BY MATTHEW R. AUER
BLOOMINGTON, Ind. – American Citizens: Wrap your lighting fixtures in razor wire. Guard your pantries. 2012 is coming. And so are the light bulb police – to confiscate your 100-watt incandescent bulbs and ticket you for using old technology.
So goes the hysterical strain of what some are calling “the light bulb ban” – a misreading, deliberate or otherwise, of a provision in the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act.
That act requires manufacturers to cease producing conventional 100-watt incandescent bulbs after Jan. 1, 2012. On New Year’s Day, the clock also starts ticking on a 24-month phase-out of old-fashioned, lower-wattage incandescents such as conventional 60-watt bulbs.
In fact, the 2007 law does not ban incandescent bulbs. It bans manufacture of old-fashioned incandescent bulbs.
In their place, consumers can purchase energy-saving incandescents, with the familiar, fat, round heads. The new bulbs contain a halogen-filled gas capsule surrounding a tungsten wire filament.
They’re already available at the supermarket and they produce the same luminosity as the old bulbs using less electricity. The up-front cost is higher, but the bulbs’ lower energy demand generates a 100 percent payback in little more than a year. And incidentally, the 2007 law imposes no sanctions on users of old bulbs. Consumers can stockpile and use conventional bulbs until the sun itself burns out, but I don’t recommend that.
The new bulbs give off bright, warm light, save money, reduce our demand for coal-based electricity, shrink our carbon footprint and are a different technology than compact fluorescent lamps that some people complain about with such gripes as CFL light is too “cold,” there is mercury in the bulb, and so on.
The obvious advantages of energy-saving incandescent bulbs may partly explain why a recent proposed repeal of various provisions in the 2007 law failed in the House. Consumer groups and the industry association whose members produce almost all bulbs sold in the United States lobbied against the repeal effort. Manufacturers such as GE pledged years ago to produce better incandescent bulbs that demand less energy and save consumers money.
But the movement to repeal the “ban” has much more to do with politics than policy.
As Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., explained to a reporter from The Hill newspaper. “It is just another government intrusion in our lives. ... I think people are just increasingly aggravated that the government is telling us what kind of toilets we have, what kind of light bulbs we have, what kind of health insurance, so I think it is just coming to a boil outside.” Never mind that the phase-out provisions were approved by a prior president, and the 2007 law was co-sponsored by the current chairman of the Republican-led House Energy and Commerce Committee.
It’s striking that only a few years ago, Republicans in the House and the White House understood the advantages of no-cost/low-cost measures to make the U.S. more energy-efficient.
But times change and one big change since 2007 is the ascendance of advocates for liberty at any cost. Their influence is apparent in bills with titles such as “Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act.” Freedom to choose is great in the abstract and frequently also in practice. It’s not great when choices we make cause other people to suffer. It’s especially regrettable when we eschew choices that improve everyone’s wellbeing while harming no one.
The bottom-line is that the benefits of the phase-out policy far outweigh the costs. This explains why critics of the phase-out tend to focus on symbolic rather than substantive considerations.
Consider DeMint’s complaint, above. Sensible bipartisan solutions are hard to come by in Washington. Let’s not dismantle smart domestic policy from the Bush years for the sake of naysayers who, certainly in this case, are generating more heat than light.
Matthew R. Auer is dean of the Hutton Honors College and professor at the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University. Readers may write him at SPEA, 811 East 7th Street, Bloomington, Ind. 47405-7706.
NO: People don't want a low-wattage policy
BY AMY RIDENOUR
WASHINGTON – When General Electric blamed “a variety of energy regulations that establish lighting efficiency standards” for the closing of bulb factories in Virginia, Ohio and Kentucky, it ignored a critical detail: It and fellow light bulb manufacturers Phillips and Osram Sylvania had lobbied for those restrictions.
Ignore claims about global warming. The motive behind the bulb ban was money: Incandescents have a low profit margin.
Let’s shatter a few myths about today’s flickering light bulb controversy.
Myth 1: “There is no light bulb ban” – The most effective lie is one with a kernel of truth, and this example of that maxim is based on the fact that not all incandescent light bulbs are banned. Just the ones Americans buy most.
2012: Goodbye to standard 100-watt incandescents. 2013: Goodbye to standard 75-watt incandescents. 2014: Goodbye to standard 60- and 40-watt incandescents.
By 2020: Say goodbye to, among others, Halogen incandescents, such as Phillips’ EcoVantage.
These bulbs have been cited as proof there is no light bulb ban because the public will be able to buy them after Jan. 1, 2012 – but only temporarily.
Myth 2: “Alternative bulbs are better.” Alternative bulbs are different. Whether they are better depends on the consumer’s needs.
Most of the alternatives use less energy. Some a lot less. However, people prone to seizures should avoid CFLs, as their flickering can cause seizures and seniors often find it difficult to read under fluorescents, while people with lupus and other auto-immune disorders can get a severe rash from fluorescents.
LED lighting tends to have a narrow beam, requiring more lamps to light a room. LED and CFL lighting is cooler than incandescent and renders colors differently. When Europe banned incandescents, art galleries and restaurants complained. The art didn’t look right, and CFL and LED lighting isn’t romantic.
Myth 3: “Alternatives to incandescents are just as safe.” No. CFLs contain sufficient mercury for the EPA to recommend a tedious 10- to 11-step process for cleanup of broken CFLs. Consumers also are supposed to take discarded bulbs to a special disposal center rather than the household trash, but it is unlikely that most people are bothering. This places dangerous mercury in the air when the bulbs inevitably break in trash cans or garbage trucks.
LED bulbs contain lead, mercury and nickel, exposure to which increases your chances of getting cancer, kidney disease and other illnesses – although the danger is more long-term than immediate and one broken bulb shouldn’t harm you.
Myth 4: “You’ll save money.” Most alternatives use less energy, some substantially less, although the bulbs cost more up front and don’t last as long as consumers may expect. A CFL, for example, wears out sooner if it is turned on frequently, is used in freezing weather or is used with a dimmer.
LEDs have particularly expensive up-front costs now, although manufacturers say the price will come down after their main rivals have been banned for a while. They say that’s because more will be sold; others say that’s not how supply-and-demand works.
Myth 5: “The bulb ban creates jobs.” In China, sure. Seventy-five percent of CFLs are made in China.
No major CFL brand is made in America. When the last remaining U.S. plant making ordinary incandescents closed in 2010, The Washington Post blamed the bulb ban.
Ban-backers say research into LED lighting made possible by the ban creates jobs, but many of these jobs came from tens of millions in research grants paid for by taxpayers, not the ban.
Defenders of the light bulb ban claim people are better off with alternatives to incandescents, but if the public agreed, Congress wouldn’t need a ban to get us to switch.
Who knows the needs of your household better: You, or Congress?
Amy Ridenour is president of the conservative National Center for Public Policy Research (www.nationalcenter.org). Readers may write to her at NCPPR, 501 Capitol Court NE, Washington, D.C. 20002.
