The Coming Ban on Incandescent Light Bulbs

[shann0]

What does everyone think of this? Is anyone stocking up?
Apparently this bill was referred to committee which is essentially death. The majority of bills and resolutions never make it out of committee. I posted the link to gov track underneath the article if you want to look at it.

www.naturalnews.com/031070_incandescent_lights_2012.html

(NaturalNews) In 2007, the U.S. Congress passed the Energy Independence and Security Act which contains a subsection that bans the sale of incandescent light bulbs beginning in 2012. But the new Congress recently unveiled the Better Use of Light Bulbs Act, or H.R. 91, which would repeal this subsection and restore Americans' freedom of choice to buy the light bulbs of their choice.

The idea to ban incandescent bulbs emerged from the false notion that compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFL) are better for the environment because they use less energy. But the truth of the matter is that CFLs are loaded with toxic mercury, which upon breakage or disposal pollutes the environment via seepage into groundwater, rivers and lakes, and threatens human health.

"CFLs are so toxic because of the mercury in the glass tubing that the cleanup procedure spelled out by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is downright scary," wrote Phyllis Schlafly, founder and president of the Eagle Forum, in an editorial at WND. "The EPA warns that if we break a CFL, we must take the pieces to a recycling center and not launder 'clothing or bedding because mercury fragments in the clothing may contaminate the machine and/or pollute sewage'."

Such a scenario hardly sounds "green". And at the same time, incandescent bulbs contain no toxic chemicals at all. But none of this stopped the Bush Administration from signing the ban into effect that year.

"People don't want Congress dictating what light fixtures they can use," said Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), one of the co-authors of the new bill. "Traditional incandescent bulbs are cheap and reliable. Alternatives, including the most common replacement Compact Fluorescent Lights or CFLs, are more expensive and health hazards -- so why force them on the American people?"



Learn more: www.naturalnews.com/031070_incandescent_lights_2012.html#ixzz1PytCzLB5

www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-91

[PrisonerOfHope]

I'll get a few packages, but I don't think we're going to be here all that long.

[emortimer]

just go to LED lights...they last longer and use even less than CFL
that is my next step since the price on them seems to be coming down

[shann0]

$50 light bulbs! Unfortunately for you, the green in Green Energy is your dollars…

floppingaces.net/2011/05/25/50-light-bulbs-unfortunately-for-you-the-green-in-green-energy-is-your-dollars%E2%80%A6reader-post/

diggOne has to ask the question about Greens, do they even live on this planet they are trying to save? They often seem to be living in a completely different universe if not just a different planet.

The most recent example of this is the LED light bulb, the latest answer to Congress’s 2007 energy efficiency mandate – which was regrettably signed by George Bush. Last week a story emerged that the 100 watt LED light bulbs slated to replace 100 year old inefficient incandescent bulbs will cost upwards of $50 apiece! That’s right, $50 for a light bulb…

Fifty dollars vs. the one dollar it costs for a typical incandescent bulb. It’s a bit hefty, but then they are more efficient. The question is however, are they 50 times much more efficient? Ah, no. Two years ago Carnegie Mellon compared the energy lifecycle of LED lights vs. those of compact fluorescents as well as incandescent bulbs. (The energy lifecycle includes not only the energy a bulb will burn over the course of its life, but the energy and materials used to manufacture it in the first place.)

The numbers were unambiguous… LED lights were far more efficient. If the energy lifecycle cost of an LED is $1, the cost of producing the same amount of light from a compact fluorescent bulb would be $1.14 and a whopping $5.36 from a traditional incandescent. (Compact fluorescents are those curly bulbs that have their own significant problems.)

So it’s true that green LED light bulbs are more efficient than traditional bulbs. Five times more efficient, which makes your soul feel warm and fuzzy. Unfortunately, your wallet, not so much. That warm and fuzzy feeling of a five times more efficient bulb will cost you fifty times more money to experience.

Of course that is just the latest in a long string of Green initiatives where your wallet plays no role in the choices you are forced to make. Ethanol is perhaps the most blatant example. Not only does it make gasoline more expensive, make your car less efficient, but it turns out that it’s also damaging your engine. As a bonus, it also has the effect of increasing food prices while doing nothing for the environment. Then there’s wind and solar energy, neither of which is even remotely close to being competitive with fossil fuels. Not only are they not competitive with traditional fuels, but at the same time they are unreliable and are not exactly inconspicuous in their footprints. How about those clean energy electric cars that cost twice as much as a similar gas fueled model and go a quarter the distance without needing a recharge? Greenies are so busy basking in the adulation received for not emitting any earth destroying gases that they forget that the electricity fueling their cars comes from coal plants which are far dirtier than gasoline powered internal combustion engines. They also conveniently forget the environmental concerns created from the manufacture of all of those batteries.

