Posted on 01/30/2007 6:54:26 PM PST by NormsRevenge
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A California lawmaker wants to make his state the first to ban incandescent lightbulbs as part of California's groundbreaking initiatives to reduce energy use and greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.
The "How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb Act" would ban incandescent lightbulbs by 2012 in favor of energy-saving compact fluorescent lightbulbs.
"Incandescent lightbulbs were first developed almost 125 years ago, and since that time they have undergone no major modifications," California Assemblyman Lloyd Levine said on Tuesday.
"Meanwhile, they remain incredibly inefficient, converting only about 5 percent of the energy they receive into light."
Levine is expected to introduce the legislation this week, his office said.
If passed, it would be another pioneering environmental effort in California, the most populous U.S. state. It became the first state to mandate cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, targeting a 25 percent reduction in emissions by 2020.
Compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs) use about 25 percent of the energy of conventional lightbulbs.
Many CFLs have a spiral shape, which was introduced in 1980. By 2005, about 100 million CFLs were sold in the United States, or about 5 percent of the 2-billion-lightbulb market, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
That number could more than double this year. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. alone wants to sell 100 million CFLs at its stores by the end of 2007, the world's biggest retailer said in November.
While it will not give opinion on the possible California law, the EPA recommends CFLs.
"They save money and energy," EPA spokeswoman Enesta Jones said. "They are more convenient than other alternatives and come in different sizes and shapes to fit almost any fixture."
Also, CFLs generate 70 percent less heat than incandescent lights, Jones said.
About a fifth of the average U.S. home's electricity costs pays for lighting, which means even if CFLs initially cost more than conventional lightbulbs, consumers will save, Jones said.
A 20-watt CFL gives as much light as a 75-watt conventional bulb, and lasts 13 times longer, according to the Rocky Mountain Institute, a nonprofit group studying energy issues.
Southern California Edison, an Edison International subsidiary and one of the state's biggest utilities, runs a program that cuts the cost of a CFL by $1 to $2.50. In the past year, SCE has helped consumers buy 6 million CFLs, it said.
California Energy Commission member Arthur Rosenfeld said an average home in California will save $40 to $50 per year if CFLs replace all incandescent bulbs.
While not commenting specifically on Levine's likely legislation, Rosenfeld, winner of the Enrico Fermi Presidential Award in 2006, said the switch from incandescent bulbs became feasible about five years ago when CFL performance improved.
"This is clearly an idea whose time has come," he said.
Levine, a Democrat from Van Nuys in Los Angeles, last year introduced a bill that will become law in July that requires most grocery stores to have plastic bag recycling.
I figured....I just wanted to see a pic of Tom in his pomp...
If your activity is legal, then you should be left alone.
I started using energy efficient light bulbs and lighting a few years ago. I also try to use daylight color temp bulbs as much as possible.
Just common sense as I see it. No big deal.
Next comes the bill to help the poor buy the now suddenly more expensive compact flourescents and LED bulbs....
Is it a Ferguson?
Al Bundy recommends a Ferguson.
What do we do with the excess bulbs this idiot wants to outlaw? Why throw them on his front lawn! Oh wait, his gardener will get hit with broken glass, which will end up with an unpaid emergency room visit...
The bulbs are great but not if I have to.
I remember reading on some lefty site where CFLs were being blamed for causing ailments such as chronic fatigue syndrome.
Maybe those folks can cause a health scare and override the "save energy or else" lefties.
Ah but that's just it...they aren't ever satisfied with recommendations and guidelines. The devil finds plenty of work for idle legislative hands who want to enact the silliest and most intrusive laws.
I'm hardly for stupid laws like ones banning incandescent bulbs, but I have made every light in my house CF. Some of them seem to have pretty good light quality. But they all save money on electricity and seldom need to be replaced. Beware off-brands, however: I bought three bulbs for a ceiling fixture, and it wasn't three months before I noticed two of them had burned out. I replaced them with GE bulbs, and a couple of years later I had one burn out.
I hate fluorescent bulbs. They buzz & hum & flicker. < :(
http://www.smarthome.com/903220.html
Why don't these bulbs fit "antique fixtures"?
