Sen. Jim DeMint Bill Would End Ban on Incandescent Light Bulbs

[The Straight Story]

Sen. Jim DeMint Bill Would End Ban on Incandescent Light Bulbs

Sen. Jim DeMint released the following statement:

Today, U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) joined with U.S. Senator Mike Enzi (R-Wyoming) to introduce the Better Use of Light Bulbs (BULB) Act. The legislation would repeal light bulb standards Congress included in the 2007 energy law that effectively bans traditional incandescent light bulbs starting in 2012.

The ban was intended to save on electricity costs and limit pollution by replacing traditional incandescent light bulbs with energy-efficient compact florescent light bulbs (CFLs). However, CFLs are more expensive, many contain mercury which can be harmful even in the smallest amounts, and most are manufactured overseas in places like China. In September 2010, the last major GE manufacturing plant for incandescent light bulbs in the U.S. closed in Winchester, Virginia and 200 jobs were lost.

“I think it’s fine if someone wants to fill their home or business with the light from the new bulbs. I also think it is fine if someone wants to buy an old-fashioned bulb because it works better for them. If left alone, the best bulb will win its rightful standing in the marketplace. Government doesn’t need to be in the business of telling people what light bulb they have to use,” said Senator Enzi, who authored the BULB Act.

“Washington needs to stop picking winners and losers in the marketplace and micromanaging how Americans live their lives,” said Senator DeMint, the lead co-sponsor of the bill. “Americans are fully capable of choosing the best way to light their own homes and what best fits the needs and budget of their families. When Congress dictates which light bulbs folks in South Carolina must buy, it’s clear the ‘nanny state’ mentality has gotten out of control in Washington.”

The BULB Act has 27 co-sponsors. A companion version of the legislation has been introduced by Congressman Joe Barton, R-Texas, in the House of Representatives.

http://www.thestatecolumn.com/state_politics/south-carolina/sen-jim-demint-bill-would-end-ban-on-incandescent-light-bulbs/

[PA Democrat]

1. If only we could enact a ban on dim bulbs in the Senate and House.

[BR_Parkway]

2. How come the "free market" never applies to sex or drugs? They

sure want to prescribe it for everything else.

[CurtEastPoint]

4. Amen to that. In GA the GOP AGAIN capitulated to the Xian Coalition re: Sunday booze

asses

[WCGreen]

5. Well then they should ban any kind of economic activity on the Sabbath...

You know, close Wall Mart and the Gun Store down as well...

No more going over to Uncle Bud's Cat Fish and Such after Sunday services and get that 10% discount off for showing the Sunday bulletin.

Nome of that there nonsense at tall...

[greyl]

3. Shouldn't "Act" be included and call it BULBA?

Ok, maybe not.

[Maine_Nurse]

6. Kinda hope this one succeeds.

There are good reasons to have incandescents in many applications.

[InvisibleTouch]

7. Agreed.

I use fluorescents for my own lighting pretty much everywhere in my home, but I need the incandescents as heat lamps for some of my terrarium animals.

[Maine_Nurse]

8. Good for keeping pipes flowing too.

Including keeping heating oil flowing. Also a must for raising chickens in very cold locations.

[Statistical]

9. The truth is the bill already exempts "specialty bulbs" like heat lamps, grow lamps, aquarium lamps,

full spectrum bulbs (used in photography), and other niche products where alternatives are unavailable (light bulbs for refrigerators, microwaves, ovens, etc).

[InvisibleTouch]

10. That's fine, but...

...there's a big price difference between going to the dollar store for a 4-pack of 60-watts, and buying a single specialty bulb for terrarium heat. And I haven't found that the expensive versions last noticeably longer than the cheapos.

[Maine_Nurse]

11. Exactly. Why would one use a specialty bulb when a "normal" will do?

Many of the specialty bulbs are larger, may contain other chemicals, are more expensive, and are simply unneeded when a bare 60W bulb does the job. I have just regular bulbs in my exterior door lamps. Flouros aren't known for working well at -15F buy floodlight bulbs/etc won't fit there.

