Two hundred and thirty six years ago, in January 1776, Thomas Paine published Common Sense, the wildly popular pamphlet that made the case for American freedom and helped to spark a revolution.
This year, the Tea Party hopes to turn the 2012 elections into a fight for American freedom. Their first salvo -- the electric light bulb. Last month, they threatened to shut down the government unless new energy efficiency standards for light bulbs were delayed. They succeeded and the final budget deal prohibits the Deparment of Energy from spending on the new rules.
In 2007, Congress passed The Energy Independence and Security Act that included a provision authored by Republican Congressman Fred Upton giving light bulb manufacturers until 2012 to produce light bulbs that used 25 percent less energy than old-fashioned, energy wasting incandescent bulbs.
Upton's press release stated that "Current incandescent bulbs on store shelves are obsolete and highly inefficient -- only 10 percent of the energy consumed by each bulb is for light with 90 percent wasted on unnecessary heat. Today's incandescent bulbs employ the same technology as the bulbs Thomas Edison first created over 120 years ago." The bill passed in a lopsided 319-100 vote and the support of 49 percent of the Republicans who voted.
(Today, Edison, one of history's most prolific inventors with nearly 1,100 patents, would be
President Bush called the bill "a major step toward reducing our dependence on oil, confronting global climate change, expanding the production of renewable fuels and giving future generations of our country a nation that is stronger, cleaner and more secure." He also noted that the light bulb standards were similar to his executive order that had required federal agencies to "lead by example in efficiency and renewable energy use."
Since lighting accounts for 30 percent of all electricity use, the new standard would reduce carbon dioxide emissions by millions of tons. And we'd all breathe a little easier. Electricity generated to power our lighting threatens us all. Producing more electricity creates more pollution. More pollution creates more illness -- asthma, cancer, heart disease -- and adds greenhouse gases (many conservatives don't believe humans are responsible for global warming, but they must believe toxic chemicals cause cancer). So, almost every time each one of us turns on light in our homes, something is burning to keep it lit. More than 70 percent of the time our electricity comes from burning coal, oil or natural gas and another 20 percent comes from nuclear fission reactions.
The incandescent light bulb is partly responsible, then, for the pollution that comes from power plants. And that pollution contains mercury, fine particulate matter that causes asthma and other toxic gases such as arsenic, lead and cadmium, spewed through smokestacks. Studies show that eight percent of women of child-bearing age in this country have mercury levels in their blood that could cause lower IQ in their children. Using more efficient light bulbs is one thing we can all do to reduce energy use, and thus pollution that harms us all.
But after the GOP took control of the House of Representatives in the November 2010 elections, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh attacked Rep. Upton as a "nanny state socialist" for authoring the efficiency measure. Upton did an about-face and promised, "If I become chairman [of the House Energy and Commerce Committee], we'll be reexamining the light bulb issue, no problem."
Major bulb manufacturers like General Electric, Philips and Osram Sylvania, lobbied unsuccessfully to keep the standards. Knowing that the new standards were nearing, the bulb makers created more efficient, brighter, compact fluorescent light bulbs that brighten immediately. (Older versions annoyingly brightened gradually.) The National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) -- no friend of environmental regulations (here, here and here) --
The light bulb battle isn't about dollars and cents, it's the latest
Tea Party conservatives branded the light bulb rules as just another big government intrusion in our lives. It's "them" telling "us" what to do; how to live; what we can buy; what we can't buy.
Michele Bachman introduced the Light Blub Freedom of Choice Act last year to repeal the new standards. "President Bachmann will allow you to buy any light bulb you want in the United States of America," she said after announcing her presidential bid. Bachman is today's freedom fighter -- but for whom? Or what? She said in a speech in November, "I believe in liberty for light bulbs."
In 1776, the nation's founders believed their fight for freedom was a struggle for genuine civil and political rights. In 1941, FDR expanded on those aspirations to include "freedom from want" that would translate into economic security and health for all. In 2011, the GOP's cartoon-like fight for freedom to use polluting light bulbs is hard to take seriously.
The tea party controlled GOP complain that faceless government bureaucrats are limiting consumers' freedom. Yet it was government action that prevented Americans from using Thalidomide in the early 1960s, that required auto companies to install seat belts, air bags and collapsible steering columns, or that removed cancer causing chemicals such as asbestos and benzene from our workplaces. That's what government SHOULD do -- to weigh dangers created in the market against the common good.
Newer, more efficient light bulbs will actually save consumers $12 billion per year. And the energy standards will make new energy saving technologies like the LED bulbs that lit the new Times Square Ball that dropped on New Year's Eve become cheaper as more consumers buy them.
But even if the new standards did cost more, it would be worth the price. If they require more care to dispose of used bulbs, it'd be worth the effort. We don't have the right to pollute, poison or harm others -- whether it saves money or costs. That's not freedom and certainly not democracy.
Follow Donald Cohen on Twitter: www.twitter.com/CryWolfProject
The Dems should fight for something more important.
****I am all for getting rid of the incandescent bulbs....but maybe just phasing them out would be better.
The Repugs will fight ANYTHING the Dems do.
So the Dems should pick their battles wisely.