The anti-Capitalists on the Free Republic (believe it or not, they do exist) absolutely hate Edison for how hard he drove his people. Anti-Capitalists are wussies. To heck with them.
All I know is that Humanity will never be able to repay Edison for all the good that he has given to us.
And in 2013 they will realize that all CFLs contain that eeeeeeeeeeeeeevil mercury...
All those roofs and paved areas are too dark, absorbing solar energy, increasing global heat.
We need to increase the albedo (reflectance) of man-made surfaces to counteract the melting of global ice, which is very reflective.
Pass a law to add a white dye to pavement, and require all roofing to be white.
This is not my original idea.
That was Federal, not State. It was a bill sponsored by algore...
they will use global warming to control every aspect of our lives - how we live, what we drive, how we use electricity, etc.
A "Fantastic" Budget
|
Senator Tom McClintock
|
|
|
Date: January 19, 2007
|
|
|
Publication Type: Column
|
|
|
|
|
|
According to Gov. Schwarzenegger, California’s financial condition is “fantastic.” Spending has been brought under control, the budget has been balanced and our debt is being paid down. But as Churchill once said, “It is not possible to state the opposite of the truth with greater precision.” To the governor’s credit, he has proposed some long-overdue spending reforms, most notably conforming state welfare eligibility standards to federal law. But there’s very little else to praise about the Governor’s handling of the state’s finances. In fact, spending is growing faster than it did under Gray Davis, the state is now running the biggest deficit in its history, and the only way it can pay its bills is because of massive borrowing carried over from 2004, contributing to a doubling of the state’s debt burden in just three years. When Gov. Schwarzenegger claims the budget is balanced, he ignores his Finance Department’s own figures that report a $7.6 billion shortfall in the 2006 budget ($1 billion worse than Davis’ worst year in 2000). His proposed 2007 budget adds $1.9 billion more to the state’s ocean of red ink. The Governor justifies his claim that the budget is balanced by concocting a new accounting concept he calls the “net operating deficit.” Here’s how it works: to enable his claim that he is paying down debt when it is actually increasing, the Governor made some pre-payments during the last two years – akin to paying more than the minimum balance on your credit cards. But to hide the deficit he created on the other side of the ledger, he simply doesn’t enter those payments in the state’s checkbook. (Don’t try this at home, boys and girls, or you’ll be hearing from your banker). California can get away with such bookkeeping gimmickry for a while because unprecedented borrowing in 2004 and a revenue windfall last year allowed Gov. Schwarzenegger to begin the year with $10.8 billion in the bank. The state’s deficit spending will nearly exhaust that cushion by next year under the Governor’s proposal. Meanwhile, borrowing is now completely out of control. When Gov. Schwarzenegger took office, the percentage of the general fund required for debt service was three percent. Since then, that burden has doubled to six percent and will exceed eight percent next year. Put another way, our minimum credit card payment now consumes more tax money than the budget of the entire University of California. Ironically, the state’s debt service ratio never exceeded 2.2 percent throughout the 1960’s, when California was at its zenith in public works construction. The new budget purports fiscal restraint – growing the general fund just one percent (after a staggering 30 percent during the last three years). But this is based on some very shaky assumptions that are very unlikely to materialize. State revenues in 2006 were projected to grow just 1.2 percent, and actual revenues are now falling behind even his modest goal. The Governor’s 2007 budget is predicated on robust 7.1 percent growth next year. If the state’s economy merely does not deteriorate any further, it will produce a $7.5 billion deficit – placing the state on the brink of insolvency within 18 months. But even assuming that every one of the Governor’s calculations is correct, and the Governor’s budget is adopted intact, the condition of the state’s finances will be this:
The Oxford English Dictionary notes that the original meaning of the word “fantastic” as, “existing only in imagination.” Perhaps that’s what the Governor means. Senator Tom McClintock represents the 19 th Senate District in the California Legislature. His website address is www.sen.ca.gov/mcclintock. |
|
makes one wonder...can we make one secede...like all the blue ones!
I don't know if you can dim CF bulbs. But we have fluorescent lighting that can be dimmed, at the university I teach at. How that is accomplished, I have no idea, but it works with no flicker.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.