US lightbulb rules spark new political fight

[The Northerner]

WASHINGTON — With a January deadline looming on a US law mandating energy efficiency standards for lightbulbs, some political forces don't want to turn out the lights.

More than a dozen Republican lawmakers are backing efforts to repeal the 2007 law that requires bulbs to consume less energy. Meanwhile Texas has enacted a law that would exempt itself from the federal requirement, and other states are debating similar legislation.

Some consumers have also begun hoarding the old incandescent bulbs based on an erroneous fear that these will be banned starting January 1 and consumers will be forced to buy compact fluorescent or other new types of bulbs.

The US law does not ban incandescent bulbs, but creates new standards for them, basically requiring increased efficiency, so that the bulbs with a lighting equivalent of 100 watts consume just 72 watts.

Still, repeal backers including at least two Republican presidential candidates argue the law is an intrusion on Americans' freedom of choice. Activists have launched petition drives calling the rules an example of a "nanny" state.

Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hXxQEXJvV2vbbpBcf4nohbxdy7rQ

[RB TexLa]

1. Why would anyone care about changes in light bulbs?

[Webster Green]

6. Oh. it's one of their big issues.

How dare the government mandate energy efficient light bulbs? They've been pearl-clutching about this for some time now. :crazy:

[jtuck004]

9. Banning incandescent bulbs will destroy the institution of marriage. n/t

[fujiyama]

14. I thought it was because CFLs would turn us all gay!

Somehow I figured Jesus wanted us all to have incandescent bulbs!

[jtuck004]

26. Maybe that's it. I get confused because so many of their arguments

make so little sense I can hardly remember what they are all in response to.

On the other hand, if they make so little sense, it doesn't really matter which response they pick... ;)

[MadHound]

10. People who are sensitive to differences in lighting

My wife had an injury to her eye that left scarring on the interior of her pupil, which doesn't close down or operate properly. Incandescent lighting is the best for her, since CFL's and LED's truly due mess with her sight. I have no objection to high efficiency incandescents if they have the same lighting as normal ones, but if not, I'm not going to turn our house into a headache nightmare for my wife in order to save energy. Since I've not seen any high efficiency incandescents around so that we can try them out, yes, I'm storing up normal incandescents.

Doesn't mean I'm against energy efficiency, but everybody's case is different.

[peopleb4money]

11. Yah, CFL's put out way more EMF's too. I can't stand fluorescence really.

I don't know much about LED's. Hopefully they create less EMF's. 100 watt bulbs of any type are blinding though. I'm more into 40 watts and 40 watt equivalents. If they can bring incandescent bulbs down 30 watts or so, and they put out just as much light and have all the same qualities, I don't see what the deal is. I need to read up more on the 100 watt equivalent, 75 watt bulbs and actually test one of them out to see how well they work before I make an opinion. Honestly I really don't care one way or the other. Its really not going to do much for the environment. Its a rather minor concession for that concern. There's a huge trash patch in the middle of the ocean, they dump fluoride in a lot of the US water supplies, there's the chem trails, and then there's that nuclear meltdown in Japan. I just don't think light bulbs will make much of a dent. You could probably do way more good and save a lot more future lives by shutting down Diablo Canyon, but Obama wants to continue the same nuclear plan that we had before Fukoshima.

As long as fluorecent bulbs are disposed of properly, they're fine as far as I'm aware. I kind of wonder how much mercury gets into the environment over time. Is the dimming due to mercury loss in the bulb? Can element when ionized squeeze through glass. I'd kind of like to know these things. That aspect makes me a bit uneasy, and that's a major reason I stick to traditional bulbs.

The things they fixate on are weird though. I'd like both parties to just, unanimously, pull out of all the wars and stop giving money to Halliburton.

[Abq_Sarah]

16. CFLs bother my eyes

I have them but I use them to "bounce" light because looking at the bulb does bother my eyes.

[OKNancy]

19. because the florescent bulbs used to be nasty

They gave out the most horrible color. Often your skin looked extra blue or green. Have you ever been in an office with nothing but old-fashioned florescent bulbs? However, the manufacturers are doing a pretty good job of fixing the color/hue given off, so now you can buy ones that have a warmer tone.
Also some home light fixtures will have to be completely replaced. I have a sconce that only uses the candelabra style bulb.
I have no idea if they have come up with an energy replacement for that or not. Maybe they have. or will.
I also have a fixture over my sink that is too tight for a CFL ( compact florescent light)

I don't mind buying new ones, but I imagine those on a really limited income might have problems. The savings in bulbs and energy would probably balance out in a year though.

[David Gill]

2. Distraction is their game

Welcome to the latest Fox News distraction!

