Posted on 07/12/2011 11:54:11 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Republicans have introduced a repeal of federal lightbulb standards in the House, which effectively ban older-style incandescent bulbs, but Democrats in the chamber have begun uniting to defeat it. Thanks to the way the bill made it to the floor, it needs a 2/3rds majority to pass — and that looks doubtful at best:
House Democrats on Monday indicated strong opposition to a controversial bill to repeal federal lightbulb standards, which could lead to the defeat of the measure in an expected Tuesday vote.
The Better Use of Light Bulbs Act, H.R. 2417 would end federal bulb standards passed in 2007 that Republicans have since held up as a prime example of federal overreach. House Republicans brought up the bill under a suspension of the rules, which requires two-thirds of voting members to support it.
That means even though a majority might support it, it is unlikely to be approved Tuesday in light of Democratic opposition.
Suspension votes are generally reserved for non-controversial bills, although this is not the first time Republicans have risked failure by putting a bill on the suspension calendar. In February, for example, the House rejected two bills in this manner — one instructing the Obama administration to seek repayment from the United Nations, and other to extend Patriot Act surveillance authorities.
I’m not sure why the bill was introduced under a suspension of the rules. The GOP may have wanted to rush it to the floor, as they have been attracting some heat (pun intended) over their lack of energy (yes, I’m having fun) about overturning the 2007 law. The Hill doesn’t explain the strategy behind that decision, but the Christian Science Monitor reports that it could be added later as a rider to another bill. The Monitor also explains the mechanics of the so-called “ban”:
Even if it does succeed, it would need to pass the Senate and be signed by the president – a very dubious prospect. It is possible, however, that the issue could reemerge as a rider to a budget bill or a bargaining chip in debt negotiations, analysts say. …
Contrary to claims frequently made by conservative talk radio, bloggers, and some news media outlets, incandescent light bulbs are not actually being “banned.” Incandescent bulbs with newer, more efficient technology will still be for sale, because the 2007 law does not single out any particular lighting technology. It only requires light bulbs to meet higher levels of efficiency if they are to be sold.
Under that law, general-purpose light bulbs must become about 30 percent more energy efficient. Different bulb classes face different deadlines, all between 2012 and 2014. The old Edison bulb gets killed on January 1, 2012. But more-efficient incandescent bulbs, which use only 72 watts to give the same output as an old 100-watt Edison bulb, will still be sold.
While Edison bulbs today are about 30-50 cents apiece, updated versions cost $1.50. But the latter pay for themselves in energy savings in about six months.
The old incandescent bulb is clearly an energy hog. Just 5 percent of the electricity it uses lights the bulb – the rest ends up as heat.
Well, this is a nitpicking fact-check from the Monitor, which normally does better work. The standards make production and sale of cheap incandescents illegal, which is effectively a ban no matter how one gets to that position. More efficient incandescents can still be purchased, but the lifespan of those may not be much greater than the cheaper alternatives, which means that it gets expensive to replace them. That may save energy, but the increased costs hit those with lower incomes hardest, who may not be able to wait six months for break-even points on spending. At least that’s better than what happens with the CFLs that green advocates have pushed as the alternative, which require hazmat abatement for disposal, thanks to the mercury used in their manufacture.
Energy Secretary Steven Chu defended the government action to remove the choice for Americans on light-bulb efficiency, saying “We are taking away a choice that continues to let people waste their own money.” I wasn’t aware that government’s role was to exercise veto power on my personal spending choices, at least not when the product itself isn’t illegal for reasons of public safety. Neither was Mark Steyn:
I wonder if Secretary Chu has any idea how stupid this argument sounds from an administration that has wasted more of other people’s money than anybody else on the planet. Secretary Chu and his colleagues took a trillion dollars of “stimulus” and, for all the stimulating it did, might as well have given it in large bills to Charlie Sheen to snort coke off his hookers’ bellies with. (In my weekend column, I touch on only the most lurid and outrageous of the government’s many smart investment decisions: its use of stimulus dollars to stimulate the Mexican coffin industry.) …
There’s a limit to the amount of damage I can do wasting my own money. There are no limits to the damage Chu & Co can do wasting my money.
John Hinderaker notes a few of his wastes of money over the years to make a point:
I’ve wasted my money from time to time. I once bought a pair of bell-bottom jeans. I took Susie W. on a date. I bought a Cuban cigar when I was in the Caribbean. I contributed to Jimmy Carter’s presidential campaign. But I always figured that was my business–it was, after all, my money.
