House Turns Out the Lights on Bulb Ban

The House of Representatives voted to preserve a scheduled phase out of incandescent light bulbs Monday evening.

The Better Use of Light Bulbs (BULB) Act, would have rescinded efficiency standards for incandescent bulbs included in a 2007 energy bill.

233 members voted yes and 193 cast nay votes. But the House required a supermajority to approve this particular package. In this case, it would have needed 285 yea votes to pass.

Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) voted present.

The measure gained support after the 2010 elections, as tea party Republicans seized on the prohibition as an example of government overreach.

The bill's sponsor, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, says that the increased efficiency standards have the government picking winners and losers in the lighting market.

"To take off the market something that's cheap, effective, and average use costs two or three cents a week to use seems to me to be overkill by the federal government," Barton said of the move away from incandescent bulbs. Supporters of the bill also claim that the compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs designed to replace incandescent bulbs are too expensive and don't work as well as their 19th century competitor."Here's the bottom line, those of us at a certain age, under a compact florescent bulb, we don't look as good as an incandescent bulb," said Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas, "The American people should be able to choose what type of light bulb they use in their home. They should not be constrained to all the romance of a Soviet stairwell when they go home in the evening."

Read more: politics.blogs.foxnews.com...

There it is. I hoped that we had a chance of being able to choose to light our homes affordably, with better quality light and without subjecting our families and landfills/water tables from mercury poisoning. Oh well, government knows best.

Anyone else stockpiling incandescent bulbs?

You bet I am! I have dozens of those bulbs! After hearing of needing people to come in and clean up after a bulb broke, I figured that cost would outweigh the savings cost.

Not to mention all the other crap I heard about the new bulbs.

Originally posted by Wolf321

Anyone else stockpiling incandescent bulbs?

Me! I won't allow mercury in my house! I'll make candles and do LED bulbs before I allow one stinking flourescent bulb to cross my threshold!

reply to post by beezzer


Incandescent bulbs are the safe ones they are banning. No mercury in them. You're thinking of florescent. Those are the ugly toxic ones.

Yep. I've got quite a pile of em myself. They use more wattage, but I'm the type that only cuts on the lights in the night time anyhow. With what time I go to bed these days, you're talking maybe two-three hours of usage per day, on maybe two bulbs.

reply to post by Wolf321


Uhm…
Why are you stockpiling anything, the bill didn’t pass:

233 members voted yes and 193 cast nay votes. But the House required a supermajority to approve this particular package. In this case, it would have needed 285 yea votes to pass.

Hence the title of “House Turns Out the Lights on Bulb Ban”.

Originally posted by Wolf321
reply to post by beezzer

 

Incandescent bulbs are the safe ones they are banning. No mercury in them. You're thinking of florescent. Those are the ugly toxic ones.

Yeah you caught him there;you caught "the beez"; he got it backwards there.. we also have been "hoarding" incandescents if they roll back this "goobermint intrusion"; there goes my retirement plan( blackmarket illumination).
I'd love to find a flourecscent or led bulb I could love. I understand the efficiency issue.

light bulbs..... really?....so its finally come to this eh america?

It's been all down hill since Woodrow Wilson signed our government over to the Rothschild Bankers in 1913 via the Federal Reserve Act.

now we have light bulb rules

No, I read this as voted yes to PRESERVE The BILL , that it will go as planned. Insane.

Originally posted by Wolf321
reply to post by beezzer

 

Incandescent bulbs are the safe ones they are banning. No mercury in them. You're thinking of florescent. Those are the ugly toxic ones.

Ooops. sorry. I mean the twisty flourescent bulbs.
Thanks for the correction.

reply to post by Wolf321


screw light bulbs. just leave on those honkin' huge flat screen TVs, they lite the whole place up. thats what my wife does. sweet thing doesn't know the energy-sucking mondo screen came with a 'off' button.

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by Wolf321

 

Uhm…
Why are you stockpiling anything, the bill didn’t pass:

233 members voted yes and 193 cast nay votes. But the House required a supermajority to approve this particular package. In this case, it would have needed 285 yea votes to pass.

Hence the title of “House Turns Out the Lights on Bulb Ban”.

I had to read it 3 times, because the way it's written is pretty muddy. Perhaps another paragraph or two would have helped.