Here's the thing: this lightbulb rule doesn't matter. I mean, everything matters, but compared to the debt ceiling, and the huge inequities between rich and poor in this country, it's meaningless. But if they can keep the nation distracted, no attention will be paid, and nothing will be done about those serious things. And it can only work if there's a liberal base on the other side that fights for it and says "If these light bulbs go dim, so will our nation!". Otherwise it's just a story for a day, doesn't have any staying power in terms of controversy, and dies out.

This stupid light bulb thing could literally take up a full week, maybe two, in the national news cycle. Hell, how long were we talking about flag pins?? They're already making illusions to nanny states, and freedom of choice. The main thing to remember is that whatever's going to ultimately happen about this, will probably happen whether there's a big fight over it or not. Either there are the votes in the Senate to change it, or there isn't. Either Obama would veto something like this (he wouldn't, by the way, if it was attached to something important, which it would be).

It's kind of like when some dumb kid on the playground would say "Shut up", and you didn't really care about talking anyway. You could come back and say "You shut up", or "No!", and then you could go back and forth all day. Sometimes it's easier to just stop talking, and let the people looking on see that the idiot is acting like an idiot.

[AlabamaLibrul]

3. "Texas has enacted a law that would exempt itself from the federal requirement"

I don't think that's how it works.

[stevedeshazer]

4. If you read the piece, it becomes crystal clear who is behind this faux outrage

This "nanny state" bullshit is, well, bullshit.

"The government has no business telling an individual what kind of light bulb to buy," said Representative Michele Bachmann, who is running for president, in introducing her "Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act" earlier this year.
And she told a party gathering in June: "President Bachmann will allow you to buy any light bulb you want in the United States of America."

The fact that this is presented as an actual "news" story illustrates how bad everything really is -- as Randi Rhodes says, the news has been canceled.

[eppur_se_muova]

20. Of course it's only the dim bulbs that think they have something to fear ... nt

[ejpoeta]

23. is this the same 'nanny state' that wants to decide whether i can decide whether

i have more kids or not? or if gay people can get married? that 'nanny state'? i think they need to think about this.... energy efficient = uses less electricity = costs less money= saves money = more money in your pocket.

[Angry Dragon]

5. Why are republicans so worried about light bulbs??

They live in caves, they live in dark basements,
they have their heads stuck in the sand, and for
the most part they live in the dark

edit: and it was passed under bush, so are the republicans saying that bush was an idiot for signing this bill??

[Archae]

7. Because none of today's GOP is too bright.

[Raine]

13. They should've stopped it when Bush signed and put it into effect.

Gosh I can't figure out why it bothers then now when it didn't bother them then. :eyes:

[JDPriestly]

15. Funny. In my experience, it is usually the conservatives who

get involved in the homeowner groups that want to restrict all kinds of things that homeowners can do on their own property. And those kinds of conservatives are usually Tea-Bagger Republican types.

They like telling other people what to do but don't like it when someone else tells them what to do.

I have very poor night vision so I have to use a brighter lightbulb. But we use the energy saver bulbs, and they have really saved us a lot of money even though we use bright ones.

[Orrex]

8. Republicans fear that abandoning the incandescent bulb will mean abandoning 1879 sensibilities

And we can't have that, now can we?

[TheKentuckian]

12. No, it is to set a precedent against energy regulation.

Remember, incandescent bulbs aren't banned.

This is about stripping standards.

[Orrex]

21. Good idea--we need stripping standards ASAP!

Strippers have been operating without standards for far too long

[StarsInHerHair]

17. reminds me of the fight to pasteurize milk-idiots, but whatever

[xoom]

18. you just have to be careful cleaning up a broken CFL.

[ejpoeta]

22. my husband came home one day and told me how they were banning incandescent bulbs

and you won't be able to use easy bake ovens anymore. i said they didn't ban incandescent bulbs. they just have to be more efficient. my guess is he heard that from my brother who listens to glen beck and faux noise. you would think by now bob would know to be suspicious of anything he hears from pat. especially if he heard it from glen beck or fox.

[Shagbark Hickory]

24. They need to set back the deadline for these standards and focus on jobs and the economy.

Sorry if that sounds like RW attitude but in 2007, maybe there was an hour or two to spare on this but in 2011, with a double dip depression looming, we have more pressing matters to tend to.

[Ichingcarpenter]

25. Lightbulbs, climate change, gay marriage, creationism

Obama's birth certificate, flat earth, evolution jesus in a corn chip,

I notice that the 'NEWS' is trying to make this another issue that's
fair and balanced when its not ...... the manufacturers have moved on and will not make more as has civilization and scientific progress.