Bell-bottom jeans? This man needs a government intervention! (By the way, don’t miss out on your chance to enter the Power Line $100,000 Prize — this might make a good topic.)
Are more efficient light bulbs a wiser consumer choice? Certainly, if one can afford to make that choice. Lean chicken is a wiser choice than ground hamburger, too, and Honda CRVs better than most GM choices in similar classes. That doesn’t mean that we need government standards that impose those choices on free citizens.
What the dim bulbs do in Washington on this matter will not affect me. I have a lifetime supply of Thomas Alva Edison’s incandescent bulbs(in all wattages) in my cabinet. In fact, my supply will probably out last me.I guess the great-grand kids can use them for target practice if any guns are still allowed.
I agree, I have had them break while trying to screw them into the socket.
It would seem, from the strategy employed, that moron repubs don't get it either...
Might as well call the EPA hazmat cleanup team before you leave the store.
Your generalized comment that compact fluorescent lights “don't last for crap” is simply false. It's wrong. It's incorrect. It makes the rest of us look bad by association. You're in a hole. Stop digging.
********************************************
They don't last worth a crap for me either. So, I guess that makes me dishonest too.
I continue to stock up, esp. with 100-watt bulbs. Heck, at some point I’ll have a lifetime supply—being an old guy.
“I’ll have to try one when I’m through with my 20 year supply of incandescents.”
I have about 1500 of them. Got some of them delivered on pallets (they were a good price). As long as they don’t leak, I’m good for decades...as well as my kids.
Not surprising since the GOP is lead by folks who are more infatuated with the prestige ,perks & social status of elected office than doing / fighting for what is right for the nation.
Is noone on this forum capable of thinking???
There’s a world of difference between “they don’t work” and “they don’t work for me”.
Think for a moment.
********************************************
As per your comments, I would say your the one who can't think.
It is perfectly obvious to everyone that he/she was talking about their own experience with these bulbs.
This is an opinion forum. Therefore, some people will actually express an opinion.
If you have a different opinion... state it.
That doesn't make either one of you a liar, whether someone bothers to put a "as per my experience" disclaimer or not.
Think for a moment.
Nah. For some reason I like the color better than incandescent bulbs. I am shocked at times with respect to government priorities. The country is imploding and all they want to do is smack people around over light bulbs.
This isn’t physics, this is finance.
The law of finances is:
Caveat emptor.
Nonsense. His initial comment was:
"They don’t last for crap!
And they least ever less in ceiling fans!.................
And at the prices they cost the savings on utilities is eaten up to nothing!..................
This is a blanket assertion, completely unqualified or unlimited. As such, it is false. As a qualified statement of his own experience, it is probably true (I choose to believe him, as regards his own experience).
This is an opinion forum. Therefore, some people will actually express an opinion.
If you have a different opinion... state it.
He did not state an opinion. He made a factual assertion (that is, an assertion that is subject to being tested and proven true or false). His general, unqualified assertion of fact, his statement turns out to be false. Many people (self included) have experiences contrary to his.
The ""as per my experience" disclaimer " is of enormous importance. It distinguishes between a single data point and a general principle.
Think for a moment.
I seem to be one of the few folk doing that around here.
This isn’t physics, this is finance.
Nonsense. It is both.
The law of finances is: Caveat emptor.
I agree. The devices in question clearly demonstrate a much higher than advertised failure rate under some environmental conditions. This failure rate is a matter of physics and engineering. This is a matter of which potential buyers should be aware.
To advertise these devices as fully functional according to specification, in all reasonably expected environmental conditions (as the manufacturers and politicians do) is false and misleading.
To condemn them as unqualified expensive failures in all reasonably expected environmental conditions (as RB initially did) is false and misleading.
End of discussion, on my part at least. If adults can't or won't understand the fallacy of extrapolating from their own singular individual experience to general principle, there's very little I can do to help them. This is a lesson that should have been learned in childhood.
This failure rate is a matter of CHEAP PARTS, CHEAP LABOR, AND NO QUALITY CONTROL. These bulbs could be made more rugged and longer lasting, but there is no incentive on the part of the manufacturer to do so. A bulb that needs to be replaced half as often has half the sales on repeat orders. As a tire engineer (1970's) once told me, "We could make tires that last 200k miles, fairly easily, but why would we want to?"......... It's all about money and getting it while the getting's good...........
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.