In his State of the Union address this past week, President Barack Obama reiterated his goal of going green.
Unfortunately, going green has become an excuse for companies to cut corners on quality and safety.
Have you ever heard of Subtitle B of Title III of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007? By the year 2014 incandescent light bulbs will no longer exist in the United States and will be replaced with new energy-saving light bulbs. Compact Fluorescent Lights are the most popular type of energy saving light bulbs. The problem with this is these new lightbulbs (in addition to poorer light quality) contain mercury. Hospitals are also warning these new light bulbs can cause epileptic attacks and migraines.
Not only is mercury poisonous, but the improper disposal of the lightbulbs negates the benefits of CFLs. Most people will probably throw the light bulbs in the trash, trash that will most likely be taken to a landfill and buried. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want mercury-contaminated soil.
Last time I checked, contaminating the soil was not part of the green initiative.
Traditionally, incandescent light bulbs have been made in the United States. But in Winchester, Va., the last major incandescent light bulb factory, which employed nearly 200 people, has closed. The process of making CFLs is labor intensive, and labor in China is comparatively much cheaper, so the jobs likely replacing those put out of work will be in China.
There are those who argue that we need to ban incandescent light bulbs for America’s energy security. However, since electricity comes almost entirely from safe domestic sources, the impact of banning the traditional bulb on energy security will be negligible. Oil and gasoline only generate about 1 percent of domestic electricity.
Energy efficiency standards already exist for vehicles, appliances and buildings, and recently introduced legislation calls on the Secretary of Energy to identify additional appliances and equipment that “have significant national energy savings potential” to be included for future performance standard mandates.
The economic theory of “creative destruction,” which was popularized by Joseph Schumpeter, is important when understanding the value innovation has on long-term economic growth. The theory says that the short- and long-term benefits of entrepreneurial activity and competition far outweigh the short-term losses caused by a new product replacing an old one.
Repealing the bulb ban would reverse what has been a long regulatory attack on the American consumer. Producers and consumers do not need government mandates and subsidies to be more energy efficient.
If being energy efficient saves consumers money or reduces costs for businesses, they do not need the government mandates or the taxpayers’ help. When the government creates specific mandates and regulations, it purposely narrows the path businesses can take. These policies distort normal market forces and encourage government dependence.
Several members of Congress are working to repeal it. Representatives Joe Barton, Michael Burgess and Marsha Blackburn introduced the Better Use of Light Bulbs Act last week, which would repeal the elimination of the incandescent bulb.
Now, if only the rest of Congress would join them in turning the lights off on this misguided idea once and for all.
A version of this article appeared in the Feb 1 issue of the Collegiate Times.
Leave a comment 24 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
You neglect to mention the cost of burning coal on the most biodiverse ecosystems in North America, the communities throughout Appalachia and across the United States who are unfairly impacted by unprecedented ashma and cancer rates, the increase of electricity prices and the overwhealming threat global climate change has on life as we know it on Earth. Changing our lightbulbs is only the low-hanging fruit to the issues we are facing and I applaud our President in reaching out to ALL Americans to pursue a clean and just future for all.
Reply to this Top
Hey Hey Hey, Stop it, Stop it, this is not your opinion article if you want to talk about about coal make your own submission to the Collegiate Times opinion section. If you want to debate the pros and cons of lightbulbs or critique the writing in the article fine but side discussions are not welcome here.
Reply to this Top
I think bryce has a valid point and puts this issue in the larger context of clean energy something this conservative newspaper knows nothing about
Top
Hey keep it up mo and you'll be well on your way to a temporary ban.
Top
Hey keep it up mo and you'll be well on your way to a temporary ban.
Top
oh no not a temporary ban... Last time I checked conservative wasn't an insult. Its just a fact this newspaper leans to the right.
Top
Get real! Manmade Global warming is a THEORY! I for one do not want the government telling me what kinds of light bulbs I can buy. Also, people are going to dispose of these bulbs in the garbage and then it will go into some landfill and leach into the soil. Nice! Now another problem created! I also understand this mercury may be a health hazard. And let's not forget that these bulbs are very labor intensive so they will cost all of us more money. Because of this they will be manufactured in China, taking away more American jobs! Way to go Obama. With this kind of leadership we will never see unemployment under 8% as promised! Hope people understand that if he gets re-elected we'll have four more years of this TURKEY! I wonder what we'll be told we can or can't buy next?? Scary!
Reply to this Top
What's even more scary is your ignorance as to what constitutes a scientific theory.
