The lowest-of-the-low-hanging-fruit in energy savings is replacing the horrifically wasteful incandescent light bulbs in this nation. Unfortunately our Republican congressional participants see the incandescent light bulb as somehow “taking away choice” from consumers.
Really? I know that joking about Republicans anti-science stance is fodder for comedians, but this is the simplest means we have to radically reduce energy consumption in our nation so why are they pushing-back on this initiative? It is a lot harder to fund nuclear plants, changeover our electrical grid to a “smart” one, and shift away from liquid fuels to U.S. abundant natural gas, so I just don’t get why the GOP insists on fighting the phasing out of incandescent bulbs the Republican president (GWBush) signed in to law.
What is the GOP’s agenda here? It can’t just be anti-energy. Nor does it make sense that this is all about being anti-global warming. Or it couldn’t just be about continuing to burn fossil fuels at all costs, including war and Imperialism, can it? Lord knows it’s not about helping out the 99% with their household budgets.
Perhaps this is pre-election, political theater and the GOP knows it. According to many reports, like this one from ABCNews, “Congress Defunds Ban on Incandescent Light Bulbs but Doesn’t Quite Save Them“:
“But what many Republicans are celebrating as a win for individuals’ light-bulb-choosing freedom will probably not save the energy-guzzling bulbs from disappearing off store shelves.
“The industry has moved on,” said Larry Lauck, a spokesman for the American Lighting Association.
Lauck said U.S. light bulb manufacturers have already “retooled” their production lines to build more efficient bulbs, he said.”
Ms. Political Theater herself, Minnesota congresswoman Michele Bachmann, has famously harped on it by saying, ““The American people want less government intrusion into their lives, not more, and that includes staying out of their personal light bulb choices.” Bachmann, who, as a member of the House, introduced a bill to roll back the incandescent ban. Of course, she did so without acknowledgement of her anti-stance on a woman’s right to choose something a lot more important than an energy wasting light bulb.
The U.S. Dept of Energy clearly spells out the energy savings if we get off incandescent bulbs. It’s such a no-brainer that even the political theater aspect can’t be all there is to an “official” Republican effort to stop it.
Or maybe they’re just old and want to go back to the past.
About Steve Borsch
It isn’t an “anti-science” thing. The bulbs are low energy, true and that is great. Some are great at illuminating, others are not so great. They do not work well in a muti-bulb fixture (one burns out prematurely), and they are a hazard to dispose of. I actually tried to recycle mine responsibly and was charged to recycle them. The problem people have with them is they don’t work the same, they cost much more, and unless you recycle them (and pay a charge for that as well), they create an environmental hazard. More work needs to be done before the general population embraces them – it isn’t that the Republicans are “anti-science.” I also find that public discourse is better served when incendiary terms are left out of the discussion. Labels are easy to attach but often do not help you achieve your goal.
Hi Colleen,
Thanks for the comment. The “anti-science” part was a tiny fraction of my overall point, but I understand where you’re coming from though.
You are absolutely right about the compact fluorescent bulbs. They contain mercury and require special handling and disposal. But those are definitely a *temporary* solution as manufacturers focus on LED lighting.
As someone who has followed the evolution of LED lighting, I can tell you that costs are coming down dramatically. The “warmness” of LED lighting is quickly becoming indistinguishable from incandescents (due to coating breakthroughs that mute the “blueness” of the LED light). With Philips, GE, Sylvania and other major lighting companies — as well as dozens of startups in the space — driving forward quickly on LED lighting, we will see maybe not bulb cost parity with incandescents, but certainly an overall cost (i.e., bulb cost; energy use cost) being in the sweet spot for consumers within 24 months.
As far as “labels” and public discourse being not helpful, I’ve been blogging since 2004 and have written well over 2,000 posts on this blog and others I participate in. As such, I’ve been more aware of the devolution of public discourse than most people since when I write a post, I have to examine both sides in order to justify my position. I can tell you with certainty that the vitriol and “high school taunting” really accelerated when the Republicans began an all out attack on the Obama administration for anything they did or said (or so it seems!).
As one of many cases in point that is energy related, remember how Obama’s Secretary of Energy, Dr. Steven Chu, was absolutely ridiculed by conservative Republicans over his “public discourse” about making roofs white to reflect (rather than absorb) solar energy? Conservatives called him a “tinfoil hat, global warming alarmist” and much worse.
Turns out once Walmart, GE and even the Wall Street Journal came out in favor of the cost savings (but, of course, not global warming) and businesses across the country began changing their black roofs to white — and experiencing enormous heating and cooling savings — we no longer heard a peep.
THAT is one of HUNDREDS of cases I could cite. ‘Nuff said.
Thanks for commenting Colleen. ~Steve
Perhaps the pause in enforcing a change will leave some room for further developments that will bring about newer and more advanced inventions -
Hi Walter — I’d argue that putting it “on pause” is a moot point…especially since so many manufacturers are already tooled up and moving ahead on LED technologies.
Plus, if you remember how many people were “caught by surprise” with the changeover to digital TV and away from analog — even though anyone *watching* TV couldn’t have missed the announcements — everybody waits until they’re forced in to change. The cable companies and terrestrial broadcasters forced the change but then were mandated by Congress to pause…and it just delayed the inevitable by six months.
Humans don’t change behavior until forced to or have a life-changing event (e.g., having a heart attack changes eating and exercise habits instantly in many). European countries figured that out a loooong time ago when they decided NOT to subsidize gasoline like they do in the U.S. and petrol is 2-3 times what it costs here.
As such, most Europeans take public transportation or drive small, gas sipping vehicles. They’re also ahead of us in lighting (LED), solar (Germany is #1 in solar use globally) and were much ahead of the rest of the world on recycling.
The “choice” argument is bullshit and the government just needs to move ahead. Heck…it would be a lot easier to change the oil in my snowblower and just pour it down the storm drain which flows in to the Minnesota river. But long ago the government put in place regulations and laws against stupid behaviors and burning incandescents is so easy to fix and, IMHO, stupid that it’s time it stopped. No pause necessary.