The lights are still on.
In a shrewd political move at the end of the Washington fiscal year, House Republicans inserted language in the annual, omnibus Appropriations Bill funding the U.S. government that blocks federal energy standards banning the traditional, incandescent light bulb. Thomas Edison can stop spinning in his grave and the American people can cheer a victory for consumer choice.
The bulb ban was a dark symbol of the Obama administration’s zealous appeasement of the green god of global warming. It was also a window into Washington crony capitalism as General Electric lobbied for a bulb ban — initially also supported by key Republican lawmakers — in order to force consumers to buy more expensive compact fluorescents (CFLs). Like CAFE laws that force auto mpg improvements, the restrictive energy rules were a sneaky backdoor regulation mandating the amount of energy a bulb used — effectively eliminating the cheap incandescents chosen by 85 percent of American consumers.
“It’s a milestone for personal freedom,” says Freedom Action’s Myron Ebell who fought hard in the trenches to overturn the ban. “This is a significant reversal of Nanny State regulations. Maybe this is a turning of the tide.”
The bulb’s rescue however, will not restore the hundreds of U.S. jobs lost over the last few years as GE and other bulb manufacturers shuttered factories and shipped the jobs to China where more expensive CFL bulbs can be manufactured with cheap labor.
“We heard the message loud and clear from Americans who don’t want government standards determining how they light their homes,” said Michigan congressman Fred Upton, who helped lead the charge. The Energy Committee chair’s leadership did not come without eating some crow as he was an original sponsor of the ban when George W. Bush — apparently suffering from Guilty Oil Man Syndrome — pushed the legislation in 2007. Despite repeated setbacks — with House efforts met by Harry Reid’s Senate stonewall — Republicans maintained pressure as the public became more aware of the impending January 1, 2012 ban.
Democrats and their corporate cronies did not go down silently. “The light bulb language had emerged as a sticking point in negotiations this week,” observed Bloomberg News, “and its inclusion in the final bill is a blow to Democratic efforts to remove it.”
“I strongly oppose that language,” huffed Senate Energy Chairman Jeff Bingaman, (D., N.M.), who was joined by an Iron Triangle of Democrats, Greens, and industry groups. “Eliminating funding for light bulb efficiency standards is especially poor policy as it would leave the policy in place but make it impossible to enforce,” raged the coalition.
Upton was joined by Reps. Joe Barton (R., Texas), and Marsha Blackburn (R., Tenn.), in saving the bulb — with a significant assist from Speaker John Boehner and House Appropriations Committee Chair Hal Rogers of Kentucky, who know a winning political issue when they see one. Along with the 120,000-job Keystone pipeline, the bulb issue helps to illuminate the fact that the Green religion is not only an imposition on personal freedom, but a job killer.
This time, Big Government lost. Merry Christmas.
Oh, that is good news indeed. Now I won't have to stock up on incandescent light bulbs (in addition to food and ammo!).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe bill only gives you nine more months to stock up--it delays the ban, it does not remove it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am with you... I have been hoarding for the past 6 months.... buying a few packs a week... The new bulbs would not fit in some of my older ceiling fixtures and I did not want to buy new covers. ( bigger) I like the ones I have... And did the ever consider how long these bulbs would last... not much repeat business... I have one in my outside light for 4 years now.. burns 24/7.... wanted to see how long it would last...Besides it becomes a haz mat issue if you drop one and I have a lot of grand-kids... Thanks GOP... glad someone came to their senses...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseObama is responsible for a lot of really dumb ideas but you can thank Nancy P and Bush 43 for this green goo-goo nonsense. The original bill was signed (stupidly) by George W. Bush. Obama defended it but didn't sign it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe incandescent light bulb was never banned, only required to be 30% more efficient with the use of a quartz halogen envelope inside the traditional tungsten bulb, which cost less per bulb than the energy saved over the bulb's lifetime:
"“In the real world, outside talk radio’s echo chamber, lighting manufacturers such as GE, Philips and Sylvania have tooled up to produce new incandescent light bulbs that look and operate exactly the same as old incandescent bulbs and give off just as much warm light,” Republicans for Environmental Protection Policy Director Jim DiPeso said in a statement. “The only different is they produce less excess heat and are therefore 30 percent more efficient. What’s not to like?”
Blocking the standards effectively serves as a slap in the face to light bulb manufacturers, who have been working since 2007 to produce the new bulbs.
