Posted on 06/27/2011 7:24:46 AM PDT by Libloather
Lightbulb Rules Spark Political Fight
However, new legislation may not change what manufacturers are doing in creating more efficient bulbs that use halogen, LED or other new technology.
By Rob Lever, Agence France-Presse
June 27, 2011
With a January deadline looming on a U.S. law mandating energy efficiency standards for lightbulbs, some political forces don't want to turn out the lights. More than a dozen Republican lawmakers are backing efforts to repeal the 2007 law that requires bulbs to consume less energy. Meanwhile Texas has enacted a law that would exempt itself from the federal requirement, and other states are debating similar legislation.
Some consumers have also begun hoarding the old incandescent bulbs based on an erroneous fear that these will be banned starting January 1 and consumers will be forced to buy compact fluorescent or other new types of bulbs. The law does not ban incandescent bulbs, but creates new standards for them, basically requiring increased efficiency, so that the bulbs with a lighting equivalent of 100 watts consume just 72 watts.
Still, repeal backers including at least two Republican presidential candidates argue the law is an intrusion on Americans' freedom of choice. Activists have launched petition drives calling the rules an example of a "nanny" state. "The government has no business telling an individual what kind of light bulb to buy," said Representative Michele Bachmann, who is running for president, in introducing her "Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act" earlier this year. And she told a party gathering in June: "President Bachmann will allow you to buy any light bulb you want in the United States of America."
A separate bill has been introduced by Representative Joe Barton, joined by 14 other congressmen including Ron Paul, another presidential contender. Barton said the 2007 law has resulted in "Washington-mandated layoffs in the middle of a desperate recession" and added "Washington is making too many decisions that are better left to people who work for their own paychecks and earn their own living."
A similar bill has introduced been introduced in the Senate by Republicans Jim DeMint of South Carolina and Mike Enzi of Wyoming.
Barton and others argue that the new law -- which was signed by Republican president George W. Bush -- would force consumers to switch to compact fluorescent lights (CFLs), most of which are not made in the United States. Additionally, critics of the law claim CFLs contain toxic mercury, cannot be dimmed, and produce an inferior light.
A survey of U.S. consumers by the lighting firm Osram Sylvania showed 28% were worried about the demise of the traditional bulb and 13% may start hoarding 100-watt bulbs. But the survey also showed 59% of respondents "eager to use more energy efficient lighting solutions," the company said.
Industry representatives say there are public misconceptions about the law, including the notion of a ban on incandescents. "Consumers need to know they will still have incandescent bulbs, they don't need to hoard bulbs," said Kyle Pitsor, vice president of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, which represents lighting producers. "The new incandescent bulbs will save them money and they will have more choices than ever before."
In Texas, Governor Rick Perry on June 17 signed a bill that exempts the state from the federal law, as long as incandescent light bulbs are manufactured and sold within the state. Similar legislation is pending in South Carolina and Pennsylvania. In Arizona, a bill passed by the legislature was vetoed by Governor Jan Brewer, who said it could not be implemented because within the state there are no mining or processing plants for tungsten, which is needed for incandescent bulbs.
Industry representatives contend the state laws may be counterproductive, adding it was unlikely that a manufacturer would establish a plant just for one state.
Kim Freeman of GE Appliances & Lighting said the various state efforts could lead to "a patchwork of inconsistent standards across the nation that would mean increased manufacturing and distribution costs, higher prices for consumers and lost sales for retailers."
Larry Lauk, spokesman for the American Lighting Association, said any new legislation may not change what manufacturers are doing in creating more efficient bulbs that use halogen, LED or other new technology.
"Manufacturers have already moved down the road," he said.
The micro- pissants trying to attack my sugar in my kitchen laugh at it.Pissant got zotted.
oh... nevermind...
“The law does not ban incandescent bulbs.”
Yeah right. Try finding one to buy once the law goes into effect.
Get Obama and all democrat commiecrats out!
Yeah he was zotted because he was not a Palinista and I think he had a Bachmann ping list. Was he zotted with lemony crap or DEET?
Know what works on those little ants? 409 spray. Kills those little bastards dead and they don’t come back.
I was on the thread that day. That was not the reason. Not by a long shot.
Throw out the law mandating low-flush toilets as well.
Bought some 100 watt bulbs from a company through Amazon only to have the order cancelled. They won’t sell to Californians. I had to order the bulbs from an out of state company. They shipped them. Soon we’ll be ordering them from out of the country! Really? What a bunch of nuts we keep voting into office in this country...
The manufacturing costs for these things must be 10 times the cost of an incandescent, and what about the disposal and environmental ‘costs’ of MERCURY in each and every one?
The toxic cleanup from one broken ‘new’ bulbs is 1000 times the energy of a regular bulb.
All the libs need to do is get a rider attached that bans corn subsidies. Then she’ll change her tune.
That's odd - the 100-watt incandescent outdoor floodlight bulbs have already been phased-out. I don't see any "100-watt equivalent" incandescents of that bulb type on the shelves.
“However, new legislation may not change what manufacturers are doing in creating more efficient bulbs that use halogen, LED or other new technology.”
So what? LEDs are better but the market should decide that, not the government.
Thanks.
One teaspoon of Savogran TSP (tri-sodium phosphate) located in the Paint Dept of Home Depot, added to Cascade or Tide per load puts the phosphates right back. I’ve been using it and it’s just like the old days! The dishwasher cleans dishes again and stopped smelling—no pre-washing other than large food chunks. Clothes come out cleaner.
I didn’t know that. Thanks!
One word--Talstar. I found it on eBay. It's banned in a bunch of lib states so I figured it must be good. It got rid of my ants and according to the studies I found on it (the active chemical is bifenthrin), it has a long residual life, stays in place indoors and out, and is very safe for mammals when used as directed. However, it's very toxic to aquatic life so be careful around ponds or streams.
they’ll still be making old-school lightbulbs for years to come for the 90% of countries that either can’t afford “green” lighting or were not stupid enough to pass this mandate.
“a patchwork of inconsistent standards across the nation that would mean increased manufacturing and distribution costs, higher prices for consumers and lost sales for retailers.”
Which is why they all head straight for D.C. It’s one-stop shopping for all of their influence peddling.
“Manufacturers have already moved down the road”
“They’ll move back. “
Maybe, maybe not. CFls and LEDs have advantages, but the old fashioned light is cheap and effective for many uses.
What is certain is that Government dictation of this is destructive and dumb.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.