Republicans Seek Repeal of Incandescent Bulb Ban
by Daniel Sayani
The
New American
Senator Mike
Enzi (R-Wyo.) has announced that he plans to introduce legislation
to reverse the ban on incandescent light bulbs which is scheduled
to go into effect January 1, 2014. The ban was included in a comprehensive
energy bill that President George W. Bush signed into law in 2007
as an amendment, and was intended as a means of saving energy and
limiting pollution.
Senator Enzi’s
repeal legislation, the Better Use of Light Bulbs Act (BULB), S.
395, has 27 co-sponsors, including Senator John Barrasso (R-Wyo.)
and Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), the latter of whose office issued
the following statement
on the legislation:
The ban was
intended to save on electricity costs and limit pollution by replacing
traditional incandescent light bulbs with energy-efficient compact
florescent light bulbs (CFLs).
However,
CFLs are more expensive, many contain mercury which can be harmful
even in the smallest amounts, and most are manufactured overseas
in places like China. In September 2010, the last major GE manufacturing
plant for incandescent light bulbs in the U.S. closed in Winchester,
Virginia and 200 jobs were lost.
“I think
it’s fine if someone wants to fill their home or business
with the light from the new bulbs. I also think it is fine if
someone wants to buy an old-fashioned bulb because it works better
for them. If left alone, the best bulb will win its rightful standing
in the marketplace. Government doesn’t need to be in the
business of telling people what light bulb they have to use,”
said Senator Enzi, who authored the BULB Act.
“Washington
needs to stop picking winners and losers in the marketplace and
micromanaging how Americans live their lives,” said Senator
DeMint, the lead co-sponsor of the bill. “Americans are fully
capable of choosing the best way to light their own homes and
what best fits the needs and budget of their families. When Congress
dictates which light bulbs folks in South Carolina must buy, it’s
clear the ‘nanny state’ mentality has gotten out of
control in Washington.”
A similar bill,
H.R. 91, was also introduced in the House by Representative Joe
Barton (R-Texas), along with Reps. Michael Burgess (R-Texas), Marsha
Blackburn (R-Tenn.), and 12 other Republicans. In a February 1 editorial
in USA
Today Barton observed of the incandescent light bulb ban:
Voters sent
a message in November that it is time for politicians and activists
in Washington to stop interfering in Americans’ lives and
manipulating the free market. The light bulb ban is a glaring
example of that frustration.
When I introduced
the BULB Act, it wasn’t designed as an attack on energy conservation.
It was to defend personal freedom.
People don’t
want Congress dictating the lighting they can use. Traditional
incandescent bulbs have been brightening the night since Thomas
Edison created the first one in 1879. They are safe, cheap and
reliable.
This de facto
ban has nothing to with public safety because unlike lead paint,
leaded gasoline and asbestos, the old-fashioned light bulbs in
your home pose no danger.
It is a different
story for the most prominent alternative, compact fluorescent
lights, or CFLs. They are more expensive, contain hazardous mercury,
and recently The Wall Street Journal reported that their promised
longevity is exaggerated by almost 33%. Tests by an electric company
in California show the CFLs have higher burnout rates in areas
where lights are turned on and off frequently, such as bathrooms.
Then there are consumer complaints that they emit a light that
is annoying and in severe cases even gives them headaches.
So why force
them on the American people?
The bill passed
in 2007, the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007, was sponsored by 199
members of Congress, including former Moderate Republican Reps.
Chris Shays (Conn.), Wayne Gilchrest (Md.), and Rep. Roscoe Bartlett
(Md.). In addition to the provision seeking to phase out incandescent
light bulbs, the bill also imposed a wide array of environmentalist
and fiscally reckless programs, including:
-
Taxpayer funds
being used for increased production of ethanol and other biofuels
(an endeavor which has proven to be a massive waste of taxpayer
funds)
- Requiring
federal buildings to adhere to “energy-efficient” standards,
such as carbon neutralization and the exclusive use of Energy
Star appliances
- Taxpayer
funding for research and development of solar, geothermal, wind,
and marine energy sources, such as windmills and solar panels
- Increased
regulations targeted at the automobile industry, mandating raising
auto fuel efficiency standards 40 percent
- Taxpayer
funding for federal “green jobs” training programs,
and the expansion of the federal bureaucracy through the creation
of the unconstitutional Office of Climate Change and the Environment
within the Department of Transportation (currently led by another
moderate Republican, former Rep. Ray LaHood of Illinois)
Under the provisions
of the legislation, the phase-out of incandescent light is to begin
with the 100-watt bulb in 2012 and end in 2014 with the 40-watt.
All light bulbs must use 25 percent to 30 percent less 2014. By
2020, bulbs must be 70 percent more efficient than they are today.
The legislation
is an archetypical embodiment of how the environmentalist lobby
seeks to impose its will through boosting government regulation
and spending, limiting individual consumer choice, increasing the
size of government, and centralizing power.
Read
the rest of the article
February
22, 2011
Copyright
© 2011 The New American
|
