What's new

Don't Republicans have better things to worry about?

TroutBum

My Member's Premium
Contributor
https://www.ksl.com/?sid=16338523&nid=757

House Republicans: Down with squiggly light bulbs
July 12th, 2011 @ 3:21pm

WASHINGTON (AP) - How many government bureaucrats does it take to screw in a light bulb? A lot of House Republicans think the answer should be "none." They say the government should just stay out of it.

To them, those newfangled curly fluorescent light bulbs are the last straw, another example of an overreaching government that's forcing people to buy health insurance, prodding them to get more fuel-efficient cars and sticking its nose into too many places it doesn't belong.

For most Democrats, it's an exasperating debate that, just like the old incandescent bulbs being crowded out of the market, produces more heat than light.

Republicans in control of the House moved toward a vote late Tuesday on legislation that would seek to overturn light bulb energy-efficiency standards and keep the marketplace clear for the cheap, energy-wasting bulbs that have changed little since Thomas Edison invented them in 1879.

The standards in question do not specifically ban the old bulbs but require a higher level of efficiency than the classics can produce, essentially nudging them off store shelves over the next few years. Four of Edison's descendants said the great inventor would be mortified to see politicians trying to get the nation to hang on to an outdated technology when better bulbs are available.

The standards have not been particularly contentious before now. They were crafted in 2007 with Republican participation and signed into law by President George W. Bush. People seem to like the new choices and the energy savings they bring, polling finds.

But now they have become a symbol of a much larger divide in Washington over the size and reach of government itself. The new bulbs suggest to some conservatives that big government is running amok.

"Now the government wants to tell consumers what type of light bulb they use to read, cook, watch television or light their garage," said Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas.

"I'm not opposed to the squiggly tailed CFLs," said Rep. Joe Barton, R Texas, a driving force behind the effort to save the old incandescents and sponsor of the bill to overturn the standards. But making the old bulbs go away "seems to me to be overkill by the federal government."

Republicans said people who now buy a bulb for 30 or 40 cents shouldn't be forced to pay $6 for a fluorescent bulb or more for LED (light-emitting diode) lighting.

"If you are Al Gore and want to spend $10 for a light bulb, more power to you," Barton said. He exaggerated the cost of most energy-efficient bulbs and neglected to mention that they last years longer than old incandescent bulbs, which give off about 90 percent of the energy they consume as heat.

Republican presidential contender Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota complained earlier this year that, under President Barack Obama, "we bought a bureaucracy that now tells us which light bulbs to buy."

The Obama administration, which opposes Barton's bill, says the lighting standards that are being phased in will save nearly $6 billion in 2015 alone. The Energy Department says upgrading 15 inefficient incandescent bulbs in a home could save a homeowner $50 a year. Lighting accounts for about 10 percent of home electricity use.

The White House says the standards drive U.S. innovation, create manufacturing jobs and reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions.

Incandescent bulbs are not disappearing. Today's energy-savings choices include incandescent lighting that is more efficient, and more expensive to purchase, than the old standbys.

Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., held up a new Sylvania incandescent that meets the efficiency standards and costs $1.69. "You don't have to buy one of those funny-looking new light bulbs," he said.

Under existing rules, new bulbs will have to be 25 to 30 percent more efficient than traditional incandescent models. As of Jan. 1, 2012, inefficient 100-watt bulbs will no longer be available at most stores. Also on the way out are traditional 75-watt bulbs in 2013 and 40-watt and 60-watt versions in 2014.

The National Resources Defense Council said that when the law is fully implemented in 2020, energy costs will be reduced by 7 percent or about $85 a household every year. It said the more efficient bulbs will eliminate the need for 33 large power plants.

The advocacy group presented statements from Edison's kin in support of the new standards. "Edison would certainly have recognized that the wave of the future _ profits _ is to make it better, cheaper and, yes, cleaner and more efficient," said Barry Edison Sloane, a great-grandson.

Said Robert Wheeler, a great-nephew: "The technology changes. Embrace it."
 
