Skip to comments.How many lawmakers does it take to...(Make incandescent light bulbs illegal)
Posted on 07/17/2011 9:49:03 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
IN 5½ months, the sale of traditional 100-watt incandescent light bulbs will become illegal in the United States. Twelve months later, the same fate will befall most 75-watt incandescents, and one year after that, conventional 60- and 40-watt bulbs will be gone as well. Thomas Edisons world-changing invention is one of the most enduringly popular products ever created - something so useful, so dependable, and so cheap that over the course of more than a century, consumers bought them by the billions. Yet thanks to a federal law that relatively few Americans knew anything about when it was passed by Congress and signed by George W. Bush in 2007, the familiar light bulb is about to be banned.
Americans certainly know about that law now. On paper, its purpose is to increase energy efficiency by requiring that bulbs produce more light per watt. But by setting the new standards higher than the common incandescent can reach, the laws real-world effect is to deprive most Americans of the freedom to buy the light bulbs they prefer. Instead, they will be forced to spend more money for fragile halogen bulbs or for the swirled compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) that have been around for decades but that most consumers have never wanted to buy.
The looming ban has stoked grassroots outrage, especially on the right. Presidential candidate Michele Bachman draws cheers and applause when she tells Republican audiences: President Bachmann will allow you to buy any light bulb you want. Last week, a bill repealing the light bulb mandates was put to a vote in the House of Representatives; it won a majority (233-193), with nearly every Republican favoring repeal and nearly every Democrat opposed. Since two-thirds support was needed for passage, the 2007 law remains intact.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
How many Congressmen does it take to unscrew incandescent light bulbs? :-)
Do you or anyone know the reasoning behind the banning of the incandescent bulb?
And all the mercury-polluting CFL bulbs are made in China, because our environmentalists don’t care about fouling China’s water and killing the workers manufacturing these dangerous bulbs. Environmentalists are hypocrites who really don’t care about that part of the Earth.
The same reason for the banning of FREON — money, geld, d’argent, moolah, flooss.
Sheesh folks, some people will get very rich by promoting CFL bulbs. Ever seen a poor congresscritter?
Higher profits for Ubama’s buddies at GE. Also less freedom. And the global warming idiocy.
Lucky me. I just found two old boxes of Westinghouse 100W bug bulbs, 1970’s vintage I guess. Wonder what they are worth?
Should I call Sotheby’s?
Put ‘em up for bid...proceeds go to the freepathon!
If this “republican” house can’t fix the lightbulb ban, how are they going to fix Obamacare .. no hope with this crowd. They should have done this their first week in office.
Just ill-informed Congressmen sitting around one day saying to each other "Let's stir the pot" so they banned them.
You have to understand that the United States lighting requirement is met mostly through the widespread installation of fluorescent lighting systems ~ and that has been the case since the early 1950s.
Incandescent lights consume such a small part of the national power production they are and have been IRRELEVANT for a very long time.
Only by claiming that all incandescents were in an on state 24/7 were their analysts to come up with a projected savings of $21.33 per year for each person. Since most incandescents are actually NEVER ON most informed analysts suggest that the maximum feasible savings would be more like 1% of that, or less than a quarter dollar per year, and that assumed that you would purchase and use only the most efficient fluorescent lights possible. As it turns out in heavy use in the home fluorescent lights don't take well to being turned on and off all the time, nor do they stand up well to WET ENVIRONMENTS ~ when they are in close proximity to the "wet".
So any savings are probably ephemeral at best, and might even be LOSSES.
Congressmen are, when you get right down to it, innumerate.
How many Kennedy’s does it take to screw in a new bulb?
One to hold the bulb, and several others to drink enough to get the room to spin.
They should have started with 1500 watt toasters. They are terribly inefficient light bulbs. /s
Since electric heating is still legal, why don’t they make it legal to sell bulbs if we promise only to use them in cold weather, since the excess heat warms our houses? /s
That's what we use. They are not only inefficient "light bulbs", you absolutely cannot read by them for anything!
Saw story about a German sell bulbs for that purpose. Seems Germany is ahead of the USA on the light bulb time table.
Skirting EU law: The rebranding of incandescent bulbs as 'Heat Balls'
I never heard one report on TV or radio that explained that it would take a ton of earth to counteract the mercury pollution caused by one light bulb. Just wait until all that mercury hits the landfills!
Course in the real world, there is always a story, such as GE profiting by producing these bulbs in China, just like all their other “green” projects. Follow the money and you will no doubt figure out why Congress critters allowed themselves to be “convinced” to vote for such a travesty.
Screw the polar bears, I want my incandescent light bulbs. The best light for reading or for looking at LCD computer screen
True, a lot of bulbs are RARELY on, but in our house the ones that are on are on a long time each day. As we got older, the lights started going on earlier in the evenings. I have not had problems with CFL bulbs. We get the warm color ones. The batch I put in the house we moved to 3 1/2 years ago are still fine. Even the ones in the bath that get flipped on and off much more often.