As if all of this was not bad enough, Green Jobs are expensive, highly inefficient and kill off twice their numbers in regular jobs.

Greenies inhabit s universe where cost is never a factor. Why? Because they don’t have to. They don’t have to make a coherent argument for their position and give consumers the choice of acting on those rational arguments. No, instead of the rough and tumble world based on the competition of ideas and science, they simply propagate junk science as real and then harness the police powers of government to advance their agenda.

This would be bad enough if it were just about light bulbs, gasoline and CO2, but it’s not. It’s about your fundamental choice of how to live your life. In the most simple sense, forcing Americans to pay $50 for a LED – or even $25 for a CFL – rather than the $1 they could pay for a traditional light literally takes $49 out of their pockets that they can no longer spend on anything else, from buying Twinkies to donating to the Red Cross to buying a share of the latest Internet startup.

Life is about choices and it is through the experience of making choices and living with them that individuals and societies learn about the connection between actions and consequences and by implication the responsibilities that come from choices.

Liberals of course don’t have to learn about consequences or responsibilities because they know what’s best for everyone. Even when their policies fail, both on an objective measure as well as achieving their announced goals, it doesn’t matter because they never have to face the consequences. Unfortunately it’s the rest of the population who are trying to figure out how far they can go on vacation with $4.00 a gallon gasoline who end up paying for the good fortune of living on the planet liberals are trying to save. And that doesn’t even count the taxes paid so the federal government could spend billions of dollars subsidizing electric cars, ethanol, as well as the wind and solar industries…

[PrisonerOfHope]

I think the whole agenda is about getting as much money from people in any way they can - not just this, but look at Big Pharma: keep people sick, or convince them that new medications are absolutely necessary for "diseases" they invent - like if you pee "too much," you need to take a drug for it! Maybe it's because you drink a lot, and that's why you pee so much, but no....they'll never say that....you have "overactive bladder!"

[shann0]

Did you take my poll? It's kind of a neat feature.

[emortimer]

light is over rated..... when sun goes down go to sleep or sit in front of car and headlights

[shann0]

Video, Ah, so this is why the lightbulb ban...


www.ted.com/talks/harald_haas_wireless_data_from_every_light_bulb.html

[shann0]

www.express.co.uk/posts/view/265061/60-watt-bulbs-soar-in-price-as-ban-nears


LIGHT bulbs are soaring in price just days before production of conventional 60-watt bulbs ceases under an EU ban to boost the environment.

Prices of both the 60-watt bulbs and their eco-friendly alternatives have risen by up to 65 per cent and more hikes are expected to follow.

The Tory Energy spokesman in the European Parliament, Giles Chichester, accused makers of “exploiting a market opportunity”.

The EU has already banned the sale of 100-watt bulbs to make everyone use low energy compact fluorescent lamps instead. These are designed to help the EU cut greenhouse gas emissions. But from the end of this month all production of 60-watt bulbs has to stop.

Critics argue that while low energy bulbs last longer and use less electricity, they are less bright. And there is evidence that the 60-watt bulbs are rising in price just like 100-watt bulbs in 2009 before they were banned and shoppers rushed to stock up.

At the same time the price of low-energy bulbs is also increasing. One retailer has clocked up a 65 per cent increase in two years – from £1.21 to £2. Manufacturers say it reflects rising costs of raw materials


Critics argue that while low energy bulbs last longer and use less electricity, they are less bright.

[maeday5]

Hopefully, we stocked up enough on, 100w,75w and 60w incandescent bulbs, to last us a while.
Back in 2004/5 we bought the green bulbs, pricey as they were, to help bring down the cost of our electric bill. The bubs burned out within six months. We tried the "improved" bulb for frequent usage, they all burned out too...at $4.00 a pop!
Who would have thought the government would force us to use certain light-bulbs? In just a small way it demonstrates how men want to rule as, gods.

[baydoll]

I buy the cheapest brand I can get and then load up on them whenever they're available. Food Lion/Giants/Safeway/Generic whatever. And I agree with POH, I don't think we'll be here that long anyway so I'm not worried about not having any for the future. I refuse to pay more than two dollars for a pack of light bulbs. Ridiculous.

[shann0]

I've found that the cheapies burn out pretty fast, I buy the name branders on sale. That last story was from the UK, but you know that it will do the same thing here. Already incandescent bulbs are harder to find.

[baydoll]

I have this 'thing' about lights being left on in my house for no reason...grrr. So my lightbulbs last a pretty long time for me.

[baydoll]

Aug 16, 2011 11:20:19 GMT -5 shann0 said:

Already incandescent bulbs are harder to find.

Yup that's true. I've noticed that within the last year or two.

[shann0]

Oh yeah I have one of those too. My husband says "but I wasn't done in there, I was gonna go back." I tell him the lights are really easy to turn on and off. lol

[baydoll]

Oh good! I thought I was the only one with that 'thing', lol!