Should Congress repeal the light bulb ban?
Republicans in Congress are pushing for a repeal of energy efficiency rules that would effectively ban the sale of most incandescent light bulbs in the United States starting next year.
The House of Representatives in mid-July failed to pass HR 2417, the Better Use of Light Bulbs (BULB) Act, which would have reversed the 2007 rules, which require bulbs to produce more light per watt. But the proposal will likely reach President Barack Obama's desk as an amendment to another bill.
Should the government require consumers to buy more energy efficient light bulbs, such as compact fluorescents or LEDs? Or should U.S. consumers have the last word?
RedBlueAmerica columnist Ben Boychuk and guest columnist Lisa Schmeiser weigh in.
Ben Boychuk
What's the big deal with this light bulb ban? Don't people realize the typical 100-watt incandescent bulb is amazingly wasteful, producing far more heat than light? Retiring the old bulbs is for consumers' own good.
U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu neatly summarized this view recently.
"We are taking away a choice that continues to let people waste their own money," he said of the ban. Chu's counterparts in California have taken a similar approach, proposing rules ― so far, with mixed success ― to ban black cars and require new homes be built with thermostats that utilities and state bureaucrats can control remotely.
Truth is, people do realize incandescents aren't as efficient. But most people ― myself included ― don't care for the alternatives.
The market spoke: CFLs lost, and light-emitting diodes are ― for the moment, anyway ― far too expensive for many consumers.the bulb Led light itself is just a small part of the shape of the LED light. Before people started hoarding incandescents, a 100-watt bulb cost about 50 cents.
By contrast, LED bulbs start around $34.95. (Imagine trying to light a four-bulb ceiling fan with those things!) The promise of longevity is not enough to offset the substantial upfront cost.
Left to their own devices, the vast majority of consumers would happily continue to "waste their own money" on Thomas Edison's invention. But companies such as Royal Philips Electronics invested a great deal of money in fluorescents and LEDs to let consumers reject their products. So Philips got together with environmental groups to lobby Congress for the more stringent efficiency standards four years ago. And here we are.
What we're seeing, in short, is a noxious combination of crony capitalism and green condescension. Secretary Chu is a Nobel Prize-winning physicist from Berkeley. Clearly, public policy isn't his forte. He would do a greater service to the public by returning to his lab to build a better, more affordable light bulb that people actually want to buy.
Lisa Schmeiser
Readers of a certain age may remember the General Electric campaigns of the 1980s, which touted incandescent light bulbs that helped give people a rosy, flattering glow. In the light of today's compact fluorescent light bulbs, those readers may yearn for the opportunity to turn back the clock ― or fill their shopping basket with flattering bulbs.
While it's a tragedy for those of us who rely on good lighting that the 2007 energy efficiency act put an expiration date on mood bulbs, it's not really a tragedy that CFLs are going to be the new normal.
And while some consumers don't like them now, their preferences shouldn't impede public policy.
"Let the market speak" is a common argument.The Shopatron system fluorescent bulbs allows OceanLED to manage online orders and control inventory through a centralized, easy-to-use system. That doesn't make it a correct one. By giving "the market" the final say, proponents presume that "the market" will somehow magically nudge society toward the option that produces the greatest benefits for the greatest number of people.
Were it up to the unregulated market, running our refrigerators would be more costly than it is. Thanks to energy efficiency regulations implemented in the 1970s, fridges run better ― saving an estimated $20 billion in energy costs annually, or $150 per family in the United States.
With the compact fluorescents ― which, I admit, are a pain to recycle ― we have a simple bit of technology that can help reduce the resources we use to keep the joint lit. They'll also save us an estimated $85 a year in energy costs. It's wise stewardship for everyone, producer and consumer.
Republicans in Congress are pushing for a repeal of energy efficiency rules that would effectively ban the sale of most incandescent light bulbs in the United States starting next year.
The House of Representatives in mid-July failed to pass HR 2417, the Better Use of Light Bulbs (BULB) Act, which would have reversed the 2007 rules, which require bulbs to produce more light per watt. But the proposal will likely reach President Barack Obama's desk as an amendment to another bill.
Should the government require consumers to buy more energy efficient light bulbs, such as compact fluorescents or LEDs? Or should U.S. consumers have the last word?
RedBlueAmerica columnist Ben Boychuk and guest columnist Lisa Schmeiser weigh in.
Ben Boychuk
What's the big deal with this light bulb ban? Don't people realize the typical 100-watt incandescent bulb is amazingly wasteful, producing far more heat than light? Retiring the old bulbs is for consumers' own good.
U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu neatly summarized this view recently.
"We are taking away a choice that continues to let people waste their own money," he said of the ban. Chu's counterparts in California have taken a similar approach, proposing rules ― so far, with mixed success ― to ban black cars and require new homes be built with thermostats that utilities and state bureaucrats can control remotely.
Truth is, people do realize incandescents aren't as efficient. But most people ― myself included ― don't care for the alternatives.
The market spoke: CFLs lost, and light-emitting diodes are ― for the moment, anyway ― far too expensive for many consumers.the bulb Led light itself is just a small part of the shape of the LED light. Before people started hoarding incandescents, a 100-watt bulb cost about 50 cents.
By contrast, LED bulbs start around $34.95. (Imagine trying to light a four-bulb ceiling fan with those things!) The promise of longevity is not enough to offset the substantial upfront cost.
Left to their own devices, the vast majority of consumers would happily continue to "waste their own money" on Thomas Edison's invention. But companies such as Royal Philips Electronics invested a great deal of money in fluorescents and LEDs to let consumers reject their products. So Philips got together with environmental groups to lobby Congress for the more stringent efficiency standards four years ago. And here we are.
What we're seeing, in short, is a noxious combination of crony capitalism and green condescension. Secretary Chu is a Nobel Prize-winning physicist from Berkeley. Clearly, public policy isn't his forte. He would do a greater service to the public by returning to his lab to build a better, more affordable light bulb that people actually want to buy.
Lisa Schmeiser
Readers of a certain age may remember the General Electric campaigns of the 1980s, which touted incandescent light bulbs that helped give people a rosy, flattering glow. In the light of today's compact fluorescent light bulbs, those readers may yearn for the opportunity to turn back the clock ― or fill their shopping basket with flattering bulbs.
While it's a tragedy for those of us who rely on good lighting that the 2007 energy efficiency act put an expiration date on mood bulbs, it's not really a tragedy that CFLs are going to be the new normal.
And while some consumers don't like them now, their preferences shouldn't impede public policy.
"Let the market speak" is a common argument.The Shopatron system fluorescent bulbs allows OceanLED to manage online orders and control inventory through a centralized, easy-to-use system. That doesn't make it a correct one. By giving "the market" the final say, proponents presume that "the market" will somehow magically nudge society toward the option that produces the greatest benefits for the greatest number of people.
Were it up to the unregulated market, running our refrigerators would be more costly than it is. Thanks to energy efficiency regulations implemented in the 1970s, fridges run better ― saving an estimated $20 billion in energy costs annually, or $150 per family in the United States.
With the compact fluorescents ― which, I admit, are a pain to recycle ― we have a simple bit of technology that can help reduce the resources we use to keep the joint lit. They'll also save us an estimated $85 a year in energy costs. It's wise stewardship for everyone, producer and consumer.
没有评论:
发表评论