I don't use them everywhere, such as outdoors and places they might get broken more easily such as the basement and the 'shed' (800 sf), but I tend to use the old 4-foot fluorescent tubes there.
I don't want to be forced to use them. But if I feel they are working well for me, I'll use them. Some folks assume it as their duty to hate anything and everything the gummint forces on them. If they 'made' us eat our favorite foods, there are people (yes, even FReepers!) who would stop eating them and live on lawn clippings and mud.
That figures. Another screw-up by Jr Bush, the liberal Republican.
President Bachmann will allow you to buy any light bulb you want.
Isn't that precious. Someone in DC will "allow" us a small modicum of freedom of choice. She sounds like Hillary.
In a failing economy I welcome a new black market opportunity.
We need 100 watt bulbs for use in the barn. Nothing else will do. I bought some at Wal Mart yesterday. They were made by GE in Mexico. Gone up in price too. Guess I’ll have to stockpile.
muawiyah is being literal. Perhaps he could have worded his statement better. "The majority of incandescent bulbs are not on at any given time." As he said; the projections for energy savings was calculated by assuming that all incandescents are on all of the time. That is literally not true and almost the opposite is.
Nanny State PING!
We KNOW they can screw us, they've proven that time and time again, but they can never quite seem to unscrew us.....
Tough. The New Deal Commerce Clause says Congress can dictate what light bulbs will be available.
It's cheap, contains no toxins, it serves it's intended purpose, and it WAS made in America. Associated with conservatism which shares all those characteristics, it was a natural target for liberals/appeasers like Congressional Democrats and President Bush.
Damn right! If someone makes a decision for you that they lack the moral and legal authority to make, are you NOT obligated by principle to do the opposite of what they mandate?
It wouldn't matter if they WERE right for the first time ever on the merits...this issue is simply beyond their jurisdiction.
You keep coming back like a bad penny.
So does everyone (except the fascist statists in power who like to have sex with their mothers, dogs, and mothers' dogs). So why do you keep stumping for the new statist commie liar's version?
Our major corporations have national and transnational reach these days. The USG is just another corporation with Obama flying around in its corporate jet and you are nuts enough to think the USG is doing to be reduced to its peasant status of 1787? I would still get rid of numerous Federale agencies that serve no purpose and some that are destructive such as the EPA, EEOC, Department of Education.
The 10th is great but one must have some perceptive. If you are on a libertarian crusade, knock yourself out
Did you mean that literally (and that's not a stupid question, some FReepers would)? If so, that's stumping. If it's a Devil's advocate way of saying those big-government fascists need to get shoved back into the shit-filled box from whence they crawled and the CC returned to its original purpose, I'm with you and apologize for misunderstanding your post.
That's an interesting characterization of the Republic crafted by the Founders.
I would still get rid of numerous Federale agencies that serve no purpose and some that are destructive such as the EPA, EEOC, Department of Education.
Unfortunately, by endorsing the New Deal Commerce Clause, you have endorsed the constitutionality of those agencies.
The 10th is great but one must have some perceptive.
If a politician said, "The Second Amendment is great but one must have some perspective", he'd be scorned by everyone here for the gun-grabbing scoundrel that he is.
Those who say the same about the 10th Amendment should receive just as much scorn.
Remain in denial. You never address how major corporations (businesses) have extended since 1787. Only how the Federal Gov’t has. You are one dimensional, but do carry on! Better to have tunnel vision than none at all.
It is cheating to violate its original meaning in order to use it for purposes not intended by the Founders. Cheating is dishonorable.
B R O K E N
R E C O R D
You are Obama’s best friend with your all or nothing purity but it sure makes you feel better. Meanwhile back in the real world real people find judicial work arounds of the Commerce Clause and don’t spend years in futile quests to amend the Constitution. But why should you care since you live on Fantasy Island
Do you or anyone know the reasoning behind the banning of the incandescent bulb?
It is so GE and a couple of other corporations can make more money and pay off more corrupt politicians.
I, for one, will enjoy the spectacle as Enviro-Nazis and their Drug Warrior soulmates get thrown under the bus.
Title reminds me of this commercial:
How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie roll pop? Let's find out....One, Two...crunch....Three....It takes Three
“I just happen to like that pesky original Commerce Clause.”
After reading your profile, I’ll not jump to conclusions. Please offer further explanation of this statement that you made. I’d like to better understand your position.
“I, for one, will enjoy the spectacle as Enviro-Nazis and their Drug Warrior soulmates get thrown under the bus.”
OK, after further reading I have realized that we are on the same page. No need to answer my previous post.
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.