The House of Representatives is considering the BULB Act, which would stop the government’s de facto ban on incandescent light bulbs from going into effect. Though its chances are uncertain in the Senate, and President Obama would probably veto it, the bill deserves support. If it does not become law, Americans will no longer be able to buy the “inefficient” bulbs they’ve relied on for years; the point is to encourage the use of swirly compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs).
Advertisement
We do not mean to disparage CFLs as such. Tests show that, on average, they last longer and use less electricity than regular bulbs — saving consumers more than enough money to make up for their higher purchase price. They have made inroads in the market without government help; you can find them at just about any store that sells regular light bulbs.
But the fact that a product is superior in some ways does not mean it is superior for all purposes, and it certainly doesn’t give the government the right to ban the competition. CFLs don’t work well with dimmer switches, and their lifespans diminish significantly if they’re turned on and off repeatedly rather than being left on for long periods of time. Clumsy environmentalists might be concerned about the mercury they release when they break. Some people just don’t like the quality of light that a CFL bulb gives off. These are all factors that consumers should be able to consider, without state oversight, when choosing a light bulb for a particular socket.
After all, it is this act of choice that will force both regular bulbs and CFLs to meet consumers’ needs. If customers flock to CFLs to save money, manufacturers will try to make regular bulbs more efficient; and if people are reluctant to buy CFLs for various reasons, manufacturers will come up with better CFL designs. CFL makers have already improved the quality of light their bulbs emit and developed special bulbs that work with dimmer switches. Shielding CFLs from competition will only interfere with this process.
The light-bulb ban, signed into effect by Pres. George W. Bush, is nanny-statism at its worst. When President Obama’s energy secretary, Steven Chu, said that “we are taking away a choice that continues to let people waste their own money,” he identified the key problem: The government has decided that a certain product is a “waste,” and then forbidden people to spend “their own money” on it. The federal government should be more concerned about how it wastes Americans’ money, and less concerned about how Americans spend their own.
EDITOR’S NOTE: This article has been amended since its initial posting.
"The federal government should be more concerned about how it wastes Americans’ money, and less concerned about how Americans spend their own."
Yes, they should. But up until the recent Tea Party Revolution, members of the federal gov't. (of both parties) decided that it was in their best interest to retain power by buying votes. The American public enabled them to do so by continuing to re-elect power-hungry spendthrifts and accepting the premise that they, the public, were being supplied with 'free lunches' of various sorts.
The worst part of the incandescent bulb ban is that it assumes a "one size fits all" approach to consumers. That's what's wrong with most nanny-state legislation.
There are some people for whom CFLs are NOT a good idea:
Families with pets or small children with behavior problems. You can almost guarantee that light bulbs are going to get broken. And for CFLs, that means mercury cleanup, as well as the bulb not lasting long enough for you to recoup your higher up-front investment.
People with mobile lifestyles. To recoup your higher up-front investment, you would have to unscrew the CFLs and take them with you to your next home--only to find out that your CFLs won't fit in that new home's lighting fixtures.
In a free market, such people's needs are still accommodated. They can stick with incandescents, paying the premium in higher electric bills in exchange for the safety of not having mercury spills and the inconvenience of having the bulbs following them around the country.
Liberals are all about minority rights. But the smallest minority of all--the individual who may have unique needs--they don't care about. Their entire mindset is to shoe-horn people into groups and then treat them as groups.
What happens to technical innovation in every field when the government dictates which are the best products - either directly, such as by this stupid light bulb ban (dishwasher detergent is another such example), or by killing off the competition indirectly, as Obamacare does?
We have some CFL's where they make sense to use, however in bathrooms, closets and other places that lights are on for a short period of time they don't make sense. It shortens their life and they take a minute to get to full light. IMHO CFL's are going to have a pretty short life as LED lights are getting cheaper, last longer, offer nearly instant on and don't have the environmental issues of a CFL being thrown into the trash. The only bright side to this nanny-statism is they left specialty bulbs alone, if they had included candelabra base bulbs in this millions of chandeliers and other specialty fixtures would likely need to be replaced to something that doesn't show the bulb. Even the LED candelabra base bulbs don't look good hanging over my dining room table. Given the number of times that table is used and the cost of the higher priced bulbs I'd never recoup the cost through savings in my lifetime.
That's a start, but we really need to put safeguards in place that prevent these ridiculous over reaches of government in the first place. Many lightbulb factories have already been closed because of this. Our politicians are incapable of forseeing the unintended cosequences of their actions. There are more unintended consequences on the horizon. Our engines are being destroyed by ethanol mandates, newsflash the mandate is the problem not the subsidies! We are going to be forced out of rural areas when the 50 mpg car never materializes. Only a handful of people will be able to drive electric cars because the cost of electricity will be through the roof when the coal plants and nuclear plants get shut down. Heck most of us will be lucky to have a few morsels to eat since the value of our dollar will be worthless thanks to Keynesian kick the can down the road inflation and we will be lucky if we will be able to afford to heat our homes and pay our starvation taxes to pay off the reckless debts from past generations. It works out perfectly to fit the UNs agenda 21, we will all live on the urban plantation along our designated high speed rail line. The future looks bright. Thanks for the wonderful legacy brought to you by both our Democrat and Republican leaders as they sell out the American dream one tyranical overreach at a time.
This is an out of control eco-regulation. What becomes of all the mercury when the long-life expires? And why is there a regulation that cannot possibly be enforced?
And make no mistake, this became the law only because of the efforts of lobbyists working for CFL manufacturers that contributed to the politicians who voted for it. Behind every government edict purportedly adopted for the public good is a crony capitalist who stands to gain from it.
I don't understand all the angst here. Yes, this is intrusive, but surely no more so than low-flow toilats and automobile CAFE rules.
It does seem unnecessary, as sales of CFLs were doing fine- UNTIL citizens felt pressured to buy them.
But the bill is modest, and it WON'T MAKE YOUR INCANDESCENT BULBS GO AWAY!
That's right, even if the law takes effect, you can still buy incandescent bulbs that work just as you remember them- dimmable, start in cold weather, with a glowing, hot filament inside.
The difference is, these bulbs will cost more, and they'll be more efficient. There are already 72W incandescent bulbs on the market that produce the same light output as a standard 100W bulb.
These do cost $3.- $4. each and they only a little bit longer, but you'll get that money back in reduced electric bill. They are NOT fluorescent, they are (halogen) incandescents. That look and work just like the incandescent bulbs you have now.
Let's put it this way, the bill makes LOW-COST incandescent bulbs go away.
Isn't it a coincidence that the halogen bulb manufacturers have priced their product at the perfect point to capture the entire ~$3 in reduced electricity savings for themselves? So no net savings to the consumer.
It's no secret the bulb manufacturers were instrumental in lobbying for the original 2007 bill. After all, what company wouldn't want to increase their per unit gross margin by $3 to $4.
And the savings on our electric bills may be ephermal when the utilities figure out they have to raise rates due to reduced total usage. Of course the government could forestall that by then mandating electric cars.
With apologies to Gerald Ford. 'A government big enough to take from you anything you have is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.'
Or as George Wallace might say about the light bulb ban, 'There's not a dime's worth of difference between the two parties.'
Imagine if you shipped a CFL to the Whitehouse, and it arrived broken -- would they consider it a terrorist attack?
The captcha I got initially is just got is completely unacceptable. It asks a question "manilla lets you securely manage which of the following?" and gives me a pop-up menu of possible answers. It doesn't provide the answer in the ad. I've never heard of "manilla" and I absolutely refuse to actually do research to answer a captcha question!
