Congress saves electric dinosaur

SUBHEAD: US House passes amendment banning implementation of 2007 Light Bulb Efficiency Improvement law. [Editor's note: Madness reigns in Washington as Republicans (and Fox News) successfully push to retain the use of energy wasting incandescent light bulbs.] By Brian Merchant on 15 July 2011 for TreeHugger - ( Image above: Anold fashioned incandescent light bulb. From original article. Sigh. After rejecting a measure that would have fast-tracked the repeal of a law signed by George W. Bush to tighten up efficiency requirements for light bulbs, the House of Reps passed an amendment that would prohibit spending to enforce those standards. TP Green has all the gory details ...

And if you were wondering why the hell Republicans are making so much fuss over a measure that will save Americans loads of money and improve energy efficiency, you're not alone. But know that it's really quite simple: It's a political opportunity for the GOP to play to its Tea Party base on a relatively low-stakes platform. They conjure up the specter of Big Government taking away your freedom to pick a light bulb, spout ideological nonsense, rinse, and repeat.

There's quite simply no reason -- other than politics -- that requiring companies to improve efficiency technology could be seen as a bad idea. Saving energy, saving money, reducing pollution, curbing carbon emissions, creating jobs -- there's little downside. Even the industry itself has already largely accepted the standards.

So allow me to reiterate: This has nothing to do with common sense, and everything to do with ideological manipulation.

More on Light Bulbs Light Bulb Ban Would Save Consumers $12.5 Billion by 2020, Eliminate 33 Power Plants .


Anonymous said...

good. less mercury in our house holds and land fills.

Anonymous said...

Agree with the other poster, less mercury is a good thing. Let's wait for LED technology to become affordable and use more candles until it does. Also, Gov't mandate to ban incandescents is reminiscent of Big Brother and doesn't really get at the fundamentals of the problem. We cannot expect to create a world of rigid social structure in the name of environmental righteousness and keep to our liberties and freedoms. If anything, many of our environmental and social problems stem from to rigid a system that is not able to adapt to the ever changing world around us. The supple reed in a swift river will not break.

And anyway, I don't hear any proposals for a ban on hummers or SUV's, or lawn mowers, or weed whackers, which consume an incredible amount of energy and serve nothing more than mainly aesthetic ends. I wouldn't support such a ban, but why spearhead a ban on incandescent bulbs when there are so, so many things which could also be banned for the sake of environmental justice.

Post a Comment