**sigh**
So George W. Bush is a Democrat now? When did he switch parties?
Notice the article
http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2008/10/led-light-cfl-b.html
..it says LEDs leading to greater energy use
(for example as used on lots of buldings for effect, and instead of neon lights)
nice photos too
We waste so much energy in so many ways it would be near impossible to catalog them all.
To pick light bulbs out of the hat and start legislating on that one item is ludicrous.
People save money using them. That's that. You either want to save money or you don't.
If you want to use less energy for lighting you'd design buildings and houses to better utilize natural light so you don't need any lightbulbs AT ALL during the day.
You'd promote clotheslines to dry clothes
You'd encourage smaller homes closer to work areas to cut down on energy consumption.
On and on and on.
This is beyond silly. The work we have to do to cut out waste is humongous
Energy is expensive and it will continue to be expensive.
People will employ hundreds of strategies to use less energy because it will be too expensive not to.
That is all that is needed.
We never wasted energy because it was just that - a waste. Somehow people have turned wasting resources into a badge of honor. "Look at me. I can afford to waste money!"
Beyond silly indeed.
F&F
Good point:
As always, the bigger picture is needed (see my comment below on actual energy savings)
When experts say that millions of tons are required to generate electricity for light bulbs, they should deduct 90% because we use it for heating our homes with the light bulbs...
I converted to CFL'S when I was upgrading my electrical wiring circuits.
Why on earth would you want to use 20 amps for your ceiling lights when you
can have better lighting for 3 amps.
How many house fires have been averted simply by eliminating overloaded circuits
with more efficient light bulbs. Where are the homeowner insurance incentives for
doing this simple act of sensibility?
I will be checking to see if LED'S can provide equal quality lighting at a competative
price. If they do I will make that conversion.
If you spend all day riding your horse to town, you can only be passed up by
so many motor cars before you see the logic in getting a motor car.
Hence, you might not be doing your total consumption any good by this. You get natural light, but at the expense of needing more AC in the summer and more heat in the winter. A large room needs maybe as much as 500W to light, but probably more like 2kW to cool.
The big problem with the new light bulbs - You can't dump them in the trash. But that no problem either. in Los Angeles, Home Depot has a bin where you can dump used light bulbs - including mercury light bulbs. So when a mercury light bulb burns out, take it to Home Depot. You can dump it in the disposal bin and buy a new one.
Fraction of energy production wasted on inefficient lighting - about 2%
Payback time? About six weeks.
Make sure you get your expenses paid by the dimbulbs' association.
So, the ACTUAL switchover savings are not that great, as it turns out =
less than 1% of overall energy use, and 1-2% grid electricity is saved,
as also shown by EU statistics, Canadian, and other referenced official information via the same link ( http://ceolas.net/#li171x )
with alternative and much more meaningful ways to save energy in generation, grid distribution or consumption.
Apart from affecting people's product choice,
energy saving is of course also not the ONLY reason for choosing a light bulb to use.
Besides, light bulbs don't burn coal or release CO2.
Power plants might.
If there's a problem - deal with the problem,
rather than a token ban or "phase out" of simple safe light bulbs,
light bulbs that people obviously like to use
(or there would not be a "need" to ban them!)
Doing just that,
EPA mandates pushed under admin Lisa Jackson significantly reduce the coal plant mercury emissions (by 90%), and other toxins mentioned in the above post are also covered under Clean Air Act regulations.
A summary of the common deception arguments behind the banning of light bulbs
can be seen on http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2011/11/deception-behind-ban.html
I realize this blog is about Republican v Democrat politics,
as also reflected in the above post, but one can also look at all this with a more open and sincere attitude as to how energy and emissions are actually and meaningfully saved in society.
These CFLs are not for everyone. You go ahead and use them. I'm not sold on them. Especially since they do NOT live up to their stated life expectancy.
That, and remember to screw the bulbs all the way in.
I've heard that eating broken glass is bad for babies too.
Saving energy use and emissions is always a good idea.
Unfortunately, lighting regulation is not a good way to achieve it.
RE
"Since lighting accounts for 30 percent of all electricity use,
the new standard would reduce carbon dioxide emissions by millions of tons"
Understanding relevant savings means looking a relevant electricity usage.
The Department of Energy (referenced/linked http://ceolas.net/#li171x )
divides grid electricity consumption into residential, commercial, industrial, and transportation:
The industrial and transportation lighting usage can be ignored, from small amounts, and of hardly involving relevant incandescents.
The Energy Information Administration (at Dept of Energy) estimates that about 511 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity are used for lighting by residential and commercial sectors. This is quoted as being equal to about 19% of the total electricity consumed by those sectors and 13.6% of total U.S. electricity consumption.
The commercial sector includes "commercial and institutional buildings and public street and highway lighting", and GLS incandescents are considered a very minor part in this.
Of the 13.6% of US electricity used for residential and commercial sector lighting,
how much is therefore relevantly residential?
Just over 5%.
Further calculations in replacement savings then apply, remembering that replacement lights also use electricity
The ACTUAL switchover savings are not that great, as it turns out =
less than 1% of overall energy use, and 1-2% grid electricity is saved
(continued)
Good work, silly government policies like seldom standup when actual facts are used.