By now, most of us know that the Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed a measure last week to block the ban on ordinary incandescent light bulbs that’s scheduled to begin next year. Odd that a common, inexpensive household item could start a white hot political war, but tea did that once, and last week’s vote has become a symbol of American freedom of choice — and a big election-year issue.
Last month, presidential candidate Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., told the Southern Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans that “President Bachmann will allow you to buy any light bulb you want.”
The anti-ban measure that passed wasn’t Texas Republican Rep. Joe Barton’s Better Use of Light Bulbs Act that Bachmann co-sponsored. It failed, even with a clear majority (233-193), because it couldn’t muster the two-thirds majority required under special rules.
What passed last Friday morning was Texas Republican Rep. Michael Burgess’ amendment to the Energy and Water Appropriations bill. It blocks money to enforce the federal light bulb standards mandated in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.
A Time magazine blog immediately began calling Republicans stupid for fighting energy efficiency, and trotted out a number of claims that suggest the author may never have read all 310 pages of that 2007 law.
Time magazine claims about that law: “It does not — as conservatives have argued again and again — ban incandescent bulbs.” Then I wonder what Section 331 of that law meant by providing a “backstop” to any fumbled rulemaking by ordering that “the Secretary [of Energy] shall prohibit the sale of any general service lamp that does not meet a minimum efficacy standard of 45 lumens per watt.” Ordinary 100-watt incandescent lamps don’t meet that standard. Then, too, “prohibit the sale” sounds like a ban to me.
Time claims: “Philips and other manufacturers are already making more efficient incandescent bulbs.” That’s short of an outright lie but it’s way beyond hogwash. What Philips is making is halogen lamps, which are incandescent alright, but complex electronic circuit devices about as close to an ordinary incandescent lamp as a third-degree burn, which you can efficiently obtain from a halogen lamp.
Philips’ 36-page “product information” manual, shows on page 23 that their “Clickline” halogen lamp operates at temperatures as high as 480 degrees Fahrenheit (on the contacts), and 1,650 degrees F. (on the bulb). All aren’t that hot, but not by much. By the way, aluminum melts at 1,220.58 degrees Fahrenheit.
Other highly efficient lamps: the CFL (compact fluorescent light) contains toxic mercury. If you mention that to an energy conservation advocate, you get many answers, all adding up to “yeah, but. …” You can dispose of CFLs safely, and if they break in your bedroom it’s not really too dangerous — yeah but, yeah but, yeah but.
Cost is the ultimate “yeah but.” These new energy efficient lamps are expensive. Yeah but they last longer so they cost less in the long run. Tell that to the unemployed, the working poor, or disadvantaged minorities and you get back, “Hey, in the long run, we’ll all be dead. It’s gonna cost me ten missed lunches to replace a lousy light bulb.”
At root, the light bulb war is not about energy conservation, but about freedom of choice versus the ideological demand to force less energy production and less energy use — until America’s power flatlines.
Energy conservation is the polite version of eco-lawyer Christopher Manes’ 1990 book, “Green Rage: Radical Environmentalism and the Unmaking of Civilization.”
Big Green’s dim bulbs hope you won’t realize that conservation doesn’t light the lights.
Examiner Columnist Ron Arnold is executive vice president of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise.
