On Monday, the House is expected to vote on the BULB Act (H.R. 2417), a misguided bill that would repeal the energy efficiency standards for light bulbs that were enacted in 2007. The rhetoric surrounding this legislation has bordered on the absurd. The Wall Street Journal, in a blistering op-ed that railed against the "light bulb police," falsely claimed that "Washington will effectively ban the sale of conventional incandescent light bulbs." The time has come to shine some light on the facts in this debate.
The new efficiency standards were enacted by the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007. This bipartisan bill, signed into law by President Bush, simply requires that new light bulbs use 25 to 30 percent less energy than traditional incandescent light bulbs. No light bulbs are banned. No consumers will be forced to use one type of light bulb over another type.
Many Americans, myself included, appreciate the soft yellow glow of the incandescent light bulbs invented by New Jersey's own Thomas Edison in the 19th century. Anyone who chooses to continue using these incandescent bulbs can certainly do so. Manufacturers have already invented energy-efficient incandescent bulbs that meet the new standards. Their light is identical to that cast by older bulbs, yet they are nearly 30 percent more efficient and save the average family $100 in energy costs each year. On a national level, that adds up to $12 billion in annual savings. Even higher-efficiency incandescent bulbs are in development, as are LED bulbs that mimic the light cast by incandescent bulbs. In fact, my wife and I have already installed LED lights in part of our home.
So let's set aside the misleading rhetoric and consider the facts. The United States has a long tradition of supporting innovation by setting energy efficiency standards. For example, America requires auto manufacturers to meet fuel economy standards, now set at 30 miles per gallon. As a result, the fuel efficiency of new cars has nearly doubled since standards were first enacted. Similarly, Congress has required manufacturers to create new, more energy-efficient refrigerators. Yet we haven't heard any calls to revert to turn-of-the-century Model Ts or ice boxes -- technologies that are roughly as old as the conventional light bulb.
The new light bulb energy standards build upon these past policy successes. They will save our nation energy and save our consumers money. Moreover, they have already spurred technological innovation and created jobs. Since Congress acted four years ago, manufacturers have invented a range of new, energy-efficient efficient light bulbs. Lighting companies have also invested significant capital and resources into research, development, and new technologies -- exactly the kind of investments that our economy desperately needs. Repealing the light bulb standards would thwart this progress and cost America jobs and money.
It is time to separate fact from fiction. Congress must vote against the effort to repeal light bulb efficiency standards.
Donald Lenihan: Making Business Accountable for Research and Development
I see your concern over withdrawing troops from Afghanistan as soon as possible.
I am submitting this information re national security issues and the treachery of the government inside the government.
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/august202011/pat-tillman-jm.php
Bests,
John McCarthy
vpocvs@gmail.com
For more information about LED lights, contact
www.LEDcoalition.com
Save Energy
Reduce your Carbon Footprint
Contribute to your Community
Educate about LED Lighting
Energy Efficient Lighting at it's Best
1. In the mid-2000s, GE and Philips had developed high-technology bulbs, even better than CFLs or LEDs.
2. But GE and Philips realized that they'd have a difficult time competing against conventional incandescent bulbs.
3. So GE and Philips started lobbying efforts to pass the 2007 law. For proof of Philips' involvement: http://blog.responsoris.com/2010/10/better-than-marketing-lobbying/.
4. Did you ever wonder why a conservative president (Bush, 2007) passed such a left-leaning bill? It was indeed corporate influence.
5. Nations such as New Zealand (and Canada?) have backed away from their own bans, possibly because they don't like being duped by big corporations.
In the end, all of our liberal politicians are supporting two giant corporations that wisely spent millions of lobbying dollars to dupe the American public yet again....what else is new?
We've all been duped into saving money on our electric bill.
Next thing you know the power companies will be trying to get us to insulate our homes.
It sounds terrifying.
Thank you for scaring us.
The LA Times featured cold fusion in '89 before its debunking. Greens were aghast!
“It’s like giving a machine gun to an idiot child.” – Paul Ehrlich (mentor of John Cook of the SkepticalScience blog, author of "Climate Change Denial")
“Clean-burning, non-polluting, hydrogen-using bulldozers still could knock down trees or build housing developments on farmland.” – Paul Ciotti (LA Times)
“It gives some people the false hope that there are no limits to growth and no environmental price to be paid by having unlimited
sources of energy.” – Jeremy Rifkin (NY Times)
“Many people assume that cheaper, more abundant energy will mean that mankind is better off, but there is no evidence for that.” – Laura Nader (sister of Ralph)
CLIMATEGATE 101: "For your eyes only...Don't leave stuff lying around
on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have
been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is
a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the
file rather than send to anyone....Tom Wigley has sent me a worried
email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his
model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind
that." - Phil "Hide The Decline" Jones to Michael "Hockey Stick" Mann
Somebody is not telling the truth. The NY Times says the opposite. If it is true some current bulbs will be banned, it must be scrapped.
"But the cheapest such bulbs are likely to disappear from store shelves between 2012 and 2014, driven off the market by the government’s new standard. Compact fluorescents, which can cost as little as $1 apiece, may become the bargain option, with consumers having to spend two or three times as much to get the latest energy-efficient incandescents."
"A third technology, bulbs using light-emitting diodes, promises remarkable gains in efficiency but is still expensive. Prices can exceed $100 for a single LED bulb, and results from a government testing program indicate such bulbs still have performance problems."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/business/energy-environment/06bulbs.html?pagewanted=2
Ironically, they are broadcasting these attacks from buildings that a loaded with commercial grade florescent tubes that contain 20 to 100 times the mercury content of a typical CFL bulbs.
No, there isn't.
See the 2007 Act.
In fact the Act even EXPLICITLY aims to replace incandescent technology:
"The Secretary of Energy shall report to Congress on the time frame for commercialization of lighting to REPLACE INCANDESCENT and HALOGEN INCANDESCENT lamp technology"
(Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007/Title III/Subtitle B/Section 321)
Only 2% of US grid electricity saved anyway (DOE etc confirmed data, see below link)
- many better ways in Generation, Distribution and Consumption
Besides, electricity companies are being taxpayer subsidised or allowed to raise bill rates to compensate for any reduced electricity use, as already seen both federally and in California, Ohio etc, and before them in the UK and other European countries
“How you are being Conned: The Deception behind Light Bulb Regulations” http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2011/06/big-deception.html
.
Instructs the Secretary of Energy to report to Congress on: (1) federal measures to reduce or prevent release of mercury during the manufacture, transportation, storage, or disposal of light bulbs; (2) whether specified rulemaking deadlines will be met; (3) an NAS review of advanced solid state lighting R&D and the impact upon the types of lighting available to consumers of an energy conservation standard requiring a minimum of 45 lumens per watt for general service lighting; and (4) the time frame for commercialization of lighting to replace incandescent and halogen incandescent lamp technology.
So it looks like the scare tactics of the right wing includes misleading to outright lying about this topic.
Stop meddling, you're ruining the advancements with government intervention.
And two, you can buy CFLs in different color temps, which means you can get that nice warm light you so crave.
Imported CFLs have gained a large market share, in part, because they can be made without the environmental oversight that we require for American workers and the American environment. Rather than framing legislation now that's designed to encourage US companies continue to make an inferior and obsolete product, why not require that all bulbs SOLD in the US be MADE in plants with the same worker and environmental standards we have here?
While we're at it, why aren't we adopting that approach to EVERYTHING?
Why must our legislators continually lower the bar when we can raise it?
http://www.americanmanufacturing.org/blog/abcs-made-america-air-forces-purchasing-power
Don't tell Cree or Lighting Sciences Group.