Skip to comments.Republicans Seek Repeal of Incandescent Bulb Ban
Posted on 03/08/2011 10:38:57 AM PST by CedarDave
Senator Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) has announced that he plans to introduce legislation to reverse the ban on incandescent light bulbs which is scheduled to go into effect January 1, 2014. The ban was included in a comprehensive energy bill that President George W. Bush signed into law in 2007 as an amendment, and was intended as a means of saving energy and limiting pollution.
Senator Enzis repeal legislation, the Better Use of Light Bulbs Act (BULB), S. 395, has 27 co-sponsors, including Senator John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), the latter of whose office issued the following statement on the legislation:
The ban was intended to save on electricity costs and limit pollution by replacing traditional incandescent light bulbs with energy-efficient compact florescent light bulbs (CFLs).
However, CFLs are more expensive, many contain mercury which can be harmful even in the smallest amounts, and most are manufactured overseas in places like China. In September 2010, the last major GE manufacturing plant for incandescent light bulbs in the U.S. closed in Winchester, Virginia and 200 jobs were lost.
A similar bill, H.R. 91, was also introduced in the House by Representative Joe Barton (R-Texas), along with Reps. Michael Burgess (R-Texas), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), and 12 other Republicans.
Under the provisions of the legislation, the phase-out of incandescent light is to begin with the 100-watt bulb in 2012 and end in 2014 with the 40-watt. All light bulbs must use 25 percent to 30 percent less 2014. By 2020, bulbs must be 70 percent more efficient than they are today.
(Excerpt) Read more at thenewamerican.com ...
While we’re at it, can the Repubs also repeal the ban on real-flush toilets?
“Better Use of Light Bulbs Act (BULB)”
But I’d support a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit naming legislation with anything other than the originating chamber and/or the principal sponsors, like the Smith/Jones Act, or S-1234.
Democrats always seem to name their bills something like “the peace and prosperity for all act” or “the children’s health improvement act” or some such crap.
Generally, the bills never do what the name implies anyway.
Good. The poison, mercury bulbs are terrible to read by. I have to turn on an old light if I want to see anything.
BTW, if Oboma expects me to go out of my way to "properly dispose" of one of those darn things, he'd better think again. Those mercury bulbs weren't my idea. They're going into the trash bag like everything else. Let him worry about the clean up later.
Sounds good to me.
thats funny cuz when I replaced all my bulbs with CFl’s my electric bill went up about $100.00 per month, went back to the old bulbs and the electric bill went down.
Next the dems will try to tell us they will tax our debit card usage and we will also get jacked up banking fees.WAIT they are already trying this...
Ah, yes. The CH-CH-CHIA.
Not all of them, I guess. I was at Walmart last week and found light bulbs for $ .84 for a package of four and they were labeled "Made in USA."
True; that "DANGER DANGER WILL ROBINSON" nonsense about the danger of broken CFLs is just more greenie-weenie fearmongering.
Do not get me started on Ethanol.
So far it has cost me:
carb for hedge trimmer
fuel lines on lawn mower
multiple bottles of fuel stablizer
multiple hours cleaning/tuning carburators on smallengines.
You have to be careful about those labels — I’ve heard that there are dodges that allow a “Made In USA” label to be attached on the basis of some minor incidental processing in the US after the mostly-complete product is brought in from overseas.