Click the Disaster
Tired of the way the left runs our country?
Donate Monthly
A sponsoring Freeper will contribute $10 for each New Monthly Donor
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 Edison’s 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 law’s 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.
For now.
(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
Please explain.
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'
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/energy/blogs/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.
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.