I think they intended to rescind the efficiency rules. But it didn't pass, so the rules favoring fluorescents and against incandescents still stand. Or at least that's my understanding on the third pass....

reply to post by defcon5


Please re-read:

The Better Use of Light Bulbs (BULB) Act, would have rescinded efficiency standards for incandescent bulbs included in a 2007 energy bill.

233 members voted yes and 193 cast nay votes. But the House required a supermajority to approve this particular package. In this case, it would have needed 285 yea votes to pass.

The bill to force regular incandescents off the markets already exists. This new bill would allow them to stay, giving people choice and keeping them safe. Unfortunately it needed a supermajority.

Obama is glad to see it didn't pass and for some reason thinks it would be bad for the economy to have affordable safe lighting.

The Obama administration issued a statement announcing its opposition to the repeal, saying it would "result in negative economic consequences for U.S. consumers and the economy."

I do think the title is misleading, but it was the original title used in the source so I kept it. I would have preferred something like "House Turns out the Lights on Anti-Bulb Ban Efforts."

reply to post by 46ACE


There was some effort in a couple of states, I think South Carolina and Texas, to pass legislation to allow incandescent bulbs produced in state to be sold in state despite the 2007 energy bill. I don't know if they passed or how they would hold up in court against the fed.

I would be more than happy to take a long weekend vacation to either to do a little light bulb shopping.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by Wolf321

Anyone else stockpiling incandescent bulbs?

Me! I won't allow mercury in my house! I'll make candles and do LED bulbs before I allow one stinking flourescent bulb to cross my threshold

Ive stockpiled enough light bulbs to last till I die.

And I'm pissed because I wouldn't have had to do this, but the sociopaths in government made me.

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by Wolf321

 

Uhm…
Why are you stockpiling anything, the bill didn’t pass:

233 members voted yes and 193 cast nay votes. But the House required a supermajority to approve this particular package. In this case, it would have needed 285 yea votes to pass.

Hence the title of “House Turns Out the Lights on Bulb Ban”.

lucky for america bad for us canadians our idiots passed the CFLs until 2014 there claim now is that people aren't ready for it.

Those F tards in Washington are going to KILL the art and retail market.

Art looks like # under CFL bulbs,
Why should they care if I choose to use a more expensive light source for critical applications.

On The Bright Side

I personally use CFLs and have been for almost a decade. I'm quite fond of them and prefer them for almost every use (I don't recommend replacing your oven light with one, for example).

But I think legislation forcing their use is terribly misguided, will benefit CFL manufacturers more than anyone else, and am sorry to see the repeal effort fail.

I chose CFLs because I like saving truly stupendous amounts of money while being able to light my house more efficiently. I'm not thrilled about the potential environmental impacts, but consider them a tradeoff against the environmental impacts of using more electricity.

Ironically, for all the concerns about mercury, the extra electricity required by several incandescent bulbs compared to one CFL over its multi-year lifespan might well lead to even more mercury (in the case of coal-powered plants) or other pollutants finding their way into the environment. That said, if convenient means for disposing of them aren't provided, rather than being expected to drive ten miles to drop off a used CFL at a hazardous waste receiving center, I think mandatory CFLs could well become an ecological disaster in themselves.

There are always tradeoffs with any technology, but they must be sensibly managed, and the government track record for sensible management isn't very encouraging.

Government does have a vital role to play in many things, but this seems too overreaching. A much better and more American approach would be to allow Americans and free markets to make the decision on their own.

Too bad so many in Congress don't see it that way.

reply to post by Wolf321


Sorry, I guess you're correct.
They wrote that piece about as clear as mud.

reply to post by Majic


I think it wouldn't be long before LED technology is the most economical and surpasses CFL's in quality. There are already a few coming out that has light almost identical to incandescent, but with a lower power consumption than CFL's and a considerably longer life.

I guess that is the silver lining: CFL's may have a shorter market lifespan and get pushed aside in favor of LED's.

At best, CFL's have a 5 year life. I personally have not been able to get that out of them, and typically have one in a pack of three not functioning from the start or lasting only a few months.

No matter what, government shouldn't be making that decision for the consumer. But really, this is such a small matter when you see how the government has and is screwing over the American people and humanity. It is a perfect example of why we are doomed.