Posted on 03/25/2011 6:52:04 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
It is one of the magical moments in American history: On Sept. 4, 1882, Thomas Edison threw a ceremonial switch at the offices of J. P. Morgan in New York City, and there was light.
The nearby Pearl Street Station power plant provided the electricity for light bulbs to switch on throughout the immediate area. The New York Times had 52 of the bulbs and reported they provided light “soft, mellow, and graceful to the eye . . . without a particle of flicker to make the head ache.”
The light bulb represents one of the most ingenious and useful American-created commercial products — so ingenious, in fact, that it’s the metaphor for the arrival of a new idea. Now, the humble old incandescent bulb is in its senescence, about to be snuffed out entirely by an act of Congress.
In 2007, Congress passed and Pres. George W. Bush signed an energy bill forbidding the sale of the traditional, cheap incandescent bulbs on grounds that they aren’t energy-efficient enough. This has stoked grassroots opposition (FreeOurLight.org) and bulb-hording among people ready to give up the old bulbs only if someone pries them from their cold, dead fingers.
Republicans in the House and Senate are pushing to roll back the provision in the 2007 law. Are there more important matters of state to attend to? Surely. Is the light-bulb regulation rushing us down the road to serfdom? Probably not. But it is so annoying, it deserves the resistance of friends of freedom and of nice, clear artificial light.
Think of the national 55 mph speed limit, imposed in 1974, also in the name of energy efficiency. Congress repealed it in 1995. Think of the metric system, pushed in the Metric Conversion Act of 1975, again in the name of efficiency. It never quite caught on. Think of, for that matter, the three-pence-a-pound Townshend duty on tea. Was that the end of the world? No, but it was the principle of the damn thing.
The more energy-efficient bulbs are more expensive, but make up their cost in the lower use of electricity over time. The Department of Energy contends that mandating new bulbs will save up to $6 billion for consumers in 2015. Industry supports the mandate because it says it is stoking competition for the creation of all sorts of new energy-efficient bulbs — some of them incandescent.
All to the good, but if the new bulbs are so wondrous, customers can be trusted to adopt them on their own. Are we a nation of dolts too incompetent to balance the complex factors of price of bulb, energy efficiency, and quality of light on our own?
One of the alternatives to the old incandescent bulb is the compact fluorescent lamp, a twisted affair seemingly modeled on fusilli pasta. It contains mercury. If it breaks, you have to undertake cleanup measures worthy of a minor industrial accident. Its light is inferior to the old bulb. One congressional critic says it reminds him of “something out of a Soviet stairwell.”
It’s entirely possible the compact fluorescent lamp will catch on and become as universal and beloved as the Edison version. If so, it shouldn’t need an artificial push. At a hearing on the light-bulb regulation, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky castigated the deputy assistant secretary of energy in terms she may have never heard before. Noting that the Obama administration professes to be “pro-choice,” he argued, “there is hypocrisy that goes on in people that claim to believe in some choices but don’t want to let the consumer decide what they can buy and install in their own house.”
Just so. You can be forgiven for thinking no household object or minor convenience is safe. First, they made our toilets less efficient. Then, they came after our plastic grocery bags. Then, they mucked around with our dishwasher detergent. At the light bulb, brilliant for more than 100 years and counting, it’s time to make a stand.
— Rich Lowry is editor of National Review.
Absolutely. I am still dumbfounded that Bush didn’t have the iota of sense required to veto this idiocy.
Having used flourescent lighting for years (drafting), I think the light is great. Look at the supermarkets...and the schools...and commercial buildings....all flourescent.
I’ve been using the new bulbs for years because they are more efficient and last a lot longer, but still would like to see the old incandescents be available. And in terms of disposal, the old bulbs are the least toxic.
And besides, without them how will be fire up the old Easy Bake Ovens? :-)
Hands off the market, nanny-state.
I’ve been using the new bulbs for years because they are more efficient and last a lot longer, but still would like to see the old incandescents be available. And in terms of disposal, the old bulbs are the least toxic.
And besides, without them how will be fire up the old Easy Bake Ovens? :-)
Hands off the market, nanny-state.
Obviously a reference to the effects of gaslights and candles.
Now we've come full circle. The flicker of fluourescent bulbs has replaced the gaslight and candles as inducers of headaches.
Limited Government?????? We have so much debt that I really think we should just let the house of cards fall and start from scratch. We have 2 wars going on and are on the verge of a third, we are being invaded on our borders, our kids are basically stupid, people are unemployed and we are calling for Free Choice regarding light bulbs. The scary thing is, this should be satire but instead it is real life!
Some like one, some like others. There are lots of migraine sufferers who cannot abide twisty bulbs, as they increase their migraines both in frequency and intensity. They become truly desperate when faced with the loss of their incandescent bulbs.
Some even say they will use oil lamps, which is a very pleasant light, instead of twisty bulbs.
Other bulbs out there include Ott lights, which were the first, full-spectrum lights, invented by Dr. John Ott, a pioneer in stop action photography, who did a lot of research on the best lighting for plants and animals. A bit pricey, but are regarded as the best lighting for draftsmen.
As one who has a head injury, the cfl’s [I call them the evil light bulbs] trip my seizures. If they do go away, I might use the American with Disabalities Act, to keep them in my house hold!
I don't live in a supermarket, school, or commercial building and I don't want my home looking like one on the inside. I don't like or want that quality of light for for every application particularly when the government says I have to do it.
I get silent migraines, can’t say that the CFLs have affected that for me personally, but I do not like them for 2 reasons, primarily because they contain mercury and require a hasmat team to clean up. Secondly, I hate the light they emit.... it seems dull to me. I’ve been stockpiling the bulbs.
As for the Ott lights.... gotta admit I do have 2 of those(CFL) that I use for my food photography and they work really well as they are close to natural light when I can’t get natural light or need fill light to the natural light - and don’t emit much heat after being on for a while.
At the end of the day, the government has no business telling us what light bulbs we can use, they need to get out of our business and get their own mess straight. Yeah, not too happy that Bush didn’t veto this crap.
Call me old fashion but I'll stick with companies that sustain themselves with their innovation and products. A better ligh bulb is agreat idea but their stable of products is not.
if the GOP can’t limit government on this one then they aren’t serious about limited government at all.
1) It takes too long for them to reach their brightness. If a crmininal is in the house and I flip the switch he won’t have to wait for his eyes to adjust to the light before he can shoot me.
2) All furniture colors are made for “incandescent light”. The flourescent lighting in furniture stores are “incandescent” in color. When you switch to “cool white” your sofa won’t look the same color as when you bought it. I can see a government program coming to help people purchase new furniture.
3) Why would Immelt go along with this? Maybe it’s because he’s a bilderberger.
Flourescents have their place but do have serious limitations such as cold weather operation. In my opinion, five years from now, LED’s will be cheap enough that the flourescent/incandescent arguement will be moot.
That said, the point is freedom. Whether it is handguns, healthcare, or light bulbs the question is who should decide what is right for you? You or some government hack.
***They last forever.***
The shortest my CFLs ever lasted lasted was 30 days. I could have bought enough incadescents to last two years for that one bulb.
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.