!
I is the loss of a freedome that is at stake. What will the next thing be that the gov mandates you will buy ? The camel’s nose is in the tent, folks.
The problem with banning incandescent bulbs is that for some of us, we still need them for certain things. The CFLs do not fit in my overhead light fixture and since I live in an apartment I am not a t liberty to change the light fixtures. Also, CFLs do contain some mercury, which is considered a hazardous waste. Although, households are exempt from disposing the bulbs as hazardous waste, businesses are not. I do wonder what happens when a CFL bulb breaks. How will the typical household handle it? Sweep it up and dispose of it in the regular trash?
Let the market determine what the consumer will buy.
the mercury argument is a bit over-worked. More mercury is released into the atmosphere in the process of making and using incandescents than CFLs by a factor of about 3 to one. The only problem is that CFLs localize most of theirs in the actual lamp whereas incandescents spew it all over the place.
The real fact is that NOBODY gets Hg poisoning from environmental exposure. Cases of same are virtually always due to accidental ingestion of Hg salts. I only mentioned it to point out to the goodie-two-shoes trying to control us, who are also the ones always complaining about Hg exposure, that their plan has a few flaws of logic in it.
With the current technology level of the CF bulbs I’m happy with this decision. We switched to CF a couple of years ago but after a couple of them burned out (the ballast messed up) and created chemical toxic clouds in the house we removed them from the bedrooms and only use them in a few areas due to safety concerns.
The scope of the legislation is to raise the energy efficiency of bulbs, which is NOT the same as banning the incandescent bulb, people.
Apparently it is possible to make an incandescent bulb that meets the more stringent limits on energy consumption, and they are being sold currently.
This is yet another petty non-issue that has been foisted on the republic for reasons I, too, can’t fathom. There are more important things going on. Please don’t get side tracked and waste your life fighting against an issue that doesn’t even exist.
Now-go forth and reclaim your personal freedom by driving without wearing a seat belt. (No, don’t; I’m kidding.)
The real scope of the legislation was to give GE an excuse to close a few American incandescent bulb manufacturing plants and send those jobs to China. Huge profit advantage. Of course, it’s a mere coincidence that Jeffrey Imelt is a very close advisor to President Obummer and also happens to be CEO of GE. No connection whatsoever.
No, Guido, there is no connection. The original legislation calling for more energy-efficient light bulbs passed in 2007 and was signed into law by President Bush, long before Obama was elected and sworn in.
As others have pointed out here, the legislation doesn’t ban incandescent bulbs or anything else. It simply sets higher efficiency standards for all light bulbs.
Meanwhile, the debate is over for now. House Republicans withdrew the amendment to stop funding for enforcement of the new standards.
Imelt: major contributor to DNC. Congress in ‘07: Dem controlled. No connection?
Here in Australia we’ve been using energy-efficient light bulbs for years. Virtually no-one uses the old incandescent light bulbs any more. Our state governments have encouraged us to be more climate smart and save on power usage in the home, and it’s been widely embraced. Politically it’s a non-issue: all sides of politics support it. Why are you Americans so paranoid about your freedom? We read about your Tea Party’s impending campaign to dismantle your EPA and roll back all regulations on clean air, water, soil etc with amazement. In Australia even our conservatives broadly support pollution regulation and environmental protection. When we read statements by your Republican pollies and Tea Party advocates, we think they’re mad.
Steve- don’t believe everything you read in the papers. Conservatives/libertarians here think the EPA has over-stepped its bounds and there are too many regs that make business & life in general here too difficult without accomplishing anything substantial. Obama admin has in 2 yrs instituted 3x the regs instituted in 8 yrs by the last admin. As a result, we have as yet to rise out of the dpression started in ‘08 and no hope in sight (except for the potential to vote these guys out in ‘12). I wouldn’t be too eager to compare the wisdom of the Aussie govt to ours anyways. What’s up with your carbon tax regs? The rest of the world has seen the light.
Steve- don’t believe everything you read in the papers. Conservatives/libertarians here think the EPA has over-stepped its bounds and there are too many regs that make business & life in general here too difficult without accomplishing anything substantial. Obama admin has in 2 yrs instituted 3x the regs instituted in 8 yrs by the last admin. As a result, we have as yet to rise out of the dpression started in ‘08 and no hope in sight (except for the potential to vote these guys out in ‘12). I wouldn’t be too eager to compare the wisdom of the Aussie govt to ours anyways. What’s up with your carbon tax regs? The rest of the world has seen the light.