House Votes to Hamper a Law on Light Bulbs

Source: The New York Times

WASHINGTON — The House voted on Friday to withhold funding to enforce part of a 2007 law that increases efficiency standards for light bulbs.

The new standards, which would require most light bulbs to be 25 to 30 percent more efficient by 2014 and at least 60 percent more efficient by 2020, have become a symbol of what conservatives see as an unnecessary intrusion into the market.

“The federal government has no right to tell me or any other citizen what type of light bulb to use at home,” said Representative Michael C. Burgess, Republican of Texas, who offered the measure as an amendment to a 2012 energy and water spending bill. The light-bulb provision was approved on a voice vote; later the House voted 219 to 196 to pass the energy bill.

Although the efficiency regulations do not specify what types of bulbs are allowed, the standards would effectively eliminate many of the most popular choices on the market beginning with the 100-watt incandescent bulb on Jan. 1. If it becomes law, the provision approved Friday would prevent the Energy Department from enforcing the regulation in 2012.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/16/business/house-votes-to-withhold-funding-for-light-bulb-law.html

---

The John Boehner/Eric Cantor-led House achievements of 2011:
- Defunding Planned Parenthood, NPR
- Repealing ObamaCare
- Renewing the PATRIOT Act
- Banning same-sex weddings on military bases
- And now weakening a light bulb efficiency law.
- And right now annoying President Obama on the budget and debt.

Meanwhile...WHAT ABOUT THE ECONOMY?

they haven't quit making them because there's only one or two left in the laundry room and I'm not about to switch to fluorescent bulbs again if I can help it. Reason? I suspected it was the low-energy fluroescent lightbulbs we were using that was making my macular degeneration worse . . . and, surprisingly, I was right. And, wouldn't you know it?! The glare from this computer monitor isn't helping anything either!


http://www.macular.org/bluelite.html



K & R
:kick:

Edited to add:
Maybe I should go back to candlelight and oil lamps. LOL

and color the outside of them. It seriously changes them from that cold horrible light, to nice warm light.

Whale oil, it's the best.

:hi:

and I just went and read about macular degeneration and I can't see how a cfl would effect that over an incandescence bulb though. Could it be you just don't want to change? When we switched over to cfl's a few years ago I seen a drop of 25 bucks on our electric bill and to me that is no small potatos. I just don't buy the excuse you gave because I don't have that problem and I have the same condition.
peace

light refraction due to the extremely pale color of my eyes.

As for cfl's lowering electric bills by 25 bucks: If that's a monthly savings,
I'm wondering: how many lightbulbs or how many lamps/lighting fixtures were in use
in your house and for how many hours? During the months when we used Cfl's, there
was no difference in the electric bill---more than likely due to the fact that, prior
to using cfl's, we used low-wattage incandescents thoughout the house, the exception
being two living-room lamps for reading where we used only 40-75-100W incandescents.

So . . . when it comes to using cfl's again? Nope, I don't want to change and risk
going totally blind if it's possible to slow down the progression of the MD. Right
now, if I could find a carton of 40-75-100W or just plain 100W incandescents, I'd
purchase them in a heartbeat. A carton of incandescents would certainly be much,
much cheaper than a yearly expenditure of 1000 to 1200 bucks for these eyeglasses
with their complicated lenses!

http://www.amazon.com/s?url=search-alias%3Dgarden&field-keywords=incandescent+light+bulbs&sprefix=incandescent+light+bulbs

No tax. No shipping costs either, if your order is over $25.

:hug:

Scrolled down the page and noticed more savings available by purchasing
the three packages together. Also noticed that this other brand had a
longer life and received more favorable reviews from customers. Thanks
again for the amazon link . . . I ordered these lightbulbs this afternoon:

http://www.amazon.com/Feit-Electric-100A-MP-130-Household/dp/B000KKQRPM/ref=sr_1_2?s=hi&ie=UTF8&qid=1311050929&sr=1-2

:thumbsup:

comes time to dispose of them because of the mercury content. Better to stay with regular bulbs or LED's.

http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/cfl.asp




:hi:

112th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1369

To force the Republicans to quit screwing around with light bulbs and abortion and worry about what the voters sent them to Washington to do

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

July 22, 2011

Mr. FRANK introduced the following bill, which was referred to the Committee on House Administration

A BILL

To force the Republicans to quit screwing around with light bulbs and abortion and worry about what the voters sent them to Washington to do

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE

This Act may be cited as the 'Quit Fucking Around and Do Your Damn Job Act'

SECTION 2. FINDINGS

(a) Findings - The Congress finds as follows:

(1) The United States is in a fiscal crisis.

(2) The Republican Party chooses not to respond to it. Instead, they have chosen to amuse themselves by worrying about light bulbs, abortion, tax cuts for millionaires and things that will not fix the fiscal crisis.

SECTION 3. PENALTIES FOR REPUBLICANS WHO WON'T QUIT FUCKING AROUND AND DO THEIR DAMN JOBS

(1) The next Republican who brings to the floor any bill that doesn't contain either a debt ceiling increase or the repeal of the Bush tax cuts until the current crisis is abated will be sent home immediately, without pay, to think about his or her actions.

(2) The next Republican after that who does it is going to get the living shit beat out of him. This ass whooping will be televised on C-SPAN and released to the networks.

(3) Any Republican who does it after that will be considered incorrigible and will just be shot. This legislation authorizes the House Minority Leader to spend $1200 on a pistol and enough ammumition to shoot every Republican in Congress if that's what it takes.

and C-Span's rating would go through the roof :)

13 = the "unlucky number"

69 = a sexual position

So...HR 1369 is to take care of the unlucky cocksuckers who are stupid enough to do light bulb bills instead of ones we need.

with the old bulbs. Is it environmentally OK to just put them in the trash? Aren't they somehow toxic?

CFL bulbs, just double plastic bag them, and put them in the outside trash or other protected outside location for the next scheduled trash collection.

But first you should see if your area does recycling.

From the Energy Star Website:
Consumers can contact their local municipal solid waste agency directly, or go to
epa.gov/cfl/cflrecycling.html or www.earth911.org to identify local recycling options.

places that we have periodically. They recycle them safely. or so I heard

and for the record, there is not much toxicity in incandescents. You can toss them in the trash or recycle the glass/metal if you can find a place that will take them.

Home Despot and Lowes certainly have such bins.

They also take back NiCad batteries from tools and
the like.

Tesha

It came with 3 of the screwy-type bulbs. They were just do damned ugly I replaced them with 60w incandescent ones.

not so ugly. still save money. and in that size, there are a lot of led bulbs out there. i admit i don't like the color from them, tho.

a 66 GTO convertible is better looking than any car out there today, but you would be lucky to get 12 MPG out of it. Modern cars are ugly, but they are a hell of a lot more efficient.

should be able to buy and drive a 66 GTO if the so desire.

I was remarking on the fact that the poster said the lights are ugly. Truth be told, I think there should be some sort of penalty for driving horribly inefficient cars. Until we start penalizing inefficiency, we will continue to be a grossly wasteful nation.

Or front yard post-lamps.

The Republicans and Teabaggers are too stupid to see CFLs last longer, use less electricity, and produce just as much light as inefficient bulbs. In short, the Government is saving them money, but Teabaggers refuse to go along.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/tea-party-0-rational-policy-1/2011/07/12/gIQAkNQTBI_blog.html

The House of Representatives on Tuesday voted to keep energy efficiency standards for light bulbs, which passed in 2007 and are set to phase in beginning next year.

The Natural Resources Defense Council calculates that these light bulb efficiency standards will eventually save Americans $12.5 billion a year in lower energy bills, reducing consumption by the equivalent of the output of 33 large power plants and slashing greenhouse and other pollution along the way. Newer bulbs are more expensive than the old clunkers, but often not by much, and they more than pay for themselves in decreased energy use.

Not that you'd know it from the hysterics of some Republicans leading up to the vote. Congress, they insisted, is banning the incandescent light bulb . It wants to force you to buy unattractive and maybe even dangerous compact fluorescent bulbs instead. And, perhaps the most amazing claim of all: Buying new bulbs won't save any energy .

Sure, government mandates aren't always the best ways to accomplish policy goals; the collective wisdom of consumers facing the right incentives can drive technological change in the most efficient direction. But Republicans are against that policy, too, ruling out the carbon taxes or cap-and-trade programs that would build some of the social costs of pollution into electricity prices. And Congress's light bulb efficiency standards just aren't outrageous, anyway.

I still have two of my original pig tail bulbs when my utility company did energy audits back in the late 70's early 80. They gave us three to try out I broke one in a lamp when we put ona new shade. Imagine how long they would last since they don't get hot.

This is just another GOP cry baby tactic, it isn't about saving money or energy....they believe government shouldn't be telling people what to do or buy....except when its in the bedroom or in the womb.

And none will ever pass again if Democrats turn out next year and push these earwigs back under their rock.

Republicans love it when Democrats choose to stay home and not vote. It makes their job so much easier.

I'm sorry, but this is the federal government's business - only because free enterprise has failed. We do not pay what things really cost because the federal government subsidizes so much of what we purchase. They give farmers (well, really agribusiness) subsidies so our food is cheap. They built and maintain a great system of roads that we can travel on for free - and that also means our products can get to us relatively cheaply and efficiently. They don't ask us to pay for wars or military presence in the countries that have oil. The government also gives subsidies to the coal industry. Oh, and if you live near a nuclear plant - the government helps regulate it to keep you safe. Hydroelectric? The government probably paid for (or helped fund) the dam. If the government really passed these prices on to the power companies, they would pass them on to you and it would cost more to keep your lights burning. So, the government does have the right because they are subsidizing our power consumption.