[mediator]

20. Sometimes the only thing 'special' about them is the box they're packaged in.

:shrug:

[bluestate10]

16. I don't care whether DeMint's bill succeeds of fail.

Sellers of the more energy efficient bulbs should be able to convince consumers that they are wasting money by not buying the bulbs. This is an issue that a free market can deal with efficiently, no legislation is required either way. Democrats should have thought through tis one and avoided giving an opportunistic ass like DeMint a perfect opportunity to push his anti-government poison.

[mediator]

19. Absolutely correct. We Democrats far too often shoot ourselves in the foot while aiming

for phantasms.

[Statistical]

24. Does that apply to vehicle mpg standards?

What about engine emissions standards?
What about minimum efficiency standards for AC and furnaces?

Should there be no minimum acceptable efficiency level for any product or should companies be able to sell the outright cheapest product no matter how polluting and wasteful it is?

Should all efficiency standards be scrapped? Without efficiency standards we would waste much more energy for transportation, heating, and cooling.

This bill merely puts in place a very low minimum efficiency standard similar to standards that already exist on:
vehicles
generators
air conditioners
furnaces
appliances
insulation
windows

[bluestate10]

Engine emission standards are a matter of public health.

You are purposely trying to throw in items that democrats should fight for with those that an informed consumer would chose anyway. Furnace and AC standards fall into the category with bulbs, consumers would chose not to waste money once they know the price. Products that impact public health demand a government mandating role. Product where consumers can save energy and themselves money requires a government role as an information source and proponent, but to regulate in this sphere puts the government in a space where drawbacks outweigh gains. I own an energy efficient car because that is what my research on the impact of cars on my pocketbook lead me to, I follow the same thought process when buying any other products that will cost me money to operate.

[Statistical]

37. Electricity is polluting.

"Products that impact public health demand a government mandating role."

Exactly which is why appliances, furnaces, and air conditioners have been subject to minimum efficiency standards (which have increased over time).

There is no difference between the pollution from a car (reduced by higher mpg standards) and pollution from a power plant (reduced by mandating higher efficiency items).


"consumers would chose not to waste money once they know the price."
9 out of 10 lamps still use wasteful, polluting incandescent bulbs. Hell some people on DU have indicated they don't care how much money it saves they will keep on using inefficient bulbs. One bragged about he bought cases of them to make sure he never needs to switch. So this belief the free-market will handle this is naive at best.

"I own an energy efficient car because that is what my research on the impact of cars on my pocketbook lead me to, I follow the same thought process when buying any other products that will cost me money to operate."
Yet the govt still mandates minimum efficiency standards for cars (which have slowly increased). The rational is that many consumers are uninformed and lower efficiency items (cars or light bulbs) often have a lower sticker price. There is no difference between a light bulb and a car.

If every light in the US was changed to CFL (or other high efficiency bulbs) it would eliminate 80 coal plants.

[Skidmore]

12. That 'bagger would ban the wheel if he could.

Knuckledragging windbag.

[mediator]

14. Uh, he's not trying to ban something, he's trying to STOP the ban.

It's pretty complex...

[Skidmore]

15. He's trying to ban progress.

[mediator]

17. Okay, what other products do you think should be banned?

(It's just a question, I'm not trying to insult you)
:-)

[Statistical]

22. The bill bans nothing.

It merely puts minimum efficiency standards.

Saying the efficiency bill bans light bulbs is like saying Obama raising mpg standard for cars from 28mpg to 32mpg "bans" 29mpg cars.

[mediator]

25. Are you referring to the 07 bill that takes effect next year? The standards are

impossible to meet with incandescents which is why it de-facto 'bans' them. It would be more like mandating a 200 mpg figure for internal combustion cars. In any case, since no company will be -manufacturing- any (at least not in the USA) your putative "not real ban" has succeeded. I use 95% CFL lamps but I want to be able to use a few incandescents when and where I choose.

