GOP Votes To Defund EPA On Light Bulb Enforcement

Funny how this news was lost in the shuffle Friday, and I had to go to a British newspaper to find out

Republicans claimed to have struck a blow for freedom on Friday when the House of Representatives voted to strip all funding from government programmes promoting energy-saving lightbulbs.

The measure, brought as an amendment to an energy spending bill by the Texas Republican Michael Burgess, bars the federal government from using any funds to enforce improved lighting efficiency standards.

In his remarks, Burgess cast the conservation of the old-fashioned 100 watt lightbulb as a burning issue of personal freedom.

“The federal government has no right to tell me or any other citizen what type of lightbulb to use at home. It is our right to choose,” he told the House.

Obama and Senate Democrats have already stated that they prefer to come down on the side of Big Government and reduced freedoms, and will not support the measure.

The Guardian also attempts to turn this into some sort of sop to the TEA Party, rather than Republicans simply standing up for consumer choice. But, remember, for the Left, choice is only good when it comes to giving women the power to abort babies.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

13 Responses to “GOP Votes To Defund EPA On Light Bulb Enforcement”

  1. Black Flag says:

    This is weak. The Republicans should have given us our lightbulbs back. They couldn’t even do that. So we’re stuck settling for this little scrap which we haven’t even won yet and then being told how we’re winning our freedom. This bunch of Republicans are the worst, weakest, do-nothing bunch I have ever seen.

  2. captainfish says:

    I agree. This is nothing. The EPA never got money FOR the enforcement of this anyway. They will just write a rule or regulation that bans the import and ownership of ye’ olde standard bulb. THus, ICE, Border Patrol, ATF, will be doing the enforcement.

    Doesn’t mean anything to stop “money” from enforcement when its just a paper banning the bulb.

    Give us our freedom by letting us choose between various types of bulbs.

    Know what is odd?? They did not outlaw ALL the bad evil old bulb. THey did not outlaw the natural gas yard lights. They did not outlaw the old oil burning lamps. They did not outlaw city lamps when no one is present. They did not outlaw the yard citronella candles. Heck, they didn’t even outlaw all candles.

    Nor did they outlaw the direct burning of CARBON – when people throw incredibly flammable hydrocarbons onto compressed carbon bricquettes in order to cook some heavily carbon-based food.

  3. gitarcarver says:

    This is one of those talking points things that make great controversy but add little light to the fire.

    First, incandescent light bulbs were never banned to begin with. What was mandated was that incandescent light bulbs became more energy efficient. Because of the formula used to calculate the efficiency, 100 watt traditional bulbs would have been the first to go as the energy use standards (like CAFE standards for cars) would be increasing as time went by.

    As it turns out, companies have developed a more efficient incandescent bulb, one that meets the energy standards.

    So you can still get incandescent bulbs.

    Last week the House tried to repeal the whole energy standard for bulbs. They failed to do so because the vote was mostly on political lines as they could not achieve the 2/3 majority needed to repeal the energy standards.

    So now they are going another way.

    Will it work? Nope.

    Is it a ploy? Yep.

    Will is pander to the informed? Yep.

    Defunding the EPA (and that who is charged with administrating the law) may or may not do anything. Is a law still in effect if no one enforces it?

    What needs to be addressed is that the bill – the original bill passed and then signed by George Bush – never should have been passed in the first place. The fixes don’t matter. We shouldn’t be discussing this as the law never should have made out of the gate to begin with.

  4. gitarcarver says:

    errr… that should be “Will it pander to the un-informed?”

    PIMF.

    Sorry!

  5. Otis P. Driftwood says:

    I can’t find the link, but I read a story this morning that says this so-called defunding is only for one year anyway.

  6. captainfish says:

    Agreed GC, but that is just being ticky-tacky. If Congress outlaws the combination of oil and potatoes in any form due to health reasons, then they effectively outlaw potato chips and french fries and hashbrowns, etc.

    What’s the difference. Their intent was the same no matter what words they used.

    Here’s a bit more lunacy from that 2007 bill:

    Revised standards for appliances and lighting.
    * Requires roughly 25 percent greater efficiency for light bulbs, phased in from 2012 through 2014. This effectively bans the sale of most current incandescent light bulbs.
    * Various specialty bulbs, including appliance bulbs, “rough service” bulbs, colored lights, plant lights, and 3-way bulbs, are exempt from these requirements as well as light bulbs currently less than 40 watts or more than 150 watts.
    * Requires roughly 200 percent greater efficiency for light bulbs, or similar energy savings, by 2020.

    So, if incandescent bulbs are bad, then why not ban them all? why just the ones between 150 and 40 watts? Or 3-ways?

    This 2007 law is bad and insane. But then, most of what Congress does is.

  7. gitarcarver says:

    So, if incandescent bulbs are bad, then why not ban them all? why just the ones between 150 and 40 watts? Or 3-ways?

    I am not sure I follow your argument Cap’n. You use the analogy that of potatoes and oil to conclude that an outright ban on potatoes and oil is bad. Then you seem to disagree with a law that had exceptions for lights that are low use per household or lights that actually do save energy.