“Eliminating funding for light bulb efficiency standards is especially poor policy as it would leave the policy in place but make it impossible to enforce, undercutting domestic manufacturers who have invested millions of dollars in U.S. plants to make new incandescent bulbs that meet the standards,” a coalition of dozens of lighting manufacturers, efficiency groups and environmentalists said in a letter this week to senators."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExternal Link
Climate Progress, eh? That's a unbiased source, right? So where are these new energy efficient light bulbs touted in your link? Not on the shelves of any stores in my neighborhood. The only alternative to incandescent available are the mercury spewing CFL's. If the light bulbs touted by your source were real they'd be out there already just like CFL's. I say BS on that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDead on comment.
I haven't seen any in the DFW area either.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere is a simple answer to this "problem". Stop corporate "rent" seeking, its entirely the fault of those companies. The winds change in politics so removing politics from business decisions helps with not "losing". I have NO sympathy for companies like GE. They are reaping what they sowed. There is NO need for any regulations on something like a light bulb.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf the new bulb is so wonderful, we don't need mandates and taxpayer subsidies to force it down our throats. Let GE make and market it like any other product and let consumers choose what they want. You know, the way America used to work?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGE has been making, and selling these (halogen) bulbs for years, though they seem to have been pushed off the shelves by CF and LED lights in recent times at most stores. I don't use them myself, because I hate incandescent lights (if I wanted light that looked like the last rays of sunshine in Svalbard before the long winter, I'd move to the Arctic). People don't buy them because people are bad at economic calculations (and math in general that doesn't involve adding two simple numbers).
I agree that government telling you what kind of light bulb you can buy is evil, however. Though I also agree with that worthless husk of a human being Binghaman that leaving a policy on the books and just not enforcing it is stupid. The bulb ban (and toilet ban, and shower head ban, etc...) should be repealed, not left hanging like some vile and idiotic Sword of Damocles.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLOL. Does the phrase "you have to spend money to make money" ring a bell, perhaps? "The way America used to work" is a thing of the past, it required vast underutilized resources (simply shoot a few injuns and steal their land).
In a crowded marketplace, new technologies don't simply establish themselves because they're oh so very uber. Even the Internet would likely not exist without initial subsidies paid from tax dollars. This holds true all the more for marginal improvements.
The article itself is a perfect example: it discusses CFLs but disregards LED-based lighting solutions (which are really THE future thing; CFLs are a stop-gap at best). Yet developing LED technologies literally had to be forced upon the industry, and what we are now seeing is that the LED market is being cornered by East Asian companies. Subsidizing the domestic R&D would indeed have preserved a lot of US jobs here; by now we would have an established industry that could pay back the initial support funding, and rendered CFLs obsolete.
So subsidies are by no means a bad thing; indeed they are very useful, but only if they are used to accelerate the R&D process, not if they are used to retain obsolete technologies.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe coalition of lighting manufacturers et. al. (including GE) should be now put on notice that shoving any thing or law down Taxpaying American Citizens' throats will no longer be tolerated. This is a Republic of the people and by the people, not of congress and manufacturers. We and the free market decide what we will or will not buy and use.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNRO is OK in it's way, but shouldn't the appropriate Think Progress link be automatically generated for every article. Isn't is unfair to expect energetic liberals to add the link by hand?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBlah, blah, blah.............
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseManufacturers have been working since 2007 to market CFLs. I've been using something advertised with a halogen component to an incandescent in my ceiling fans for quite a long time. You don't walk to the bulb aisle and see them pushing the halogens as the answer to the contrived question.
Still no reason to spend government money for something that shoud be an advertisement to promote a choice. Unless you think you have inferior products and you want the governmment to outlaw the choice part of the decision.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat I buy and use to light my home is none of the government's business. You either have complete ignorance of the Constitution or support government intrusion. On both questions have you seen the so-called American Community Survey sent out to homeowners from the Commerce Department? Do YOU want to answer the highly-intrusive and frankly personal questions they demand you answer? OUR Constitution governs OUR Republic ... not a cabal of Marxist fifth columnists.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWake up they been shipping the jobs to China.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe CFL is a bad solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Climate change? What happened to Global Warming? The government banning something is not the right solution. The government is less capable of making my buying decisions than I am. Personally I have stocked up on 100 and 60 w incandescents but when I can and when the bulb fits the problem I try to get LEDs even though they are more expensive in the short term. I have not studied any "environmental impact" for getting rid of old LEDs or the impact of making them but they do produce better light than the CFL and has no mercury in them
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseApparently only funding to enforce the ban has been blocked, not the actual ban. So we've just kicked the can down the road a year, alas. See External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI wish someone would make them repeal the ban on Primetene Mist asthma inhalers. People are going to suffer because of that one. The prescription inhalers do not work as well, and are not necessary for those with certain types of asthma.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse