Texas aglow with effort to save the incandescent bulb

Los Angeles Times ^ | July 9, 2011 | Richard Simon

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Reporting from Washington— It doesn't have the ring of "Remember the Alamo," but a new battle cry has gone up in Texas: "Remember the incandescent bulb."

Texas has become the first state seeking to skirt a federal law that phases out old-fashioned incandescent light bulbs in favor of more efficient lamps — a move that has emerged as a shining example of Republicans' resolve to strike down what many view as excessive federal regulation.

Texas hopes to get around the law with a measure recently signed by Republican Gov. Rick Perry declaring that incandescent bulbs — if made and sold only in Texas — do not involve interstate commerce and therefore are not subject to federal regulation.

"I think that Texans as a whole are tired of the federal government trying to micromanage our lives," said George Lavender, a Republican state representative who sponsored the legislation.

Critics of the federal mandate hope the Texas action will spur Congress to repeal the light bulb rules or prompt other states to adopt similar laws. The Republican-controlled U.S. House on Monday is expected to take up a repeal measure sponsored by a Texas congressman. Efforts also are underway in Pennsylvania and South Carolina to follow Texas' lead.

.... "I just believe that we should be able to buy what we want," Lavender said of the Texas law. "I've had calls from people in every state, and even in foreign countries, saying how much they appreciate this bill."

"This is about more than just energy consumption, it is about personal freedom,'' said Rep. Joe L. Barton (R-Texas.), who's leading the repeal effort in the House. He recently cheered his state's action, declaring on Fox News: "I do thank the Lord that I live in Texas."

[Graybeard58]

"This is about more than just energy consumption, it is about personal freedom,''

I use the rat tail bulbs in some areas, by choice.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Drip!

Drip!

Drip!

Who knows, this could be the beginning of the right to buy what we want.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

.....This country is about freedom and liberty - and the purpose of government is to secure our liberties, NOT to constantly tell us what to do and how to think like perpetual parents of perpetual children.

You're so right. Because when they do that, only those who can "grease the right political wheels" will succeed. And Americans instinctively feel that deep down in their bones.

[Huck]

Wickard is ripe for a challenge.

Far from it. It was re-affirmed as recently as 2005, in Raich v Gonzalez, where Justice Scalia concurred with the majority in re-affirming Wickard.

Commerce clause jurisprudence is firmly ensconsed, with a long train of cases going back to the early years of the US Constitution. Wickard isn't going anywhere, and I suspect Perry and his lawyers know it.

[DesertRhino]

It doesn’t matter. If they rule against it, the order should be IGNORED and the TEXAS bulbs should be built anyway.
Bullies never stop until they get the punch in the nose.
As for things the feds could do to make life difficult for Texas,,, Texas could sned Rangers to sieze and foreclose on federal properties in the state.

It’s time to stand up and resist DC,,,Period. The game cannot any longer be, “DC makes a rule,, states resist,,and DC Supreme court rules against state”. The state cannot win. It’s time for open defiance against the budding dictatorship.

[dfwgator]

I only wish they could have made a stand against Lo-Flo toilets.

[RJS1950]

They still could. Everytime I have to plunge a lo-flo I fantasize having a democrat by the legs and plunging it with his/her head.

[Dudoight]

Yet...the steps one must take to protect themselves from mercury contamination should a bulb break...or just disposing of one are to my way of thinking a real environmental threat.

How about all those bulbs with their mercury accumulating in a waste facility over the years? What about that environmental threat? Stupid idiots must have stock in the bulb companies.

[rlmorel]

I post these graphics in threads about the incandescent "ban" to show what a crock the concept of energy savings using CFL bulbs is.

It would be one thing if the bulbs performed as well as incandescents, and were the same price or even marginally more, but they are MUCH more in cost, and a distinct decrease in illumination capability.

I have two charts, one un-altered from Lawrence Livermore Labs showing the patterns of energy usage. It is one of the best graphs I have ever seen.

The second chart is an alteration of the first one, popping out the residential usage and enlarging it so it is more easily seen. On this, I have taken the pipeline for electricity that leads into the residential sector, but a
This one shows a portion, the residential one with residential lighting highlighted. The Tan colored pipe going into the residential sector below is residential electricity. The red line shows how much of that pipe is used for lighting currently. The green line shows how much residential electricity would be used if ALL lighting was CFL.