No man is an island.

Oh, and don't say without the subsidies the power company executives would just have to take less compensation. That would never happen. And I also know our system of roads, regulation, etc isn't perfect and everything here isn't cheap, but compared to much of the world, we do have it pretty good in that regard. It seems the Teabaggers want to change that and make us like a developing nation...

how dare they work for the common good.

at home,”

Since I'm pro-choice, I have to agree.

If you drive a vehicle in the US, your ability to choose to drive an emission-belching wreck is already being impinged upon. The EPA sets vehicle emission standards for the entire country. Have you suffered greatly as a consequence? Were you even aware that your freedom to choose had been thus infringed upon? Please. The federal government has every right to tell you and every other citizen what basic minimums they need to live by, they do so in countless ways every single day of the week, and, whether you know and acknowledge it or not, you are deeply grateful that they do so and that the food you ate at that restaurant the other night wasn't pumped full of e-coli.

Secondly, the establishment of emission standards relates to the utilization of public infrastructure. The choice of what color of light bulb I use in my home, does not. There are also licensing and safety requirements for vehicles that utilize public infrastructure. What's next, a licensing requirement for light bulbs? (Honey, the light bulb police want to ask you some questions)

:hi:

Perhaps freedom also requires thought too.

Likewise, anyone who believes that governments have rights, might learn something too.

You mean, like electricity? When you start generating your own electricity, then great, you can use whatever light bulb you want as far as I'm concerned. If you're going to send power companies into my state to rape my environment for resources to feed your power consumption, then absolutely, your power consumption is a matter of public policy.

My second home is a remote mountain cabin that is off-grid. I have an array of solar panels and a wind turbine. However, the meager amount of electricity generated forces me to utilize LED bulbs, which are expensive and do not provide the color of my preference.

On the other hand, I use LED, CFL and incandescent light bulbs at my primary residence. However, the only bulbs suitable for dimming are incandescents. Dimming CFLs buzz, flicker and lack the dimming range of incandescent bulbs.

Neither you, or the fedgov, have the right to limit my choices.

I'm really not trying to be obtuse, but I hear this all the time from more libertarian-minded Democrats and I really don't get it. "Neither you, nor the fedgov, have the right to limit my choices." But the government, and - if I am able to persuade them to act on my behalf - I, do have every right to limit your choices - if your choices harm others. You do not have a right to make a choice that is harmful to others. Do you seriously question that our elected officials, acting on behalf of the public good (ideally - okay, you can stop laughing now), have the right to constrain you from committing murder? From perpetrating fraud upon others? From dumping your toxic waste into public waterways? From developing nuclear weapons in your garage? From driving recklessly and endangering the safety of other motorists? There are vast libraries filled to capacity with laws which govern what people can and cannot do; your freedom to choose is already limited in more ways than you can possibly count, yet libertarians continue to hold out as sacred and inviolable their freedom from having their choices limited. Excuse me? Since when? In what country does anyone have unlimited choices? And who in their right mind would ever want to live in such a place if it even existed? Rules are what allow us to live together without killing each other - at least most of the time.

Referring specifically to the example at hand, this country faces a serious energy crisis. We are having to send troops overseas to kill innocent civilians by the hundreds of thousands in order to secure our continued access to uninterrupted fossil fuel supplies. We allow hazardous drilling in fragile ecosystems in order to obtain the oil we need to support our gluttonous consumption, with catastrophic results to the environment. We blast the very earth asunder to obtain coal. In order to obtain natural gas, we inject so many toxic chemicals into the earth's crust that the water we and every other living creature need for survival actually ignites explosively. And this is the good part - in less developed nations that have even fewer environmental protection laws, our energy companies are perpetrating even worse crimes in order to feed our habit. If ever there was a legitimate national policy priority, reducing our energy consumption is surely it. Yet, against this backdrop, all one hears from the libertarian community is: "you'd better not be asking me to give up my gas guzzler," or "don't expect me to use those energy efficient appliances," or "I'm not giving up my light bulb."

So please enlighten me here, what am I missing? What makes libertarians so special that they should have unlimited freedom to engage in wasteful consumption while the rest of the planet has to pay for their choices?

I also used the term "right" from the OP, when what I am actually referring to is government power.

You do not have a right to make a choice that is harmful to others.

