iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Light Bulb Standards Fought By House Republicans

Light Bulb Standards

JIM ABRAMS   07/12/11 10:23 PM ET   AP

WASHINGTON — House Republicans on Tuesday failed to stop the enactment of new energy-saving standards for light bulbs they portrayed as yet another example of big government interfering in people's lives.

The GOP bill to overturn the standards set to go into effect next year fell short of the two-thirds majority needed for passage. The vote was 233-193.

For many Republicans, those newfangled curly fluorescent light bulbs were the last straw, pushed by an overreaching government that's forcing people to buy health insurance, prodding them to get more fuel-efficient cars and sticking its nose into too many places.

Their legislation would have kept the marketplace clear for the cheap, energy-wasting bulbs that have changed little since Thomas Edison invented them in 1879.

For most Democrats, it's an exasperating debate that, just like the old incandescent bulbs being crowded out of the market, produces more heat than light.

The standards in question do not specifically ban the old bulbs but require a higher level of efficiency than the classics can produce, essentially nudging them off store shelves over the next few years. Four of Edison's descendants said the great inventor would be mortified to see politicians trying to get the nation to hang on to an outdated technology when better bulbs are available.

The standards have not been particularly contentious before now. They were crafted in 2007 with Republican participation and signed into law by President George W. Bush. People seem to like the new choices and the energy savings they bring, polling finds.

But now they have become a symbol of a much larger divide in Washington over the size and reach of government itself. The new bulbs suggest to some conservatives that big government is running amok.

"Now the government wants to tell consumers what type of light bulb they use to read, cook, watch television or light their garage," said Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas.

"I'm not opposed to the squiggly tailed CFLs," said Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, a driving force behind the effort to save the old incandescents and the sponsor of the bill to overturn the standards. But making the old bulbs go away "seems to me to be overkill by the federal government."

Republicans said people who now buy a bulb for 30 or 40 cents shouldn't be forced to pay $6 for a fluorescent bulb or more for LED (light-emitting diode) lighting.

"If you are Al Gore and want to spend $10 for a light bulb, more power to you," Barton said. He exaggerated the cost of most energy-efficient bulbs and neglected to mention that they last years longer than old incandescent bulbs, which convert about 90 percent of the energy they consume as electricity into heat, and only 10 percent into light.

Republican presidential contender Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota complained earlier this year that, under President Barack Obama, "we bought a bureaucracy that now tells us which light bulbs to buy."

The Obama administration, which opposes Barton's bill, says the lighting standards that are being phased in will save nearly $6 billion in 2015 alone. The Energy Department says upgrading 15 inefficient incandescent bulbs in a home could save a homeowner $50 a year. Lighting accounts for about 10 percent of home electricity use.

The White House says the standards drive U.S. innovation, create manufacturing jobs and reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions.

Incandescent bulbs are not disappearing. Today's energy-savings choices include incandescent lighting that is more efficient, and more expensive to purchase, than the old standbys.

Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., held up a new Sylvania incandescent that meets the efficiency standards and costs $1.69. "You don't have to buy one of those funny-looking new light bulbs," he said.

Under existing rules, new bulbs will have to be 25 to 30 percent more efficient than traditional incandescent models. As of Jan. 1, 2012, inefficient 100-watt bulbs will no longer be available at most stores. Also on the way out are traditional 75-watt bulbs in 2013 and 40-watt and 60-watt versions in 2014.

The National Resources Defense Council said that when the law is fully implemented in 2020, energy costs will be reduced by 7 percent or about $85 a household every year. It said the more efficient bulbs will eliminate the need for 33 large power plants.

The advocacy group presented statements from Edison's kin in support of the new standards. "Edison would certainly have recognized that the wave of the future – profits – is to make it better, cheaper and, yes, cleaner and more efficient," said Barry Edison Sloane, a great-grandson.

Said Robert Wheeler, a great-nephew: "The technology changes. Embrace it."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

WASHINGTON — House Republicans on Tuesday failed to stop the enactment of new energy-saving standards for light bulbs they portrayed as yet another example of big government interfering in peopl...
WASHINGTON — House Republicans on Tuesday failed to stop the enactment of new energy-saving standards for light bulbs they portrayed as yet another example of big government interfering in peopl...
Filed by Joanna Zelman  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 511
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (15 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ShinjiIkari
Do you understand how stupid it is to be afraid?
11:50 AM on 07/16/2011
When these guys get an idea, a little cartoon bubble appears over their heads of someone rubbing two sticks together. THANK YOU
01:32 PM on 07/13/2011
Barton thinks he is being crafty and clever. Have fun Joe, soon Texas will be 50% Latino and it will be back to the cotton patch for you. The utility companies in Texas asked people to cut back on electrical usage but not that dim bulb from Arlington Texas. Joe apparently had no problem with the city of Arlington giving 600,000,000 to Jerry Jones for Cowboys cathedral.
Not only that Texas is building 10 coal fired electrical plants. It is back to the future with Joe. I feel like going door to door in the Latino area of his district and registering every eligible Latino voter. And on election day make sure the DEMs hire off duty Latino police officers for every election district. also have attorneys general ready to start court proceedings in federal court for those surly white southerners who cant handle reality and try to obstruct voting
12:55 PM on 07/13/2011
To paraphrase Casablanca, maybe we will still have Paris or at
least Paris, Texas!