[Statistical]

28. False. The standard is a mere 28% increase in efficiency.

This is no different than the CAFE standard (vehicles) being raised from 27.5 mpg to 35 mpg. Is that fascism? Is that an impossible standard? Is it going to outlaw cars? Hardly.

The efficiency standard for light bulbs is very modest.

Starting in 2012 a "100 watt bulb" (technically 1400+ lumen bulb) must use 72 watts or less of power. It is hardly an "impossible" standard. Standards for lower output bulbs "75, 60, 40 watt") are phased in 2013-2014.

Multiple companies are already announced they are working on high efficiency incandescents which will meet the new standard.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/lighting_legislation_fact_sheet_03_13_08.pdf

Most halogen bulbs already meet the minimum efficiency standard.
CFL and LED far exceed this bare minimum effeciency standard (100 watt equivelent CFL use about 25-28 watts vs min standard of 72 watts).
Companies are planning to release high efficiency incandescents that meet the minimum standard.

[mediator]

29. Okay, fine. I bought 122 cases of assorted bulbs a couple months ago

so it really doesn't affect me one way or the other. I'll pay the few extra pennies to power them when and where I choose and they'll last me the rest of my life.

[Statistical]

30. It is hardly a few pennies more.

60 watt light bulb.
4 hours a day * 365 days per year * 60 watt / 1000 * $0.10 = $8.76

15 watt CFL
4 hours a day * 365 days per year * 60 watt / 1000 * $0.10 = $2.19

Still you might be able to sell those bulb for a huge profit.
I mean it is only 400% more pollution so who cares. The odds are you will be dead before the planet gets really fucked over anyways.

[mediator]

31. I spend more than that every day on beer.

The bulbs aren't for sale, if there are any left when I croak, somebody else will get them. Worrying about the next 50 or 500 years is stupid, nothing lasts forever, not even the universe.

[bluestate10]

33. Look.

No one with a brain is saying that CFLs and LEDs don't kick the shit out of fluorescent bulbs for energy usage and efficiency. But, any person that has a brain should see that reality and buy the more advanced bulbs. Simple logic. The government's role should be as an information source where consumers and more importantly, sellers of the bulbs can get information to set up consumer displays in grocery and hardware stores. Look. It the grocery store that I shop at, 90% of the bulbs that on display are CFLs. The percentage of CFLs is roughly the same at two nearby hardware stores. Consumers GET IT, they don't need a law to push them to use energy efficient bulbs, their wallets have already done that. Please stop pushing government action that only serves to give anti-government haters like Jim DeMint a platform from which to seem logical when trying to destroy the functions of government that has served society well. DeMint will use his fight against this ill informed law to leapfrog to an effort where the government and citizens will be seriously damaged if DeMint's side wins.

[Statistical]

35. So does that also apply to other minimum efficiency standards.

auto standards (mpg CAFE)
air conditioners
furnaces
appliances
generators
small engines

all of these are subject to minimum efficiency standards. Should they all be scrapped and let the market decide. If someone wants to make the cheapest, lowest efficiency, and highest polluting vehicle should they be allowed to? If not then why should low efficiency, highly wasteful, and highly polluting light bulbs be any different.

Many consumers still buy incandescent bulbs despite the fact that they generate nearly 4x the greenhouse gases via higher power consumption.

[Maine_Nurse]

21. Harmful and costly progress, in some instances.

[mediator]

13. As much as I hate to agree with a Republican, I do in this case...

I strenuously object to a outright 'ban' on incandescent lamps...that way lies fascism. Yes, let's discourage their use when they're not appropriate but please don't tell me I can't have ANY. Bah.

[bluestate10]

18. I agree.

As far as I am concerned, Jim DeMint will find his place in hell one day. But choice of light bulbs should be left up to consumers. Sellers of more efficient bulbs, along with government information on the cost benefits of more efficient bulbs will push most people to use the efficient bulbs for every application that makes sense.

