Submitted by: Nancy Battle
Bring Back the Incandescent Bulb
Courtesy of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, a cheap, reliable, and comforting 130-year-old invention will begin to be phased out in 2012 through 2014. The switch is to be thrown on Thomas Edison’s incandescent light bulb, unless H.R. 91 (and its Senate companion bill, S. 395), Republican Joe Barton’s (Texas) legislation gets passed beforeJanuary 2012. The Better Use of Light Bulbs Act would repeal provisions in the 2007 law, PL 110-140, and reinstate the disfavored incandescent bulb as a consumer choice for lighting homes.
The debate for some centers around the energy efficiency of the incandescent bulbs vs. compact fluorescents and LEDs. The supposed longer life-span and estimates of 50 to 70 percent less electricity usage of the CFLs -- leaving LEDs out of the discussion for now due to enormous expense and technical glitches -- is highly touted. Unfortunately, they are more expensive to manufacture, are mostly manufactured outside the United States, cast a harsh “cool white” light on surroundings, emit UV rays, take minutes to warm up, and contain mercury -- a danger to people that causes disposal problems of EPA proportions and environmental concerns. The mercury in one CFL bulb, 5 milligrams, is enough to contaminate up to 6,000 gallons of water. Low-mercury bulbs can still contaminate more than 1,000 gallons of water, as aStanford University study revealed.
In defense of the incandescent, users say they prefer the warmer, softer light that resembles the actual spectrum of the sun more closely, the instant on and off, lack of blinking 60 times as exhibited by some CFLs, and the fact that the bulbs have little impact on their environment making them a far more stable product and easily disposed of.
There’s also the point that the energy used to manufacture a CFL is far greater then for an incandescent bulb, perhaps to the point of canceling out any real energy savings by the time it’s screwed into the light fixture and turned on. Bulb application affects the life span of both the incandescent and the CFL. Incandescents take better to being snapped on an off frequently, but if the same frequency occurs for a CFL, a higher burnout rate is the result, something life span comparison tests don’t take into account but homeowners have come to realize. CFLs do far better in commercial and industrial situations where lights are constantly left on.
But should the debate focus on the positive and negative aspects of these different kinds of light bulbs that in the scope of everyday energy consumption use very little?
What the provision in the 2007 Act did had nothing to do with a defective product, dangerous emissions, or anything else. The regulations created under the 2007 Act were specific in mandating lower energy usage, imposing energy consumption levels on individuals, something quite unconstitutional.
It should be left up to the individual what kind of lighting they choose for their homes and businesses, how long they leave the lights on or off, and even whether they “waste” electricity, but not the government. Regulating a level of efficiency for any product that eliminates that product from store shelves is in effect a ban on that product. Hence, the government removes that product, giving a competitive edge to other products, and the companies, owners, and countries that manufacture them.![]()
Rep. Joe Barton has stated that H.R. 91 isn’t an attack on energy conservation, but instead a defense of personal freedom. As for light bulb purchases, “Consumers should be able to buy them if they choose to, but the government shouldn't manipulate the market by eliminating the competition,” he said.
Right now H.R. 91 and S. 395 are stuck in committees. But there is a renewed and united effort being waged by many organizations and individuals to pressure congress to pass these bills before January 2012 rolls around. Rep. Barton has even introduced another bill to rescue the incandescent bulb, H.R. 2417, also named "Better Use of Light Bulbs Act." This bill actually was voted on by the House on July 12, 2011, and received 233 votes in favor of passage and 193 votes against passage. However, the bill failed to pass because it had been brought up for a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and therefore required a 2/3s majority, or 291 votes to pass.
Contact your Representative and Senators with a helpful editable, pre-written message and let them know you are skeptical of the highly touted advantages of the compact fluorescent bulbs, urging them to stand up for personal freedom of choice by bringing H.R. 91 and S. 395 to the floor for a vote.
Please help "bring back the bulb." Get government out of our light bulb choices.
Thanks,
Your friends at The John Birch Society
The debate for some centers around the energy efficiency of the incandescent bulbs vs. compact fluorescents and LEDs. The supposed longer life-span and estimates of 50 to 70 percent less electricity usage of the CFLs -- leaving LEDs out of the discussion for now due to enormous expense and technical glitches -- is highly touted. Unfortunately, they are more expensive to manufacture, are mostly manufactured outside the United States, cast a harsh “cool white” light on surroundings, emit UV rays, take minutes to warm up, and contain mercury -- a danger to people that causes disposal problems of EPA proportions and environmental concerns. The mercury in one CFL bulb, 5 milligrams, is enough to contaminate up to 6,000 gallons of water. Low-mercury bulbs can still contaminate more than 1,000 gallons of water, as aStanford University study revealed.
In defense of the incandescent, users say they prefer the warmer, softer light that resembles the actual spectrum of the sun more closely, the instant on and off, lack of blinking 60 times as exhibited by some CFLs, and the fact that the bulbs have little impact on their environment making them a far more stable product and easily disposed of.
There’s also the point that the energy used to manufacture a CFL is far greater then for an incandescent bulb, perhaps to the point of canceling out any real energy savings by the time it’s screwed into the light fixture and turned on. Bulb application affects the life span of both the incandescent and the CFL. Incandescents take better to being snapped on an off frequently, but if the same frequency occurs for a CFL, a higher burnout rate is the result, something life span comparison tests don’t take into account but homeowners have come to realize. CFLs do far better in commercial and industrial situations where lights are constantly left on.
But should the debate focus on the positive and negative aspects of these different kinds of light bulbs that in the scope of everyday energy consumption use very little?
What the provision in the 2007 Act did had nothing to do with a defective product, dangerous emissions, or anything else. The regulations created under the 2007 Act were specific in mandating lower energy usage, imposing energy consumption levels on individuals, something quite unconstitutional.
It should be left up to the individual what kind of lighting they choose for their homes and businesses, how long they leave the lights on or off, and even whether they “waste” electricity, but not the government. Regulating a level of efficiency for any product that eliminates that product from store shelves is in effect a ban on that product. Hence, the government removes that product, giving a competitive edge to other products, and the companies, owners, and countries that manufacture them.
Rep. Joe Barton has stated that H.R. 91 isn’t an attack on energy conservation, but instead a defense of personal freedom. As for light bulb purchases, “Consumers should be able to buy them if they choose to, but the government shouldn't manipulate the market by eliminating the competition,” he said.
Right now H.R. 91 and S. 395 are stuck in committees. But there is a renewed and united effort being waged by many organizations and individuals to pressure congress to pass these bills before January 2012 rolls around. Rep. Barton has even introduced another bill to rescue the incandescent bulb, H.R. 2417, also named "Better Use of Light Bulbs Act." This bill actually was voted on by the House on July 12, 2011, and received 233 votes in favor of passage and 193 votes against passage. However, the bill failed to pass because it had been brought up for a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and therefore required a 2/3s majority, or 291 votes to pass.
Contact your Representative and Senators with a helpful editable, pre-written message and let them know you are skeptical of the highly touted advantages of the compact fluorescent bulbs, urging them to stand up for personal freedom of choice by bringing H.R. 91 and S. 395 to the floor for a vote.
Please help "bring back the bulb." Get government out of our light bulb choices.
Thanks,
Your friends at The John Birch Society
No comments:
Post a Comment