    I am against the ban, and think that the incandescent bulb in the newer form will become the standard bulb in most homes. The lifespan will be the same if not greater. With CFL’s having lifespan and disposal issues, the other alternative is LED bulbs. The cost is prohibitive in many cases and there is also the issue that the LED bulbs are not made in all base types.

    The light part of an LED bulb is cheap to make. The costs for “light making” part of a LED bulb and an incandescent are not that different. The problem is the power. LED’s can only run on DC current which requires a transformer or phase shifter while the current incandescent bulbs can run directly off of AC current.

    I suspect that what we are going to see down the road is not only a change in light bulbs, but a change in lamps to where the lamp has the transformer and the replacement bulb is therefore MUCH cheaper. But that is speculation.

    This whole thing is just another case where if the government had stayed out of the market, it would have worked itself out.

  8. captainfish says:

    I was just coming up with a similarity. You highlighted how that 2007 bill never really banned the old bulbs. I was saying while true, it accomplished the outcome they wanted. I suggested that a similar move would be banning the combination of oil and potatoes WHEN IN FACT Congress wanted to get rid of french fries (over Michelle’s dead body of course).

    Congress’ intent was to ban the old bulbs. Just like the CAFE standards are to eradicate large vehicles. They just can’t come right out and ban them so they institute “efficiency standards”. Yet, with today’s congress and mandates, I am just waiting till they mandate everyone drive a General Motor’s Volt. Dual purpose of getting rid of personal automotive choice and funding the government due to loss of gasoline taxes.

    And yes, I disagree with a law that has exceptions such as this 2007 law does. Why single out a certain wattage of bulbs? What’s the point? That’s like banning side-by-side refrig-freezers when companies are still making top-bottom fridge-freezers. The lower and higher watt bulbs will NOT be banned (through efficiency standards). It does not make sense.

    If it was Congress’ point that these bulbs are deadly to our environment and our electrical grid, then make the rules to eliminate them all? But, they know they are not.

    I feel the same with cigs. If they are so bad that there can’t be advertising, that they must pay for health care for kids, that they must have special taxation, then BAN THEM.

    This is all about control. Loss of choice. Taxation.

    And I do agree with you. I do believe the market will move toward LEDs. Why? Cause its a free choice and the market knows that the LEDs are better. And the CFLs SUCK!!

    Quote:
    Light bulb manufacturers also hoped a single national standard would prevent the enactment of conflicting bans and efficiency standards by state governments.
    But, they didn’t do that did they? They didn’t enact a standard like … BluRay. They screwed it up further. They just called for a 200% more efficient bulb. WHA?!?! EH?!?!? How does one get 200% more efficient?

    If something is 100% efficient, then there is no heat and all energy is turned in to light. If its 200% efficient…… does it then produce energy!?!?

  9. gitarcarver says:

    The problem with the analogy is that Congress is not trying to get rid of the old light bulbs. They are trying to get rid of the inefficient bulbs. That is why they are not banning incandescent bulbs – even 100 watters – but only banning bulbs that do not meet a certain energy standard. You can still have incandescent bulbs and there are new ones coming onto the market that meet the energy standard. Congress wasn’t banning bulbs by type, but by efficiency.

    If it was Congress’ point that these bulbs are deadly to our environment and our electrical grid, then make the rules to eliminate them all? But, they know they are not.

    You are making the assumption that all incandescent bulbs have the same energy efficiency. They do not.

    They didn’t enact a standard like … BluRay.

    BluRay is not a government standard. It is an industry standard. 🙂

    They just called for a 200% more efficient bulb. WHA?!?! EH?!?!? How does one get 200% more efficient?

    Okay… the purpose of a light bulb is to put out light. I think we can agree with that. An old style 60 watt incandescent bulb will put put about 750-800 lumen. Now if you have a bulb that puts out the same 750 – 800 lumen, but only uses 1/3 of the power, (or less than 20 watts) it is 200% more efficient than the old style incandescent bulb.

  10. captainfish says:

    Quote:
    but only uses 1/3 of the power
    Oh, I know. I just like pointing out that it is a ridiculous thing to put in to law. Free market forces decide. Which is cheaper and easier to produce and sell? A bulb that produces light like we want made in USA, or a bulb with intricate electronics and rare earth metals that only China’s slave labor can make while still costing 500% more?

    As for the bulb CAFE and not banning bulbs? potato tomato. I sense you believe good intentions in their actions. Socialists have no good intentions. They are tricky, slippery, and conniving. I also see no good in the CAFE standards that are mandated. If I want to buy and drive a 4 ton truck that gets 10 gallons to the mile, its no business of Congress if a automaker decides to build one for me.

    You see, while you promote the efficiency of government intervention, I promote free choice in inefficiency. If I choose to heat my home with one lightbulb during the depths of winter, that should be my and the bulb maker’s choice.

  11. gitarcarver says:

    . I sense you believe good intentions in their actions.

    Not at all.

    I just dislike it when people misrepresent the law and try to present it as something it is not.

    To me, that is as “tricky, slippery, and conniving” as those who passed the law to begin with.

  12. captainfish says:

    Well, I understand. But, I see the intent of their actions and don’t rely on their words. Socialists lie constantly. They say and write one thing but intend and do another.

    At least we both agree that the law is bad.

Bad Behavior has blocked 9608 access attempts in the last 7 days.