I completely agree with that statement, for it defines one of the principle functions of government. However, you seem to have overlooked my comments describing how I use energy efficient light bulbs. LED and CFL bulbs occupy the majority of the light bulb sockets in my home. The exceptions concern the areas where we require our lighting to be adjustable (dimming). I have experimented with dimming CFL bulbs and found them to be expensive, but useless, which leaves me with no other option than to use incandescent bulbs in areas where dimming is required. Initially, I also had issues with the color of the light produced by CFLs; however, there has been some improvement in the pleasantness of CFL colors.

So yes, I seriously question that our elected officials, acting on behalf of the public good, have the power to prohibit me from adjusting the brightness of the lighting in my home.

Thus, what you are missing, or rather, not recognizing, is my right to pursue the happiness that a dimly lit, romantic ambiance brings to me and my wife.:)

... on your usage of energy efficient lighting and solar energy and your wind turbine, I think that's absolutely wonderful. I wish I had the money to install solar on my home, I would do it in a heartbeat if I could.

My question was really directed less at your personal behavior specifically than at the general notion that government lacks the authority/moral right to regulate public behavior. Energy is, as you suggested, a murkier territory because it is mostly privately owned, and excessive consumption of energy differs from most of the examples I chose in that it is not a crime per se, and there is no specific individual victim. But I believe that needs rethinking. For purposes of discussion, imagine a hypothetical economy of just you and I and, between us, we possess only 100 gallons of fuel. I have a scooter that gets 100 mpg and you drive a Hummer that gets 10 mpg. Because you choose to drive a vehicle that consumes ten times as much fuel as mine does, you want 90% of our shared 100 gallons. If you were not driving a gas guzzler, I would be able to drive 5,000 miles on my half of our gasoline. Now you want me to give up 4,000 of those miles I could have driven so that you can drive 900 miles in your gas guzzler. This doesn't seem right to me.

Okay, so this is obviously a grossly simplified example in an effort to illustrate a point, but, right now at least, and for the foreseeable future until we pull our heads out of our asses and start seriously investing in cleaner, renewable, alternative energy sources, energy is a finite commodity. If it's finite, that means we can, sooner or later, eventually run out of it. That means that every joule of energy consumed by someone today is one less joule of energy available to someone else tomorrow. At that point, the public/private distinction means less to me than it might otherwise: if there's only so much oil to be had and when it's gone it's gone, it becomes a resource that cannot be consumed by one party without depriving another party of it, and that, at least to my way of thinking, makes it a public matter.

I do, in fact, use a scooter that gets 100 mpg. And no, it's not as comfortable as a big, gas-guzzling, emission-belching, air-conditioned luxury vehicle. So I sweat when it's hot and I get wet when it rains. But I'm trying to do my part to reduce our energy consumption and our carbon footprint. And, honestly, a part of me looks at people who drive Hummers and wonders: what gives that person the moral right to consume ten times as much fuel as I'm consuming? Why isn't that person stepping up and taking their fair share of responsibility? At that point, the libertarian argument that we have some freedom to unlimited personal choice rings rather hollow with me, you know what I mean?

Some of those squiggly lights put out a bluish grey color. Similar to a gloomy, cloudy day. Also some aren't very bright. I try to make sure I buy at least 20 or 23 watt bulbs and always WARM or Soft White. They have been running for about 2 years now with no flicker or humming like the first generation ones. I just wish they would manufacture them in the USA and give tax breaks to encourage others to replace their old incandescents.

but the greatest color name goes to the blue-white: Alien Autopsy. Very Area-fifty-one-ish.

my rep (Burgess) doing something worthwhile :sarcasm: You know, it sometimes hurts being surrounded by so much stupidity.

They suppress the vote.
They discredit the concept of government by the people.
They undercut and sabotage duly elected officials.
They ignore and undermine laws that their supporters find inconvenient.
They attempt unilateral action whenever possible.
They sabotage the judiciary.
They mislead the public.
Does anyone really think that Republicans believe in democracy???

:hi:

it just isn't happening. Putting people back to work and then to be paying taxes will go along way toward solving many of the other problems.

says I can't use incandescent bulbs in my home!!

Nope. The government is imposing energy standards on light bulb manufacturers. If you can find incandescent bulbs, no one is going to try to stop you. If you can find a 1973 Mercury Grand Marquis station wagon you want to drive, go for it.

Maybe some one will invent a new kind of light bulb that is efficient and has the same light characteristics as incandescent bulbs. They darn well won't unless there's demand for it, and there won't be demand for it until the inefficient incandescent bulbs are scarce. I know I can still find them almost everywhere I look, I just don't buy them anymore.

LEDs are pretty expensive right now, though they have extremely long life. The major effort in LEDs for lighting is for commercial applications, not for the home. That is slowly changing, and I expect more variety and less expensive choices in the relatively near future. I like the LED lights for weaving and sewing. They put out bright, white light with virtually no heat.

I don't particularly care for the compact fluorescent bulbs, but for those locations where I don't do a lot of work (stairwells, closets) they're just fine.