Congress Says “Lights Out” to Incandescent Light Bulbs

I read about this in USA Today (, so go there for the whole story, but I’ll sum up the important stuff for you.  Under the recent energy bill, “all light bulbs must use 25% to 30% less energy than today’s products by 2012 to 2014.  The phase-in will start with 100-watt bulbs in January 2012 and end with 40-watt bulbs in January 2014. By 2020, bulbs must be 70% more efficient.”  Most fluorescent light bulbs already meet that 70% standard.

Now, I can at least understand the carbon emissions regulations put on automobiles, because that’s something that DIRECTLY affects the environment and our health, but I have to say that this part of the bill steps way too far.  Congress should not be telling us which light bulbs to buy – it’s just not Congress’s place.

I must say, I heartily endorse the use of fluorescent light bulbs, though.  Though they are more expensive, they are more efficient and last longer.  And although I am still skeptical of the causes of global warming (the earth IS getting warmer – it’s a fact, and if you’re denying that, then you’re just plain stupid.  The debate is over the cause – even the National Climatic Data Center will tell you that), I don’t see the harm in cleaning up the earth a bit.  If Al Gore is wrong, then we left our kids with a cleaner planet.  If Senator Inhofe is wrong, we’re in trouble (again, I still don’t see enough evidence to blame humans for rising temperatures, and even the NCDC doesn’t have enough data that they say it’s due to human activity, but why take the chance).

Done Ranting,

Ranting Republican
add to :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! :: ::


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

8 Responses to “Congress Says “Lights Out” to Incandescent Light Bulbs”

  1. tank Says:

    It isn’t congress telling the people what lightbulbs to buy, its congress using its regulatory powers to affect the bulbs produced in this country. Could you find some loophole to import old style incandescent bulbs? Probably.

    Should you want to? No.

    An incandescent bulb is a heater that just happens to give off some light. It’s an incredibly wasteful thing.

    I’d say increasing the efficiency of every consumer bulb sold in the US by 70% would have a larger effect on greenhouse gas emissions than increasing the fuel efficiency of every car by 10 mpg.

  2. facts mammal Says:

    Wish i had the talent to write such posts.

  3. Tom Barker Says:

    how about the chandelier that has miniature base decorative bulbs? Do I junk it for an ugly fluorescent version if they can even make one?

    I’m for energy conservation, but to have congress use its powers to tell me what I can do in my own home is way beyond their authority. You watch, in 2014 when the last 40 watt bulb has been hoarded, there will be a flagrant opposition to the law just as we use our cell phones in cars while driving. Congress just made it easier for us all to be criminals.

  4. inkslwc Says:

    And that’s why I disagree with this law. I like fluorescent, but it’s just plain bad in some cases. Write to Congress about it. Either that, or buy some candles and redo the chandelier.

  5. Devil's Advocate Says:

    Congress is infringing on the American way of life and has been for quite some time. There is a new agenda, new purpose, for the legislative branch of this country and that is to create laws which force it’s electorate into a collective identity. Individualism is dying, and as it dies so too does the conventional American way of life, liberty, and inalienable rights…individual sovereignty. Environmental ideals are in actuality the precept of the socialist group think and have become the framework that imbeds enterprise into government. Eventually, if this trend continues, anything that is deemed as an economic resource will be federalized. I invite everyone that reads this to go to the House of Representatives website and look at Bill S.115 proposed by the then Senator Obama during the 110th Congress. Pay particular attention to the proposition of repealing mineral royalties to producers on federal land and keep in mind that 1/3 of the land in the United States is federal, excluding eminent domain. This is more astounding when one realizes that the United States lacks a competitive energy platform, not because of the lack of resources, but because of the distain and guilt mongering that ensues from environmentalists for even considering prospecting said resources. With a fasting energy industry, rationale from the environmental perspective lends itself to such laws as banning light bulbs. Soon they will tell us how much energy we are allowed to consume even with the more energy efficient products they force us to by. Perhaps they are correct in stating there are too many people, and yet these same individuals abscond at the mere mention of war and categorize such ideas as being backed by oil greedy intentions. Are they right? Probably, but it doesn’t change the motivation for protesting such ideas; it is a threat to the movement…seeking such resources. This is only the beginning.

  6. Travel Pillow Says:

    ..’ I am very thankful to this topic because it really gives useful information ;-:

  7. Dirk Says:

    Spot on with this write-up, I seriously believe that this web site needs far more attention.
    I’ll probably be back again to see more, thanks for the information!

    streetdirectory (Dirk)

  8. Hershel Says:

    It’s truly very difficult in this full of activity life to listen news on TV, so I simply use the web for that purpose, and get the most recent information.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: