Turning Off the Light on the Environment

On June 12, U.S. House Republicans failed to revoke the lighting efficiency restrictions mandated by the 2007 law, The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, or HR 6. This law would phase out incandescent bulbs, and is one that Republicans themselves sponsored.

Republicans did, however, pass legislation that removes the funding needed to enforce the 2007 law. This backpedaling, now taking place in the 2012 Energy and Water Appropriations Act (which passed the House on July 15), underlines the fact that the Republican path to emasculation is through the pocket, and without benefit of anesthetic.

But is it really a victory? In the Land of the (not-so-much) Free, and the Home of the Brave (if you have money, anyway), it may be. And there is little doubt that some of the much-maligned Republicans are actually trying to do a good thing for a change; making light bulb legislation a symbol of all that is wrong with modern government – overreaching, insensitive, and essentially impractical.

Steven Chu, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy, disagrees. As he has been quick to remind, the 2007 act does not actually ban incandescent bulbs. That is, halogen incandescent bulbs will still be available, albeit at possibly unaffordable prices (who says Republicans are the only ones failing to grasp America’s current financial reality?).

Still, I’m inclined to think that Dr. Chu (a physicist and Nobel Prize winner with a pedigree from both Berkeley and Stanford) does know what’s best for me. And you. And the 311,777,805 other Americans alive on July 16, all of whom want to keep living and breathing in spite of the nation’s overwhelming carbon footprint of 6.633 million metric tons in 2009, which was a good year.

As American Thinker (unintentionally) points out, transitions – whether from whale oil to kerosene or coal to solar – require someone at the helm who is willing to look (somewhat) like a hard ass. Dr. Chu, a well-educated man who takes the long view of life on this planet, would be my first choice for that ass – pardon me, Dr. Chu, but the term is actually a compliment.

The Republican argument – that phaseout of the incandescent means a house full of mercury-laden compact fluorescent bulbs (CFLs) whose accidental demise requires a cleanup crew from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – is not only shirty, it’s whinging (thanks, Brits). Especially since most of us never do anything that’s good for ourselves, or the planet, unless and until forced to by ill health or imminent death.

I don’t know about you, but the planet is pretty sick right now. Record temps all across the Southern U.S., another Dust Bowl brewing in the Oklahoma-Four Corners area, and a pattern of record rainfall and storms from the Grain Belt to the eastern ridge of the Rockies that are too early to damage the corn and wheat crops. Maybe.

Article by Jeanne Roberts, appearing courtesy Celsias.

Have any Question or Comment?

One comment on “Turning Off the Light on the Environment


Ah yes, the old mercury argument.

How many tonnes of mercury are generated by burning the extra coal required to provide the additional power for incandescent bulbs?

And if anyone argues “well at least it’s not in the home” then they show they do not understand mercury very well. What goes up, must come down and once it is in an environment it tends not to dissipate. Living organisms store the mercury which, over time, makes it’s way up the food chain….. to us.

Personally, I’d rather have the mercury in a bulb I can send to recyclers to deal with properly rather than in my lakes and rivers!

Comments are closed for this post !!
Skip to toolbar