And, let there be light

…light of your own choosing, that is.

On Friday, the House passed a $1 trillion spending bill that is designed to keep the government running until the end of the fiscal year in September, 2012.  Typically, such a bill is unnecessary because Congress passes a budget before October 1 every year.  However, this year, as last, the Senate has refused to either pass a budget, or approve the budget passed by the House.

The Senate is expected to approve the House bill today.

Contained within the 1220 page bill is good news for anyone, who, like my brother, cannot be around fluorescent light bulbs.  It is also good news for anyone who believes the federal government should not be able to dictate every facet of their lives.

The bill…effectively blocks new Energy Department standards promoting the use of energy-efficient light bulbs by barring money for enforcement.

Of course, Energy’s rules are still on the books, but, the “light police” will be denied the money needed to sweep into every store in America, and, much like the “revenuers” of old, smash every non-conforming light bulb.

Curiously,

…Democrats also won inclusion of another, seemingly contradictory provision requiring some federal-grant recipients to use energy-efficient bulbs.

Now, if we can just get a reasonable person into the White house in 2013, one who is not beholden to the “greenies” of the world, maybe the current rule will go away as well.  The new rule would go something like this…if you want to use CFL’s, be my guest, if you don’t want to use CFL’s be my guest…the choice is yours.

Novel idea, huh?

 

18 replies
  1. sammy22
    sammy22 says:

    Actually, the “new” standards do not ban incandescent bulbs, rather would require the new ones should use 25% less electricity. BTW, since this another $1T spending bill passed by the House, what happened all the spending reductions that the 2010 House promised a mere 2 years ago?

    • Dimsdale
      Dimsdale says:

      Good point, but since there is no apparent way to make a 60 watt incandescent use less than 60 watts of energy and produce the equivalent of 60 watts of light (lumens?), and the CFLs apparently can, this is a de facto ban on the incandescents.? And the legislation does not address the facts of larger amounts of energy required in the production of CFLs and their inherent toxicity.

    • crystal4
      crystal4 says:

      And the “jobs, jobs, jobs” they ran on?
      Oh wait…they tried to pass off the KPL as a “jobs” bill (after 1 year).
      Yeah, mebbe 6500 TEMP jobs ( all so Canada can provide oil to China).

      • Lynn
        Lynn says:

        Of course you are off topic as always, however since you brought it up. No matter what anyone says, I do not believe you create Jobs (that 3 letter word, quoth Biden) by a BILL. You take the shackles of the threat of Obamacare and ridiculous regulations off, and let industry and commerce make them. Believe me anyone in any business knows more than Congress about how to make jobs. President Obama knows even less.

      • Dimsdale
        Dimsdale says:

        ? tried to pass off the “stimulus” packages as “jobs bills” but all they did was perpetuate federal and state union jobs, not create new ones.? Putting people to work is JOB #1, and getting non middle eastern/Venezuelan oil from a friendly nation via a safe pipeline is all gravy.? Putting drilling rigs back to work in the Gulf would be frosting on the cake.? ? seems determined to let China benefit from the oil in both places at our loss.
        ?
        The oft repeated “laser like focus on jobs” that ?bama keeps selling seems more like that laser beam heading for James Bond’s crotch in Goldfinger (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1TmeBd9338&noredirect=1)!

      • winnie
        winnie says:

        Lessee…about 200 jobs were lost at the Winchester, Virginia GE plant when it closed down because it wasn’t cost effective for them to manufacture CFLs–jobs went to China when dems demanded incandecents be banned.? This happened under Obama’s watchful, protective eyes…the guy who promised jobs and instead killed them.? The one who is trying to force us to use new tech even though the average American can’t afford solar panels and CFL bulbs.
        I want the dems to go away and leave me alone to light my house as I see fit.? Don’t they have bigger fish to fry?? Like, oh, I don’t know…a budget? ha.

    • JBS
      JBS says:

      Salinas, Kansas has a plant that was mothballed. By now, the production equipment has probably been sold and moved to China so that they can produce zillions light bulbs for the third world countries that are just getting reliable electricity and few naked bulbs.
      Another economic policy triumph for the Zer?.
      ?
      ?

  2. JBS
    JBS says:

    And, the new, improved light bulb will cost from $1 to $2 more than the comparable regular incandescent bulb. Now, there’s progress.
    Again, the Democrats and the “greenies” (thanks to the U.N.’s “sustainable development”) are digging deeper into the pockets of all Americans.

  3. sammy22
    sammy22 says:

    There is no ban on incandescent bulbs: shouldn’t competition be allowed to operate? And then there are halogen bulbs: higher efficiency, no mercury, lower operating costs.

    • JBS
      JBS says:

      It is a redesigned incandescent bulb that emits less heat. The heat emitting bulb has its uses. While the new, improved bulb may emit less heat, it is still a “green” product. A solution looking for a problem. Just because it is possible does not mean it is right.
      This “new” incandescent bulb is going to cost $1 to $2 MORE than the comparable incandescent bulb. Is there an echo here? Buy what you like. The other lighting bulbs have their applications. And, cost a LOT more than a $0.59 incandescent bulb.?
      My point is the “greenies” are digging into your and my wallet with every “improvement” they make to the economic infrastructure. Progress? Sure! But, WHY?

      • Dimsdale
        Dimsdale says:

        More “feel good” legislation that seems (in an unthinking way) good in theory, but makes you sick in practice.

      • winnie
        winnie says:

        Have you noticed traffic lights failing during freezing, wet weather?? That would be one of those unintended consequences.? Whatever they’re using now (LED, I believe)–they are horrible.?

  4. JBS
    JBS says:

    Oh, my, maybe the HEAT from the incandescent bulb actually was a benefit! Wow, who knew? Progress marches blindly on.
    Meanwhile, that traffic light, unintended consequences and all, will cost the city, state, whatever, more money to maintain and the insurance companies will have to pay more claims resulting from a malfunctioning traffic light and another person won’t be home that night because of the crash caused by the light and . . .

  5. Tim-in-Alabama
    Tim-in-Alabama says:

    Thank goodness we’ll be able to see at night, and our homes won’t look like the dimly lit set of some awful teen vampire movie.

Comments are closed.