Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
Who did what now?
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?
There never was! There are new efficiency standards, which both GE and Osram Sylvania say they can meet with new incandescents. The whole thing started as a talking point for a Republican primary, and took off when the punditry caught a whiff of it and smelled red meat.
I'm a firm believer in using the tax code to influence behavior. Tax the snot out of them. Considering that my house is entirely lit by canned lighting on dimmer switches, an incandescent ban means I basically have to rewire my house - fluorescent dimmables just don't work. If they were heavily taxed - to the point of being slightly more expensive that the fluorescents - then I would have an alternative, while the majority of the market will still make the choice you want them to. Everybody wins.
Funnily enough, setting efficiency standards for lightbulbs (which most incandescents made at the time the law was passed did not meet) is exactly what the law did. Calling it a ban on incandescents is propagandizing. (Most incandescent manufacturers now have bulbs that meet the efficiency standards.)
this message brought to you by the Acme Kerosene lantern company.
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
why not simply ban inefficient bulbs?
That is exactly what the law does.
If incandescent bulbs can be made more efficient, it'd be silly to have to repeal or modify a law later.
Some companies have in fact done just that, and they are now upset at the prospect of having the law revoked after having spent all that money to comply with it.
Starting in 2012, standars would slowly keep increasing until reaching the peak in 2020. So, that means that none should have yet disappeared, and depending on their caracteristics some of them could still be sold for a while. Anyway, that was all in TFA, but this is slashdot, so, that was expected :)
Several months ago, a CFL broke right next to my 2-year old son. I had the sense to get him out of the room, but not for about 10 seconds.
After much research, I discovered that a CFL has about 4 milligrams of Mercury that is released as a vapor (which is readily absorbed by the body unlike the solid form).
The EPA website's cleanup instructions were vast. They even recommended that all clothing that came in contact with any of the CFL be destroyed. I assumed this also meant the wall-to-wall carpeting in my son's bedroom where he plays.
Do I think the EPA is probably being a bit paranoid? Sure. But this is my son we are talking about during his key mental development years. A little paranoia is in order. Who knows how much mercury vapor he inhaled. Yes, I got rid of the carpet.
I'm personally stocking up on incadescents until LED or Halogon alternatives become viable. BTW-- I vote Democratic ticket and am otherwise pretty liberal.
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.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
Then the right way to go about this is to use taxes and fees so the externalities are included in the power bill. I don't understand the fixation on light bulbs - there are lots of ways to conserve power. Let's let people decide for themselves how they want to do it.
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 .
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
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.
I thought similar until I saw the numbers. Electric heat is one of the least efficient forms there is. For homes with gas heat, relying on incandescent lamps for their heating is just wasteful. It's much more efficient to minimize electricity use by using CFLs and use more efficient gas for actual heating. When trying to cool your house the savings go way up by not having so much heat load.
Something else is all the people complaining about the cost of CFL bulbs. Even with failures, the electricity savings by using CFLs is huge. I have those light bars in my bathrooms that could either be 360 watts of incandescent lamps or, with CFLs, just 90 watts for more light output. I use CFLs everywhere that I can. The only exceptions are the oven, refrigerator, and the ceiling fans that have candelabra base bulbs and maybe those are available as CFL now.
There was a very easily noticed drop in my electric bill when I switched over - especially in the summer due to the reduced heat load for the air conditioning.
It all adds up, folks. The electric savings due to using CFL lamps is huge. That's a hell of a lot of coal and natural gas that isn't being burned and it cuts the need for nuclear.
There is a bigger picture than just that you had to pay a buck or two for a CFL instead of 50 cents for an incandescent.
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.
It's always confirmation bias!
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 :).
Yes, I got rid of the carpet.
i hope you checked all the ingredients in the new carpet against chances of causing developmental problems..
i also hope if you where that paranoid that you properly disposed of this now contaminated carpet - rather than throw it in the trash to go to a land fill to allow it to enter the water table where your son will now drink it from the faucet.
and if you are that worried - you might want to avoid fish all together..
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
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.
Dear Republicans:
There is no incandescent light bulb ban.
Really? I wasn't aware they had speed limits (as a trivial example) when common law was written. When the common law has nothing to base it's precedent on then new laws need to be created so that new precedents can be moulded by common law.
Of couse that's not the purpose or original intent of the commerce clause. It's simply one of the many ways the Constitution has been abused and disregarded. Read the writings of the founding fathers....try the Federalist papers. Try Federalist 56. Here's one possible article about this topic specifically: http://federalistblog.us/2011/06/no_power_over_interstate_commerce.html
The current government and its traitorous Supreme Court judges have simply told you that it gives them the power to regulate interstate commerce because the want to usurp that power.
Did you know that the word "regulate" as used in the Constitution didn't mean what it means today? Back then it meant "to make regular" or "to treat evenly"; i.e. the job of the federal government was simply to make sure all states are treated evenly with regards to interstate commerce. Today, the definition has been warped to mean "to control". Naturally, that's what government is all about: power and control.
But the writings of those who wrote the Constitution make it clear what the original intent was.
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.
Someone had to do it.
CFLs use less energy to produce light than incandescents do - but their lifespan, in my experience, is not nearly as long as promised. Over the whole life cycle, the energy difference may be less than you think.
Incidentally, incandescent bulbs often are used as small heaters because it's very easy to run the infrastructure to one of them. Before I found a small heater that has a thermostat setting for 40 F, I used one to keep my tropical plants (stored in a small shed in the back yard) from freezing in the winter.