Congress Voting To Repeal Incandescent Bulb Ban

Bob the Super Hamste writes "CNN Money is running as story about a bill Congress is going to vote on today to repeal the 'incandescent light bulb ban' that was put into place during the Bush administration. The bill is supported by Republicans in Congress who are claiming this places unnecessary restrictions on the market. For those of you wondering, it does bring up the standard issues of energy efficiency, mercury (in both the bulbs and that emitted by coal power), and cost of the bulbs. The bill was introduced by Texas Congressman Joe Barton."

Comments

Classic!

[Karl Cocknozzle]

This is as close to a modern version of "fiddling while Rome burns."

Glad to see they're not wasting their time on silly things like the budget.

Re:Classic!

[interkin3tic]

Same guy who apologized to BP for all those hard questions they were getting about that thing in the gulf. He also has called for two witch hunts into global warming studies.

This isn't the guy fiddling while Rome burns. This is one of Nero's dedicated foot soldiers actively setting the fires on command. Except that there are multiple Neros, and it's not Rome, it's the world that's being set on fire.

CFL are no savings

[brian0918]

I have had several CFL's fail within months, completely destroying any potential long-term savings. And do they really think anyone is properly disposing of these bulbs?

Re:CFL are no savings

[jandrese]

Check your manufacturer, most of the reputable ones offer multi-year replacement guarantees on the bulbs. Although if you buy good ones originally you generally won't need to use those guarantees.

Unlike old style bulbs, CFLs are complex enough that quality matters. The ultra-cheap ones are really crap.

Re:CFL are no savings

[cayenne8]

You bought some kind of ridiculously cheap, low-quality bulbs from somewhere, and got what you paid for.

Well, there's your problem right there. Why should someone have to 'shop around' for a fscking light bulb?? I've never in the past had to shop for quality in a light bulb (with incandescent)...I just grab the first one I see on the shelf...usually looking just long enough to see if there is a cheapest one.

Why would Joe Consumer even consider that a light bulb isn't a light bulb isn't a light bulb....this is a commodity purchase...this isn't something people are used to having to research...it's a fucking light bulb.

Re:Good Riddens

[SydShamino]

Why ban anything just because it's inefficient? If you want to ban it cause it's toxic, that's one thing, but if you want to ban it just because it is a waste of money, isn't that what market forces are for?

Because market forces ignore the tragedy of the commons, especially when it's abstracted away as increased pollution at a plant you can't see and distributed out as an extra few dollars a month on an electric bill.

Re:Summary?

[Nethemas the Great]

They aren't telling you what kind of bulbs to f*****g bulbs to buy. The energy efficiency standards set to take effect do not specify the specific technology that must replace them. It just says that common application bulbs need to be more efficient. CFLs happen to fit that standard but there are actually alternatives including other incandescent bulbs .

Buy better CFLs

[Sycraft-fu]

The ones in my house are all around 4 years old, still going strong. That is half the reason I buy them. Replacing bulbs is a pain, I like not having to do it very often.

Re:Summary?

[AndyAndyAndyAndy]

Libertarianism works great until you run into the tragedy of the commons. Your use of a $0.50 bulb over the course of your lifetime affects others, both in increased energy demand (and thus higher energy prices), and higher pollution rates. It does not matter if the price increase is $0.0001 per bulb, or if the pollution increase is equivalent to one lit match per bulb. These are increases that add up to important figures when others do the same as you.

So, yes, if you want to get flame-y, it IS the government's job to mold your behavior if the behavior negatively affects civilization.

Actually, you have an option these days

[Sycraft-fu]

Not CFLs, you are right those dim for shit, but Philips has new LED lights that are actually worth getting. What you are after is the Philips AmbientLED Dimmable A19. As far as I know, it is exclusive to Home Depot currently, but they all have them. It is a real, no shit, replacement for an A19 bulb. Its luminous efficacy is equal to or above CFLs (which isn't true for many LEDs), it dims properly using a normal dimmer, and it fits in normal sockets. Funny looking bulb, but it does the job and it is white when it lights up.

The downside is, of course, upfront cost. They are expensive little things. However being LEDs they ought to last a decade or two which combined with low energy usage means they are likely to be a net win.

I got them for my living room because I was really tired of having to get out the ladder to change bulbs, and because dimmable CFLs are crap. I'd been stuck on incandescents but tried these. They work great. I just have a standard Lutron dimmer and all I had to do was put the bulbs in the sockets and it works right.

Now I'm not advocating an incandescent ban or anything, I am making you aware of a new, high tech, option you've got. I love the things, despite the cost, because they work well and I don't have to replace them all the time. Plus they look neat :).

Re:Summary?

[localman57]

Exactly. The argument for this is the same as the argument for getting rid of Leaded gasoline. Knowing what we know now, and given the available technology, it really is a crime against humanity to put lead in gasoline.

Re:Summary?

[skids]

If there were value in being more efficient, bulbs would be more efficient.

Explain, then, junk food. Or those crappy off-brand cigarette lighters that break before they use all their fuel.

Of all your things to put your faith in, the prescience of the American consumer seems to me to a poor choice.