Top
Please note that Obama was not in office until 2009. Fact Check?demoted)
Top
First of all, the amounts of Hg in the bulbs is so minuscule that is won't cause health or environmental problems. And you will still be able to buy low wattage incandescent bulbs after 2014. All the government is doing is setting efficiency standards for light bulbs. Maybe they will find a way to make incandescent bulbs more efficient by then. The government sets energy efficiency standards for sorts of things like refrigerators, cars, AC, etc., so why not light bulbs as well? In the end, we'll all be saving $ while polluting less. Sounds like a win-win to me.
Reply to this Top
Hey, there's only a LITTLE bit of poison in each bulb.
Reply to this Top
Hey, there's only a LITTLE bit of poison in each bulb.
Reply to this Top
Hey, there's only a LITTLE bit of poison in each bulb.
Reply to this Top
Coal plants put 50-100 Tons of Hg into the atmosphere every year. CFLs using less electricity actually reduce Hg in the environment. If HG is your real concern, please install more CFLs... http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf
Reply to this Top
This is a really good point. I still think it's worth worrying about the Hg in CFLs though... if they break (and even if no one ever accidentally drops one on their floor they'll almost definitely still break in the garbage can), that HG is released in the form of a gas into the air of your house. I don't really know how significant that is, but it is certainly worth thinking about.
Reply to this Top
Where do you think the air from your house comes from?
I'd love to know the numbers without actually having to read anything. Then people can start screaming at each other via comments that their sources are all flawed because they come from special interest groups.
Top
Wow, just wow. Jeff, if you wish to make it in journalism, you better learn to do some research. Either that or hope for a job with Faux News. You fail to note that CFL's are not a permanent solution, only a middle step (the more permanent solution is LEDs). You fail to note the amount of mercury put into the air by burning coal to power incandescent bulbs. You fail to note the current technology of landfills (that effectively seal the landfill from surrounding soil). You also fail to note the archaic technology in incandescent bulbs (heating a filament. Seriously? You think this is the way to go???). Additionally, your writing if full of non sequitors. Stick to your topic, do basic research, and actually try to see both sides of the issue.
Reply to this Top
I thought this article was rather insightful actually, and yes he may not enter into the ENTIRE climate change debate but he has covered this one tiny little aspect rather well. Oh and btw, if these globes were truly just a stepping stone to l.e.d's then why do they need these globes at all as l.e.d's are easily available and installed. My opinion to people of your country ans the rest of the world is to question the motives of your government because they have you so scared of climate change or terrorism or whatever else they r going to force down your throats and you're giving away your hard earned liberties too easily.
Reply to this Top
I am sure some of you have been to China and if not make the trip you will get an education in what love for buying products is really doing to our planet. Listen up making CFLs uses more energy than an incandescent burns in a life time. There are no CFL factories in the USA and if you did find them CFL would be so exspensive you would not be able to buy them. There will not be a good outcome for using these bulbs and disposing of them in your trash which all Americans do.
Reply to this Top
Some of us Americans aren't as lazy and irresponible as others. It's insulting for you to use such absolutes in your writing. While discussing your writing: you fail to provide any evidence to your claim, and selectively revealing information to support your biased opinion is unprofessional.
Your subtitle B states: "Section 321 sets an energy efficiency standard for general service incandescent lamps, provides for consumer education and lamp labeling, and requires market assessments and a consumer awareness program. Section 322 sets energy efficiency standards for incandescent reflector lamps and fluorescent lamps." The CRS Report for Congress can be found here: <energy.senate.gov/public/_files/RL342941.pdf>. No where in the context of that document does it state a ban on incandescents.
Reply to this Top
Actually, I have heard of it...and--scintillating as it is--I even bothered to read it for myself. Your information is incorrect. Title III, Subtitle B, Section 321 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 does NOT ban incandescent light bulbs. It establishes improved performance standards for incandescents, provides what many consider an overly healthy list of exemptions from these improved performance standards, and sets forth benchmarks & deadlines. More journalism, less rumormongering!
Reply to this Top
I located what I had been searching for. excellent article, thanks Mimodoshichitokufu http://socialnetworkla.com/socialnetworkla/quickmedical-announces-successful-sales-and-marketing-results-for-2012.html
Reply to this Top
I would like to thank you for the efforts you've put in writing this site. I'm hoping the same high-grade site post from you in the upcoming as well. Nola http://www.gazetasng.ru/news/show/10888.html
Reply to this Top
umuqty <a href="http://www.timberlandschuhede.eu/26-womens-timberland-sandalen-stiefel/" title="Frauen Timberland Sandalen Stiefel">Frauen Timberland Sandalen Stiefel</a>
Reply to this Top