Using CFL bulbs to save electricity as mandated by the government is the same as putting a magnetic ribbon for some cause on the back of your car.

If people want to pay the extra money on bulbs and accept the lack of performance to save energy in their household, I have no problem with that. But having the government make us do it is nanny-statism.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

What great graphs.

Thanks!

[Utilizer]

Off-topic, but...

Dunno if it's just me, but this posting has some sort of popup-type thingy showing up demanding a username and password from "idisk.me.com". Never had that happen before, and I have a very good popup and malware blocker. Just FYI and hit the [Esc] key a couple of times to make it go away.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

This is a futile effort, as the feds already have a scheme so that all *new* buildings, and lamp appliances like overhead fans with lights, as well as light sockets must conform to federal demands.

It’s already very difficult to get an overhead fan with a light that is not a dim bulb. So the federals are using a “multi-pronged attack” through appliance manufacturers against the public to force compliance.

And though the rumor that existing buildings cannot be sold without conforming to federal energy standards is *not* true, the feds are now requiring power companies replace existing power meters with others that can be remote controlled.

The purpose of this is that if someone is using more energy than the federal government believes they should, they can direct the power company to limit the amount of energy they get from their power lines.

No mistake, the federals are determined to force this on the public, and they don’t care who they hurt or abuse. And the attack is from so many different directions that even if somebody thwarts one of their attacks, the others will still force their whims on us.

[Ken H]

Here is where the disgraceful Wickard Commerce Clause stands now:

...the authority to enact laws necessary and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce is not limited to laws governing intrastate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce.

J. Scalia, concurring in Gonzales v Raich

[lormand]

Based on the Circular Firing Squads here on FreeRepublic who cry “Gov Big Hair Perry is a RINO”, I predict that Rick Perry will side with radical environmentalists and declare the incandescent light bulb as a threat to mankind.

[Daveinyork]

Jesse Ventura, when he was running for governor said that you should be able to wake up in the morning and not notice the government.

I notice it as soon as I wake up and go to the loo.

[samtheman]

Your post brings up some interesting points but your conclusion — “This is a futile effort” — is wrong.

It’s never a futile effort to fight tyranny. The fight itself is worth it, win or lose.

[OrangeHoof]

On issue after issue, I see Texas butting heads with Washington and if Washington wins, it won't be long before they are forcing amnesty, gay marriage, socialist health care and all sorts of global warming nonsense on us.

That's why I favor secession. We have our own ports. We have our own power grid. We have our own energy sources. We just need to build our own army and set up our own monetary system and we'd be in business.

And once we're in business, not only could we give liberals the finger, we could show how great a pro-business, pro-growth, pro-freedom economy looks without the nanny state lording it over all of us and taking their cut off the top.

It would embarrass all these socialist governments.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

Trouble is that if you fight the wrong fight, you lose even if you win.

A great example is the border fence. Every villain who supported and still supports unrestricted immigration had “helpful” ideas, all of which would delay a fence or make it prohibitively expensive or both. And they attacked from every angle.

“You have to do ‘x’ first”, “An expensive *virtual* fence is the way to go”, what we need are airships!”, “go after those that hire illegals first”, etc. and etc. Every idea in the world but building a fence now. And many of them declared themselves the strongest believers in stopping illegal immigration! Liars all.

In this case, if the battle to produce incandescent bulbs is won, we still have to fight the battle against the federal coercion of the light bulb and socket and appliance manufacturers, and fight the battle of the power companies forced to comply, and fight the battle of home builders *required* to make non-incandescent bulb homes, etc. and etc.

So instead of fighting to legalize light bulbs, what really needs to be done is to attack the heart of the beast: the EPA. Until that dragon is defeated, it will continue to crank out fights one after the other, until we lose.

Let’s fight tyranny by fighting the tyrant, not just its endless supply of flunkies and laws.

[samtheman]

I basically agree with you that this is just a symbolic victory... but sometimes symbolism is very important.

This is a shot across the bow of the EPA mothership.

Of course it won’t bring the ship down... but it very well might be “the shot heard round the country”.

And not only that, it provides a way for every Texan to participate in the revolution, just by going down to the store and buying a light bulb.

Mere symbolism? Again, yes. But very powerful symbolism it is.

[Ken H]

Yes, I agree. Look what Rick Santelli did with one brief rant.