Dim Bulb Debate In Congress
When Joe Barton stood on the floor of the House of Representatives yesterday to promote his legislation, H.R. 2417, to repeal regulations that require the sale of energy efficient light bulbs, he made an appeal to tradition: “We are here today because of something that happened back in 2007, when this body passed a bill that later became a law that effectively, beginning next year, if not changed, would ban the traditional incandescent light bulb, the 100-watt bulbs, the 60-watt bulbs that we have all grown up with.”
It’s true that the incandescent light bulbs that we have all grown up with will no longer be sold if light bulb regulations passed in 2007 are allowed to go into effect. Instead, better incandescent light bulbs that use energy more efficiently and save Americans money will be sold in their place. There will be no ban on incandescent light bulbs, only regulations that require wasteful incandescent light bulbs to be phased out.
It has been suggested that light bulb regulation is unconstitutional because it would force Americans to buy certain kinds of light bulbs, but the truth is that Americans will have more choices under the light bulb regulation than before. They can still buy incandescent bulbs, but can choose compact fluorescent bulbs and LED bulbs as well. Manufacturers have started making many of the new light bulbs right here in the United States, creating jobs.
Yet, Congressman Joe Barton would prefer to undo this progress, because the new light bulbs aren’t traditional. They aren’t what Barton grew up with.
When it comes to technology, what’s traditional is often simply not as effective as what’s new. Republicans with their anti-government ideology hate to admit it, but government regulation of technology has spurred innovation that’s made out lives better. Would Barton have Americans drive the traditional cars that we grew up with, getting terrible gas mileage and spewing out clouds of lead-contaminated exhaust? We would probably be doing so if it weren’t for the automotive regulations of a generation ago.
Light bulb regulation is constitutionally appropriate, given the role of Congress in regulating commerce. It’s also economically sensible, providing savings to American families, and a respite from the push to build more electrical power plants. Light bulb manufacturers have already made the transition to efficient technologies, and have not suffered as a result. Light bulb regulation has harmed no one, and benefits us all.
H.R. 2417 and the swell of anti-regulation outrage that has propelled it forward are frivolous. Barton’s bill has not received the review by the Energy and Commerce Committee that would ordinarily be required, because the Republican leadership has granted it exemption from the ordinary rules of Congress.
Representative Henry Waxman, spoke against H.R. 2417 yesterday:
“The new incandescent bulb looks and works just like the old incandescent bulb. In fact, we know this to be the case. The only difference between this bulb and the old one is that it will last longer, cost less over the life of the bulb. American families will save an average of $100 a year with the new standards. This is particularly welcome in today’s tough economy and adds up to a nationwide savings of $12 billion a year.
These investments are creating new jobs in the United States. While most manufacturers moved their production of the old incandescent bulbs overseas years ago, research and development and high-technology manufacturing is now happening here. For example, there are LED facilities now in North Carolina, California, and Florida. This is a growth industry. Phillips hired 100 more people at its LED facility last year.
If we repeal this law and enact the so-called BULB Act, we will repeal standards that are driving this competition, and we’ll switch back to a time when U.S. jobs would return to China and Mexico.
On January 1, 2012, we will be able to buy a better incandescent light bulb that looks and feels the same as the old ones. You don’t have to buy compact fluorescents now. You don’t have to buy them on January 1, 2012. You can buy the better incandescent bulbs or LEDs, neither of which contain mercury. That’s more choice, not less. “
Repeal The light bulb ban law. Pass H. R. 2417. I don’t want to be told what I can purchase. Get out of my life.
Kathy, if you don’t want the government to tell people what they can purchase, then you’re for the legalization of slavery, right? You’re also for the legalization of prostitution, right?
There is no ban on light bulbs. There is no ban on incandescent light bulbs. There is only a regulation that requires light bulbs that are sold to have a certain level of energy efficiency.
Sadly…the more I learn about the new bulbs, the more I think this whole discussion needs to start over.
I have about 20 of the new bulbs in my shop and I;ve replaced almost all of them after a year because they burned out. I thought they were supposed to last so much longer? When I checked on it, I found out that they only last longer than the old bulbs if they are turned off and on in a certain fashion (Once they’re turned on they must be left on for a certain amount of time or they’ll burn out quicker..which implies they aslo use more energy than the old bulbs?)…as for being more green….cut open the base of one of the new bulbs sometime…there’re more electronics in there than in the average ipod. I’m serious. The old bulbs used glass, tungsten, lead, and alluminum….the new bulbs use a whole array of plastics, sillicons, ceramics, solder, and everything else assoicated with electronics….which means they cost more to make and use more resources while creating more pollution.
These things are not “green”…they’re not energy savers….we really need to re-think the whole thing.
Buzz, your assertions about longevity are not backed up by any evidence beyond the anecdotal. Also, you’re only talking about compact fluorescents, not halogen incandescent bulbs and LED bulbs.
Before you can re-think the whole thing, Buzz, you need to start by thinking about the whole thing in the first place.