Not-So-Bright Idea: U.S. House Votes to Keep Inefficient Light Bulbs

By Larry West,   July 16, 2011

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.
