In a close vote, the House recently passed a provision that undercuts one of the most successful environmental programs of the decade – one that requires all light bulbs – including the incandescent – to achieve higher efficiency levels. The amendment, which was tacked on to the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 2012, delays a ban on sales of incandescent bulbs for nine months – from Jan. 1 until the end of the fiscal year, Sept. 30, 2012 – turning off the lights on this successful program.
The legislation, if passed by the Senate, would repeal one of those “inside the beltway” success stories that seems near impossible these days – legislation that was drafted with the help of light-bulb manufacturing giants, Philips, General Electric and Sylvania, and with the support of a coalition of efficiency and environmental organizations, including my own, passed by a bipartisan majority of the House and Senate and signed into law in 2007 by Republican President George W. Bush. More unusual was the fact that California and Nevada, then under leadership of Republican governors, swallowed hard and gave up their own state lighting-efficiency legislation, which had faster timetables. They did so because they were persuaded by all of us that creating a single regulatory light-bulb standard for the whole country would support innovation, would help the United States maintain its market share of production, save American households money, create new jobs and would give industry what it craves much more than the anti-regulatory crowd would have you believe. It seems fair to use the term “dim bulb” to describe those members of Congress who voted to turn back the clock.
It’s up to the Senate to rectify this wrong.
Thomas Edison created the light bulb in 1879, one of the great U.S. inventions that helped solidify America’s reputation as a global innovator and a place where innovation would be rewarded. His incandescent bulb, though it revolutionized the world, spends most of its life making heat, not light, and it’s remarkable for its inefficiency by today’s standards. After a slow start, and in the face of a global phase-out, manufacturers began the arduous, expensive and sometimes exciting process of reinventing lighting. Now, despite their detractors, the new generations of light bulbs, including the new highly efficient incandescent, is revolutionizing indoor, outdoor and street lighting. And these new or improved bulbs will save American families $100 to $200 every year, for a total savings of $12 billion for American households every year. It also will save more than 2,000 American jobs.
The survival of the legislation also means we won’t be putting 1 million tons of climate pollution in our atmosphere, which is the equivalent of taking 17 million cars off the road, saving our country money, energy and lives. Certainly, Thomas Edison would have embraced this technology for its energy and cost savings, as he often said, “Waste is worse than loss.”
This legislation is one of many dozens of efforts that Congress is seriously entertaining that would roll back progress and stifle innovation. From dissolution of EPA to stalling air-quality rules that would reduce mercury in the air, to blocking EPA from regulating climate pollutants, to even more subtle and damaging efforts – congressional leadership is capitulating to Tea Partiers and others who myopically and tragically see regulation as an impediment to their version of a happy and prosperous life, a life that seems to include wastefulness. Then to get us there, they have filtered out the long history of bipartisanship on energy solutions and environmental protection. Have they forgotten that Republican President Ronald Reagan pushed and pushed hard for energy efficiency standards and energy innovations?
There is one piece of ancient technology that American voters should insist on keeping – a good old-fashioned broom. We should use it to sweep out those members of Congress whose dedication against all regulations and support for unfettered individual freedom is undermining America’s global leadership in technology and innovation, maybe permanently.
Kathleen Rogers is president of Earth Day Network.
The legislation, if passed by the Senate, would repeal one of those “inside the beltway” success stories that seems near impossible these days – legislation that was drafted with the help of light-bulb manufacturing giants, Philips, General Electric and Sylvania, and with the support of a coalition of efficiency and environmental organizations, including my own, passed by a bipartisan majority of the House and Senate and signed into law in 2007 by Republican President George W. Bush. More unusual was the fact that California and Nevada, then under leadership of Republican governors, swallowed hard and gave up their own state lighting-efficiency legislation, which had faster timetables. They did so because they were persuaded by all of us that creating a single regulatory light-bulb standard for the whole country would support innovation, would help the United States maintain its market share of production, save American households money, create new jobs and would give industry what it craves much more than the anti-regulatory crowd would have you believe. It seems fair to use the term “dim bulb” to describe those members of Congress who voted to turn back the clock.
It’s up to the Senate to rectify this wrong.
