More ado about light bulbs

The House of Representatives has scheduled a vote on Monday to repeal the federal law that will ban the sale of incandescent light bulbs as we know them.  Although the bill may likely pass in the House, it is doubtful Harry Reid (D. Nv.) will let it be brought to the Senate floor until he can confirm that it will be defeated.  But, the real story here, is the reason for the House bill, as well as the reaction of Energy Secretary, Stephen Chu.

As to the former, Representative Fred Upton (R. Mi.) who originally voted in favor of the 2007 ban, is now of the opinion that,

[it] was never my goal for Washington to decide what types of light bulbs Americans should use.

His sentiments were echoed by Representative Michelle Bachmann (R. Mn.), who said,

[t]he American people want less government intrusion into their lives, not more, and that includes staying out of their personal light-bulb choices.

As to the later, Secretary Chu, while lashing out at those who support the repeal, provided this heartwarming statement,

[w]e are taking away a choice that continues to let people waste their own money.

Gee, thank you Mr. Secretary.

But, since you believe that it is the government’s role to help folks not waste their own money, perhaps you would now be willing to focus that zeal to take away the power of the President and Congress to waste our money.

Now that would be newsworthy.

18 replies
  1. kateinmaine
    kateinmaine says:

    crap.  i won’t be a light bulb terrorist anymore.
    on the bright side, the chinese will be turning cartwheels, as they are now the primary manufacturers of incandescent bulbs.
    on the dark side, the dems will probably peg the repubs as chinese sympathizers for this. 
    on the real side, how many jobs were lost when the government terminated an industry?
    unintended consequences on the road to hell. . .

  2. Eric
    Eric says:

    Like many people I know, we have stocked up on incandescent light bulbs over the past several months.  We have enough replacement lightbulbs to take us into the middle of the century, if we live that long!  Secretary  Chu is a real nutcase if he believes ANYONE needs his help to manage their own money, reflecting of course on the terrible job that this Administration has already done with what we’ve given them!  The arrogance of these political hacks is incredible, and every time they say something stupid like this they’re actually bristling the public to their obvious intrusion.  It’ll be so refreshing to see these clowns out on the street next year! 

  3. cherwin
    cherwin says:

    Much ado about something as simple as a lightbulb. But a simple lightbulb is not so simple is it?
    I for one, despise the white light of the LED’s, flourescent or whatever else they call them. It is hard on the eyes, gives me a headache and changes the entire feeling of a room. I will never put them in my house. Not to mention the mercury issue.
    Didn’t we ban and get rid of all mercury thermometers to eliminate the danger of exposure to
    mercury? But now it’s OK in lightbulbs because some brainiac wants to make a buck off the “green
    movement” and produce new lightbulbs and companies to clean up the mercury? Idiots!
    I agree with stocking up on the incandescent bulbs in case the idiots decide to go through with this lame-brained idea.  The “green movement” should be renamed the “brown movement” as in bowel.

  4. buckscorner
    buckscorner says:

    Incandescent light bulbs give off heat, not good in summer, but good in winter.  In fact, the carbon footprint from heating with electricity is less than heating with oil or gas, albeit more expensive.

  5. sammy22
    sammy22 says:

    I can just see Michele Bachmann making the light bulb issue central to her “run to the WH”.

  6. Tim-in-Alabama
    Tim-in-Alabama says:

    Here’s an unintended consequence Kate can relate to in Maine. Traffic lights with the new bulb technologies don’t give off enough heat to melt snow and become obscured, leading to accidents, injuries and deaths. I really would like the choice to adopt new technologies as I see fit and can afford. I don’t want to spend several dollars for a lightbulb in an seldom used closet that might get switched on a half dozen times a year, but I am willing to spend more on a LED flashlight with lithium batteries because the long run time, reliability and increased battery shelf life have value to me living in an area that experiences strong thunderstorms and “tornaders.” However, I also have a couple of oil burning hurricane lamps and a few candles if the need arises. Perhaps it’s going to take some old fashioned tools to change the thinking of the lightbulb fascists – torches and pitchforks.

  7. steve418r
    steve418r says:

    It is a fact that compact fluorescent light bulbs provide more light for less money. In terms of efficiency, an incandescent lamp operates at 5%. This means that 95% of the energy consumed is wasted as heat. The CFL has an efficiency of 20%. The CFL however, produces the equivalent amount of light with 25% of the wattage and produces very little heat.  Even with all this evidence as to the overall value of the new technology, it should still be personal choice as to what kind of lamps we choose to use. 

  8. Tim-in-Alabama
    Tim-in-Alabama says:

    Because the federal government operates at such low levels of efficiency, is it time to “turn out the lights” on our Founding Father’s novel experiment with a self-governing republic?

  9. Murphy
    Murphy says:

    Beside the fact it NTFB what light bulb I use, have you every gone to an unheated shed in the middle of winter and turned on a florescent light of any type? If you’re lucky you can see where you’re walking in about ten minutes of so.
    The best answer to this ban come from Germany…  ….. it’s not a lightbulb it’s a heater that just happens to fit in a standard light socket.

  10. Lynn
    Lynn says:

    Forget the facts you guys give, I’m still laughing at Paul’s easy bake oven. My 2 1/2 yr. granddaughter has one, I’m taking the bulb.

  11. NH-Jim
    NH-Jim says:

    It seems Big Brother never considers the drawbacks (cons) to CFL’s:
    1. (As Murphy states above), CFL’s do not work in cold climates until they have warmed 10+ minutes.
    2. CFL’s cost 5X as much as an incandescent bulb but only last 5X if you’re lucky.
    3. CFL’s burn out much quicker if they are on a motion-sensor or timer-controlled circuit where the bulb cycles on & off.
    4. More materials and energy are consumed manufacturing CFL’s.
    5. Ever try to listen to AM radio with a CFL truned-on nearby.  “Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!”  Of course, the lefties love anything that interferes with AM radio.
    6. As a migraine sufferer, I cannot be in fluorescent lit rooms/buildings for too long.
    7. (re: Cherwin above) CFL’s contain mercury.
    8. The ambiance of CFL’s just plain sucks, period.
    9. Snap-on lampshades don’t fit on “Squigglies”.
    10. Dimmable CFL’s cost $15 each.
    11. The comparable lumen output is NOT equal to incandescents…  It’s hogwash.

  12. Murphy
    Murphy says:

    NH-Jim I didn’t bother to mention the headaches when the CFLs first came out my in-laws installed them in their main living area. Me and my wife stopped in and the first thing we noticed was an annoying frequency in the air and within five minutes I had a migraine starting that subsiding after leaving their place. Also my mother in law hit her husband in the shoulder and stated see I told you I wasn’t imaging it! I think they threw them in trash the next day, glad mercury isn’t dangerous anymore.

Comments are closed.