Congressional GOP Pushing To End Light-Bulb Efficiency Rules - It's About "Choice", You See . . .

Congressional Republicans are targeting light-bulb efficiency laws passed under the Bush Administration, saying they'll force consumers to pay more for light bulbs and limit choice.

A Senate hearing is set for Thursday on a bill introduced by U.S. Senator Mike Enzi, R-Wyo. The Better Use of Light Bulbs (BULB) Act would repeal light bulb standards Congress included in the 2007 energy law, and eliminate what Enzi calls "the Washington knows best approach" that would effectively phase out traditional incandescent bulbs starting in 2012. A companion bill has also been introduced in the House.

Enzi has also introduced a bill that would exempt hospitals, schools, day care centers, mental health facilities and nursing homes from any federal lighting requirement if the alternative lighting contains mercury, as compact fluorescent bulbs do.

Environmental groups are fighting back, with the Natural Resources Defense Council leading the charge. The bulbs may cost more up front, they say, but they pay off financially over the long run because they last longer. They also save considerable amounts of energy in the process -- the 2007 law requires bulbs new bulbs to use 25 to 30 percent less energy.

EDIT

http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2011/03/environmental_news_senator_mik.html

+ backward. that is today's GOP leaders.

There are plenty of situations where incandescents are a better choice than CFL or even LEDs. Try keeping chickens alive or an oil tank from freezing with one of those.

of energy the bulb uses.

http://earth911.com/news/2010/10/28/the-phase-out-of-incandescent-light-bulbs-what-you-need-to-know/

All they do is take a normal bulb and put a coating on or in it that filters out certain wavelengths. No sense paying many times the price of a standard incandescent for something that doesn't work any better (and often has lower performance).

There are also CFL/flouro bulb performance and life issues in cold environments where below-zero F temps are common in the winter.

I use CFLs and LEDs in my home since it makes sense (although I do use incandescents in the winter since it adds heat to the home and cuts on oil use), but I do have plenty of exterior applications where incandescents just make more economical, practical, and even environmental sense.

that's in them. 99.9% of them will just be tossed in the trash. What will that do to landfills? I'm not sold on these just yet.

It would be contained in properly designed landfills. But even if it were to all be dumped directly into the environment, the amount from the CFL bulbs would be markedly less than the mercury emissions from the coal that would be burned to power the incandescent bulbs.

In other words the mercury excuse is a right wing canard.

and he's fat too. Therefore, CFLs are bad. QED