Thomas Edison created the light bulb in 1879, one of the great U.S. inventions that helped solidify America’s reputation as a global innovator and a place where innovation would be rewarded. His incandescent bulb, though it revolutionized the world, spends most of its life making heat, not light, and it’s remarkable for its inefficiency by today’s standards. After a slow start, and in the face of a global phase-out, manufacturers began the arduous, expensive and sometimes exciting process of reinventing lighting. Now, despite their detractors, the new generations of light bulbs, including the new highly efficient incandescent, is revolutionizing indoor, outdoor and street lighting. And these new or improved bulbs will save American families $100 to $200 every year, for a total savings of $12 billion for American households every year. It also will save more than 2,000 American jobs.
The survival of the legislation also means we won’t be putting 1 million tons of climate pollution in our atmosphere, which is the equivalent of taking 17 million cars off the road, saving our country money, energy and lives. Certainly, Thomas Edison would have embraced this technology for its energy and cost savings, as he often said, “Waste is worse than loss.”
This legislation is one of many dozens of efforts that Congress is seriously entertaining that would roll back progress and stifle innovation. From dissolution of EPA to stalling air-quality rules that would reduce mercury in the air, to blocking EPA from regulating climate pollutants, to even more subtle and damaging efforts – congressional leadership is capitulating to Tea Partiers and others who myopically and tragically see regulation as an impediment to their version of a happy and prosperous life, a life that seems to include wastefulness. Then to get us there, they have filtered out the long history of bipartisanship on energy solutions and environmental protection. Have they forgotten that Republican President Ronald Reagan pushed and pushed hard for energy efficiency standards and energy innovations?
There is one piece of ancient technology that American voters should insist on keeping – a good old-fashioned broom. We should use it to sweep out those members of Congress whose dedication against all regulations and support for unfettered individual freedom is undermining America’s global leadership in technology and innovation, maybe permanently.
Kathleen Rogers is president of Earth Day Network.
1. A typical CFL has twice the so-called power factor (not same as
power rating) of an incandescent, which means it
uses twice the energy at the power plant to what your meter says -
which you eventually have to pay for.
2. There are many other reasons why the supposed switch savings
whether to CFLs or LEDs don't hold
Less than 1% US energy usage, 1-2% grid electricity
using DOE and other official statistics - ceolas. net/#li171x
There are as seen much more relevant ways to save energy (in
generation, grid distribution, real consumption waste
3. Regardless of energy savings:
Little Money savings for consumers anyway.
That is because electricity companies are being subsidised (again by
consumers as taxpayers) or allowed to directly raise Bill rates, to
compensate for any reduced electricity use, as already seen both
federally and in California, Ohio etc, and before them in the UK and
other European countries
( as referenced http://ceolas. net/#californiacfl )
manufacturing giants, Philips, General Electric and Sylvania,
and with the support of a coalition of efficiency and environmental
organizations, including my own"
This is particularly ironic:
Why have light bulb manufacturers sought and welcomed the ban?
Why WELCOME restrictions on what you are allowed to make?
Sure - no harm in looking for profits
but it's rather odd to see global multinational corp executives
hand-in-hand with supposedly green non-global activists,
activists normally supportive of local sustainability through locally
made and transported simple safe products,
activists who - like Kathleen here - do most of the promotion on
behalf of the corporation executives.
It's a funny world.
More about the profit motivated industrial politics behind the ban, with
documentation and copies of official communications, http://ceolas. net/#li1ax
(iI should by now be clear they don't - and unfortunately the touted
"similar halogen" replacements will be banned before 2020 too, on 2007
Act 45 lumen per Watt specification pertaining before then, halogens
and other energy efficient incandescents of course being different
from simple incandescents in light quality anyway, as well as being
much more expensive, for marginal energy savings)
Whether GOP or Democrat, other policies are better
Democrat - TAX
A big deficit state like California (and maybe Illinois) and Obama's Budget solving Federal Government
could Tax not Ban popular but energy using types of Cars, Buildings,
White Goods, TV sets, Light Bulbs etc Gives a big state /Fed Govmt
income, can also help finance Price Reduction on energy saving alternatives so
people are not just "hit by taxes"
(and they know that a ban is the alternative).
GOP -Market Competition
Competition rather than Regulation,
gives not only reduced energy use by say competing utilities keeping
down energy cost in generation and grids,
it also gives desirable energy saving products, which people have always bought,
and which could be marketed properly
(compare with Energizer bunny etc commercials "Expensive to buy but
cheap in the long run")
New start-ups including of energy saving lights can be supported temporarily,
also giving local jobs etc:
jobs also easier to create, if simple safe easily made technology is not banned...
This in my view is a better policy -if any is needed.