Posted on 07/11/2013 8:06:53 AM PDT by thackney
Texas Republican Michael Burgess just won another round in his fight against federal standards that could force consumers to abandon inefficient incandescent light bulbs for more expensive LED and fluorescent alternatives.
The House voted Wednesday to adopt an amendment by Burgess that would bar the Energy Department from using any funds to implement efficiency standards for light bulbs, six years after Congress first mandated the change.
The provision in a 2007 energy law was designed to encourage manufacturers to produce more energy efficient light bulbs; although it didn’t rule out traditional incandescents, they would need a redesign to qualify under the new standards.
In response, manufacturers rolled out new bulbs that require less electricity, and over time, they have revamped them to have more aesthetic appeal.
LED and fluorescent models offer the promise of electricity bill savings over time and fewer lightbulb changes, since they have a longer lifespan. LED lights can last more than a decade. But some consumers criticize the quality of the light and the occasionally bulkier bodies of the newer alternatives, which may look garish poking out of chandeliers and other fixtures.
Burgess complained that the price of the replacements still hasn’t dropped, with some models fetching as much as $50. ”The technology is still years off in making light bulbs that are compliant with the 2007 law and at a price point that the average American can afford,” he said on the House floor.
He cast the 2007 mandate as Big Brother intruding into the living rooms — and light fixtures — of everyday Americans.
“If the new energy-efficient light bulbs save money and if they’re better for the environment, we should trust our constituents to make the choice on their own toward these bulbs,” he said. “Let the market decide. We should not be forcing these light bulbs on the American people.”
Burgess’ amendment was adopted by a voice vote, the same fate in the past two years. It was added to a broad spending bill that doles federal dollars to the Energy Department. The measure now heads to the Senate, which has its own competing version.
Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, noted that American lighting manufacturers have committed to abiding by the standards, even if the Energy Department is barred from enforcing them. As a result, she said, Burgess’ proposal ends up giving an edge to foreign manufacturers producing old-school incandescents.
“The only benefit of this ill-informed rider is to allow foreign manufacturers who may not feel a similar obligation to import non-compliant light bulbs that will not only harm the investments made by U.S. companies, but place at risk the U.S. manufacturing jobs associated with making compliant bulbs,” she said.
And Kaptur stressed that the incandescent light bulb lives on, in newer, more-efficient designs.
“As a result of the 2007 law, manufacturers already are making a variety of new energy-saving bulbs for homes, including more efficient incandescent bulbs,” she said on the House floor. “These bulbs look like and turn on like the bulbs we have been using for decades, but are upwards of 28 to 33 percent more efficient. And that’s good for everyone.”
Previously, the design of incandescent light bulbs had changed little since it was first introduced more than a century ago.
I have a dear friend who when exposed to the light from CFL bulbs (even indirectly), it triggers photosensitivity seizures... it’s heartbreaking, but the best thing is to simply avoid the trigger. Related... and I have no clue ho2 common this is, but the strobing blue LEDs they use on modern lightbars on cop cars “bother” me... it’s hard to explain... it makes me feel nauseated... I guess like those “puke lights” they came out with to intentionally disorient people.
That’s disinformation.
No hazmat procedures were ever needed to dispose of an incandescent bulb.
Again, how many people do you know who use CFL bulbs dispose of them properly?
Communists love creating environmental disasters because they accrue power ‘solving’ them.
From the Harvard Medical Review:
But all light is not created equal, says the Health Letter. Blue wavelengths—which are beneficial during daylight hours because they boost attention, reaction times, and mood—seem to be the most disruptive at night.
Studies have linked ...light at night to several types of cancer (including breast and prostate cancer), diabetes, heart disease, and obesity.
Use dim red lights for nightlights. Red light has the least power to shift circadian rhythm and suppress melatonin.
Avoid looking at brightly lit screens beginning two to three hours before bed.
If you work a night shift or use a lot of electronic devices at night, consider wearing blue-blocking glasses.
Expose yourself to lots of bright light during the day, which will boost your ability to sleep at night, as well as your mood and alertness during daylight.
You are correct! It is disinformation! There’s more mercury and heavy metals in the enviroment around you than is what is contained in the average lightbulb. Fluorescent lamps have been around since the 1930’s, and all of them have been dumping mercury into the enviroment since they’ve worn out, and they’ve been bathing you in UV radiation for just as long. The only difference between fluorescents and LED’s is the source of UV radiation. I look at energy usage from purely an engineering standpoint. If an LED lamp uses 4 watts, and a CFL uses 13 watts, and an incandescent lamp uses 100 watts to produce the same amount of light, which one is going to put the least amount of hurt on your energy budget.
I never met an engineer that didn’t care if his product was going to hurt the customer.
That’s the luddite view. Everything man made that you come into contact with on a daily basis has the ability to kill you, fast or slow. That’s the price to pay for technology. You cannot enjoy technological advancements and totally mitigate the risks involved. Lifespans in the industrialized world prove this out, that despite us introducing more known toxic compounds into the enviroment, we still somehow manage to live longer, with a better quality of life.
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.