[Statistical]

27. Does that apply to all other products as well... vehicles, furnaces, air conditioners, etc.

No matter how horribly wasteful, or polluting the product it can be sold (and likely at very low price).

Should the government have no power to set minimum efficiency standards on any product or are light bulbs the only thing exempt.

[Statistical]

23. Are mpg standards fascism?

The bill bans nothing. It simply sets minimum efficiency standards for light bulbs much like mpg standards set minimum efficiency standards for vehicles.

Many companies are working on high efficiency incandescent lamps. Would they without this bill? Well they didn't for the last 40 years. Much live mpg standards has driven innovation in high efficiency engines, direct injection, turbo boosting, hybrids, and electric vehicles.

So are mpg standards "fascism"? Really?

[mediator]

26. Objection: Asked and answered. n/t

...

[bluestate10]

34. Visit the light bulb section of your local grocery or hardware store.

And be sure to take your hands from over your eyes. Look at car sizes around you next time you drive. Case closed.

[Statistical]

36. There is no case closed. Cars have only gotten more efficient because the govt FORCED them to.

If there were no CAFE standards the average vehicle today would likely be getting 18-22 mpg just like they did in the 1970s. Low efficiency engines are cheap. The only reason we have vehicles with half way decent mileage is because companies were FORCED to offer more efficient vehicles.

There is no difference.

Virtually every other major consumer of energy has efficiency regulations and has minimum efficiency standards. Until now the only exempt product has been light bulbs.

Also your belief that everyone is using them is a fallacy. A minority of homes use CFL and even fewer use mostly CFL. Overall CFL (and other high efficiency bulbs) are used in less than 10% of sockets. Thats right 90% of lamps in US still use wasteful incandescent bulbs. Sales have actually flattened and declined last year.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/09/cfl-sales-plummet-us.php

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our first quarter 2011 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

Click here to donate

[lighthouse10]

38. Celebrate Inventive Creativity - not Destruction

Creativity should be celebrated, not Destruction.

Celebrating creativity is about recognizing the advantages that different products have.
That is why they exist for people to choose.

President Obama, State of the Union Address 25 January 2011:
What we can do - what America does better than anyone - is spark the creativity and imagination of our people.
We are the nation that put cars in driveways and computers in offices,
the nation of Edison and the Wright brothers..

Yes Mr President, Creative America, the nation of Edison:
Would you not have allowed him to create his popular light bulb?

And so it came to pass, in the autumn of 1879, after tireless effort working with different materials, Thomas Edison finally arrived at the ingenious invention we still see today, the Edison light bulb, the world's single most popular electrical appliance and the oldest electrical invention in widespread common use:
A beautifully simple, safe, cheap, bright light delivering construction.

Maybe the time will come when, like its cousin the gleaming radio tube, it gradually fades away, the passing of old technology.

But let it be a democratic passing by the will of the people,
not a passing by committee dictats and decrees.

How many American, European or other officials should it take to change a light bulb?
None.
How many citizens should be allowed to choose?
Everyone.
http://ceolas.net
.

[jmowreader]

39. I don't think DeMint cares one way or the other about light bulbs

The whole intent of this legislation is to undo another piece of Obama-signed legislation.

I figure the baggers are going to attempt to repeal everything this president accomplished in the first two years of his presidency, so they can campaign on the theme of "Barack Obama did nothing but run up the deficit and the national debt during his time in office, so you should vote for Republicans who will accomplish things."

If President Obama would have signed a bill that prohibits people from performing self-immolation ceremonies in day care centers, the Republicans would try to repeal it on the grounds that it's an attack on every American's personal freedom to set themselves on fire in the presence of eighty or ninety preschoolers.

[krispos42]

40. I'd rather they just put a $1 a bulb tax on incandecents.

If you really need them for somethings (special purposes, different spectrums, or just don't like the new ones) then that's fine, just pay a $1 tax on each bulb and earmark the money for alternative-energy research or something.