I guess you could say the same thing in reverse. Why make new standards that incandescent bulbs can't meet? I use compact-florescent almost exclusively, but there are places and applications where incandescent bulbs work better, so why not just let people decide what they want to use?

Consequently, this will mostly hurt the poor as the squiggly bulbs cost more.
 
They do have more important things to do but when Dems keep throwing **** against the wall someone has to clean it up.
 
I guess you could say the same thing in reverse. Why make new standards that incandescent bulbs can't meet? I use compact-florescent almost exclusively, but there are places and applications where incandescent bulbs work better, so why not just let people decide what they want to use?

Consequently, this will mostly hurt the poor as the squiggly bulbs cost more.

Not only do they cost more they contain mercury. There is already a push to ban flourescent bulbs and replace them with LED's that run about $50 a pop.
 
This is a dog whistle issue designed to rally a very specific segment of the base.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...vative-pac-claims-democrats-banned-incandesc/

A fundraising letter making the rounds from a conservative political action committee draws a political line in the sand over light bulbs.

"The Democrats have already voted to BAN our conventional lights bulbs (that you and I use even today!) in favor of DANGEROUS fluorescent light bulbs," writes Alan Gottlieb, chairman of AmeriPAC, a political action committee that largely supports conservative Republican candidates.

The letter then invites people to read a letter from the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise Action Fund.

"By outlawing incandescent lights in favor of compact fluorescent lighting, the environmentalists said the country would reduce energy consumption by $18 billion a year, or save consumers between $80 to $180 on their electric bills per year," the letter states. "The plus for the globalists? They said it would reduce global warming because one of the causes of global warming is...you guessed it...the old fashioned Tom Edison light bulb."

The letter seeks contributions and support for S.B. 395, the Better Use of Light Bulbs (BULB) Act, sponsored by Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., which seeks to repeal the light bulb efficiency standards included in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.

"Help put an end to governmental interference in our lives! Help put an end to Mr. Obama interfering with free enterprise!" the letter urges, referring to President Barack Obama.

We are checking several claims from these light bulb letters, and in this one, we will tackle the central claim that, "Democrats have already voted to ban our conventional lights bulbs (that you and I use even today!) in favor of dangerous fluorescent light bulbs."

First off, it's not accurate to pin the law entirely to Democrats. It's true that more Democrats than Republicans voted for the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. But it got a measure of bipartisan support. It passed the House with a 264-163 vote (with 36 Republicans voting in favor). And in the Senate, the vote was 65-27 (with 20 votes in favor from Republicans). And it was signed by Republican President George W. Bush. We also explore the issue of whether fluorescent bulbs release "dangerous" amounts of mercury into the environment in a separate fact-check.

But the bigger issue here is the claim that the bill bans incandescent light bulbs.

Sec. 321 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 spells out the new standards, essentially requiring that light bulbs be 25 percent more efficient than they are now. Specifically, a 100 watt light bulb is to be replaced with a bulb using no more than 72 watts of electricity while still providing comparable light output. The 75-watt, 60-watt and 40-watt bulbs must be replaced by bulbs using no more than 53, 43 and 29 watts respectively. The law phased in the new requirements: first the replacements for the 100-watt bulbs by Jan. 1, 2012; followed by the lower watt bulbs in ensuing years.

The curlicue compact fluorescent bulbs and LED light bulbs easily meet the new efficiency standards. But we couldn't find any language in the law that specifically bans incandescent bulbs.

So we asked Ron Arnold of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise Action Fund to back up the claim that the law "outlaws" incandescent light bulbs.

Arnold said the bill is filled with vague and confusing language and that there is a de facto ban because the standards are so stringent that no manufacturers will be able to build incandescent bulbs that meet them.

"We believe 'ban' is an accurate term because there is no such thing as what they require," Arnold said.

"If it's available, where can I buy it?" he asked. "Why doesn't Home Depot carry them?"

Actually, they do, said Randy Moorhead, VP of government affairs at Philips Electronics, one of the three major manufacturers of light bulbs in the U.S.

