Posted on 07/17/2011 9:49:03 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
IN 5½ months, the sale of traditional 100-watt incandescent light bulbs will become illegal in the United States. Twelve months later, the same fate will befall most 75-watt incandescents, and one year after that, conventional 60- and 40-watt bulbs will be gone as well. Thomas Edison’s world-changing invention is one of the most enduringly popular products ever created - something so useful, so dependable, and so cheap that over the course of more than a century, consumers bought them by the billions. Yet thanks to a federal law that relatively few Americans knew anything about when it was passed by Congress and signed by George W. Bush in 2007, the familiar light bulb is about to be banned.
Americans certainly know about that law now. On paper, its purpose is to increase energy efficiency by requiring that bulbs produce more light per watt. But by setting the new standards higher than the common incandescent can reach, the law’s real-world effect is to deprive most Americans of the freedom to buy the light bulbs they prefer. Instead, they will be forced to spend more money for fragile halogen bulbs or for the swirled compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) that have been around for decades but that most consumers have never wanted to buy.
The looming ban has stoked grassroots outrage, especially on the right. Presidential candidate Michele Bachman draws cheers and applause when she tells Republican audiences: “President Bachmann will allow you to buy any light bulb you want.’’ Last week, a bill repealing the light bulb mandates was put to a vote in the House of Representatives; it won a majority (233-193), with nearly every Republican favoring repeal and nearly every Democrat opposed. Since two-thirds support was needed for passage, the 2007 law remains intact.
For now.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Screw the polar bears, I want my incandescent light bulbs. The best light for reading or for looking at LCD computer screen
True, a lot of bulbs are RARELY on, but in our house the ones that are on are on a long time each day. As we got older, the lights started going on earlier in the evenings. I have not had problems with CFL bulbs. We get the warm color ones. The batch I put in the house we moved to 3 1/2 years ago are still fine. Even the ones in the bath that get flipped on and off much more often.
I don't use them everywhere, such as outdoors and places they might get broken more easily such as the basement and the 'shed' (800 sf), but I tend to use the old 4-foot fluorescent tubes there.
I don't want to be forced to use them. But if I feel they are working well for me, I'll use them. Some folks assume it as their duty to hate anything and everything the gummint forces on them. If they 'made' us eat our favorite foods, there are people (yes, even FReepers!) who would stop eating them and live on lawn clippings and mud.
That figures. Another screw-up by Jr Bush, the liberal Republican.
“President Bachmann will allow you to buy any light bulb you want.
Isn't that precious. Someone in DC will "allow" us a small modicum of freedom of choice. She sounds like Hillary.
In a failing economy I welcome a new black market opportunity.
We need 100 watt bulbs for use in the barn. Nothing else will do. I bought some at Wal Mart yesterday. They were made by GE in Mexico. Gone up in price too. Guess I’ll have to stockpile.
muawiyah is being literal. Perhaps he could have worded his statement better. "The majority of incandescent bulbs are not on at any given time." As he said; the projections for energy savings was calculated by assuming that all incandescents are on all of the time. That is literally not true and almost the opposite is.
Nanny State PING!
We KNOW they can screw us, they've proven that time and time again, but they can never quite seem to unscrew us.....
Tough. The New Deal Commerce Clause says Congress can dictate what light bulbs will be available.
It's cheap, contains no toxins, it serves it's intended purpose, and it WAS made in America. Associated with conservatism which shares all those characteristics, it was a natural target for liberals/appeasers like Congressional Democrats and President Bush.
Damn right! If someone makes a decision for you that they lack the moral and legal authority to make, are you NOT obligated by principle to do the opposite of what they mandate?
It wouldn't matter if they WERE right for the first time ever on the merits...this issue is simply beyond their jurisdiction.
You keep coming back like a bad penny.
So does everyone (except the fascist statists in power who like to have sex with their mothers, dogs, and mothers' dogs). So why do you keep stumping for the new statist commie liar's version?
???
Our major corporations have national and transnational reach these days. The USG is just another corporation with Obama flying around in its corporate jet and you are nuts enough to think the USG is doing to be reduced to its peasant status of 1787? I would still get rid of numerous Federale agencies that serve no purpose and some that are destructive such as the EPA, EEOC, Department of Education.
The 10th is great but one must have some perceptive. If you are on a libertarian crusade, knock yourself out
Did you mean that literally (and that's not a stupid question, some FReepers would)? If so, that's stumping. If it's a Devil's advocate way of saying those big-government fascists need to get shoved back into the shit-filled box from whence they crawled and the CC returned to its original purpose, I'm with you and apologize for misunderstanding your post.
That's an interesting characterization of the Republic crafted by the Founders.
I would still get rid of numerous Federale agencies that serve no purpose and some that are destructive such as the EPA, EEOC, Department of Education.
Unfortunately, by endorsing the New Deal Commerce Clause, you have endorsed the constitutionality of those agencies.
The 10th is great but one must have some perceptive.
If a politician said, "The Second Amendment is great but one must have some perspective", he'd be scorned by everyone here for the gun-grabbing scoundrel that he is.
Those who say the same about the 10th Amendment should receive just as much scorn.
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.