http://ceolas.net/#li01inx updates on all 7 US state repeal bills
(legislated Texas June 17th) and the Canadian Government’s 2014 ban
12:53 PM on 07/13/2011
test
11:26 AM on 07/13/2011
The GOP's master plan: dissolve the government, go back to the wild wild west. Rich people will still get richer and the rest of us will have to wear a shock collar. The proletariat will enjoy pressing those buttons and remotely controlling us. Maybe even make us part of a new post-Democratic America game of who can stand more pain and work before collapsing.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
McGyver1
Big Fan of Mr. Bojangles
07:52 AM on 07/13/2011
Arent these bulbs manufactured in China?
09:31 AM on 07/13/2011
Mine are Made in Germany. OSRAM.
photo
cyclone70
When one facepalm isn't enough
10:54 AM on 07/13/2011
what does the package say where they are made. Osram is a european comapny with facilities all over the world and china
photo
cyclone70
When one facepalm isn't enough
10:54 AM on 07/13/2011
yes - most of them are now
05:10 AM on 07/13/2011
Decades ago, there were good Republicans. Eisenhower was one of them. But now, the only decent one still in office is Richard Lugar of IN, and he's retiring in 2013. Our two-party system can't work if one party is demented.
photo
cyclone70
When one facepalm isn't enough
11:01 AM on 07/13/2011
Indeed, even Nixon when you take away the crook stuff.

Eisenhower was one of the last of the good guys on the R side Taxes on the highest incomes were 90% he responded to a recession with public works building the interstate highway system.

Lugar is definitely the last of a now extinct breed - the moderate republican. Is he really retiring? I hadn't heard that. he is facing a backlash from the baggers in IN precisely for his moderate views.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
windwolf
01:40 AM on 07/13/2011
Yes! The Republicans version of "freedom" amounts to their willingness to light a fire in the middle of a crowded theater to keep warm. When the planet starts roasting enough of us, then maybe these freedom fighters will think twice about supporting all the corporate polluters, and energy hogs. Guaranteed, by then we''ll all be part of a global barbecue, except for those of us who will be cooling it at the bottom of the rising oceans.
01:32 AM on 07/13/2011
It suggests that the Republican Party ought to take its motto from the "traditional" incandescent bulb: More heat than light.
1hotgolfer
A Dem who helped protect liberty/freedom
10:56 PM on 07/12/2011
Clear and present proof that whatever Obama supports, these nut-jobs will vote against...even legislation introduced by a Republican member of the House and signed into law by a Republican president, GW Bush. Obama supports it, therefore they are against it...even been blaming him for "overreaching"!!
10:12 PM on 07/12/2011
Compact flourescent bulbs are bad news. The mercury should not be considered low-risk. What does that mean. Only 1 in 10,000 will be poisoned? These bulbs have to recycled as toxic waste. Most people will just throw in the trash. Mercury levels in water will rise.

Also these CF bulbs give off serious electromagnetic fields. Bau-biologists don't recommend them. CF bulbs are part of a toxic home. I am all for energy conservation but not at the cost of poisonous technology.

And by the way, how much more energy goes into manufacturing compact flourescents. I don't know the answer but I am sure its more than traditional bulbs. Economics are not the only factor to consider. These things are part of a lower quality of life.

I built a green, non-toxic, energy-efficient home with solar power and Geothermal HVAC, but I don't want compact flourescent bulbs.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
yumster
09:45 PM on 07/12/2011
Are these people really serious?
09:34 PM on 07/12/2011
The Republicans was us to continue using hotter, inefficient technology so their financial backers in the utility industry can maintain and even raise their profit margins and make it more costly to cool homes.
1hotgolfer
A Dem who helped protect liberty/freedom
11:06 PM on 07/12/2011
Actually, that is not their focus. These misinformed idiots have been touting this light bulb issue as evidence that the Obama administration is "overreaching". That energy measure was introduced by a Republican member of the House, and signed into law by then President GW Bush. A good measure, at the time...but, as soon as Obama became president and voiced support, they are against it. And trying to say the light bulb measure is proof of "overreaching" by him...in-f***ing-credible!!

These Republicans are either complete idiots, or pathological liars...probably both!!!
-me-
D to go forward, R to go backwards
11:06 PM on 07/12/2011
This is a Republican law, signed by Bush. Which makes republican argument against it odd.
08:15 PM on 07/12/2011
Huffpost again is demonstrating it is a springboard for political agendas. Don't mistake me, I take Foxers with the same grain of salt without becoming as rabid as many respondents below are.

Here is what MSNBC Environmental reported 4/7/2008:

The amount [of mercury] is tiny — about 5 milligrams, or barely enough to cover the tip of a pen — but that is enough to contaminate up to 6,000 gallons of water beyond safe drinking levels, extrapolated from Stanford University research on mercury. Even the latest lamps promoted as “low-mercury” can contaminate more than 1,000 gallons of water beyond safe levels... “This is an enormous amount of mercury that’s going to enter the waste stream at present with no preparation for it”.

I find it interesting that many of the same people who react to Republican's attempt to avoid our government pushing these products also are opposed to hydro-fracking (also a good reasoned debate to have).
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Wingnutz64
09:12 AM on 07/14/2011
You completely miss the point. If you change a single light bulb from incandescent to fluorescent. You save the burning of 1200 pounds of coal to operate that incandescent over the same period of the life of a single fluorescent lamp. The amount of mercury released into the atmosphere from burning that coal FAR exceeds the amount of mercury in the incandescent lamp. That is fact and common knowledge.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Nerdiac
07:20 PM on 07/12/2011
I never say this, but SMDH. I cannot believe (yes I can) that our government is actually working on bills about banning LIGHT BULBS. Wow. Can I send my grandmother over there to smack some sense into all of them??