Philips' new EcoVantage bulb, a halogen incandescent light bulb that runs on 72 watts but throws off as much light as a standard 100 watt bulb (and lasts just as long), shipped out to Home Depot in April, he said. Philips also offers a premium bulb that costs more, but lasts three times longer. Both bulbs are more expensive than the current 100 watt incandescent bulbs, but they more than pay for themselves in savings on electricity to power them (more on that in another fact-check).

The two other big players in the industry, Osram Sylvania and GE, have also developed new halogen incandescent bulbs that meet the new efficiency standards. But for those, you'll have to head to Lowe's.

Moorhead said industry representatives were closely involved in the legislative process to develop the new efficiency standards and would never have supported a ban of incandescent bulbs. The companies, as well as the legislators who drafted the bill, were keenly aware that the new standards could be met through the development of halogen incandescent light bulbs, he said.

"You don't have to buy fluorescent bulbs," said Steven Nadel, executive director of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.

Jen Stutsman, a spokeswoman for the Department of Energy, said the claims about a ban on incandescent light bulbs are simply wrong.

"It doesn't ban a specific type of light bulb," she said.

This one is a clear call for us. It's true that the current versions of incandescent light bulbs will be phased out of existence. Compact fluorescent and LED bulbs offer more efficient alternatives, but if incandescent light is your thing, the major light bulb makers have you covered. They have developed and shipped halogen incandescent bulbs that meet the new efficiency standards, so there is no basis in fact to claim they have been banned in favor of fluorescent bulbs. We rule this claim Pants on Fire.

By the way this is what they're devoting energy to while threatening to make the country default on its debt.
 
There are definitely positives and negatives to the Compact Fluorescent Lamp. They are WAY more efficient than the standard incandescent bulb. But like was stated here, they do cost significantly more. Also, you can't use them on dimmer switches, unless you buy a special dimmable one (at about double the cost of a CFL). Plus, they don't fit in some lights. And they also do contain mercury. My advice would be to stock up on incandescents.
 
There are definitely positives and negatives to the Compact Fluorescent Lamp. They are WAY more efficient than the standard incandescent bulb. But like was stated here, they do cost significantly more. Also, you can't use them on dimmer switches, unless you buy a special dimmable one (at about double the cost of a CFL). Plus, they don't fit in some lights. And they also do contain mercury. My advice would be to stock up on incandescents.

I hated them until I actually got some for my outside lights. I had been changing them out every few months when I'd finally had enough. I spent a few extra bucks and haven't had to deal with it in almost a year. I also hated Prius' until I got one. I'm not sure why folks on the right are so scared of moving forward. Even if there are problems (mercury, cost, etc), you have to have problems before you can find solutions and hence, better products. I just don't get it.
 
I can't figure out why those Republicans would be so scared of cancer causing agents either. Them dudes are hard to understand.
 
I can't figure out why those Republicans would be so scared of cancer causing agents either. Them dudes are hard to understand.

Why can't they just let the market work?

Incandescent bulbs are still legal and incandescent bulbs that meet the energy efficiency standards are currently available on the market.

There really is no basis for complaint other than posturing.
 
Any safe light bulb.

Obviously a fundamental right.

The history of industry is that they don't do anything that would cost them a single cent more until they are forced to, after being dragged kicking and screaming. In fact, the federal mandate led to a situation in which "there have been more incandescent innovations in the last three years than in the last two decades.”

The technology has been in place for over two years. Incandescents aren't going away and no one's liberty is being infringed. And it's R&D that would not have happened had the market been left to its own devices.

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/business/energy-environment/06bulbs.html

Traditional 100 watt bulbs might be $0.75 apiece. Basic google searching shows you can get the equivalent CF bulb for approximately $2/bulb and it will last longer and be more cost-effective in the long run. If you really want an incandescent bulb, they are available and you have the option to pay more for that as a consumer. This is hardly a great impingement on liberty.

Are you also against laws that mandate other technologies, such as automobiles, become more efficient over time?
 
Back
Top