June 8, 2011

"In classic doublespeak, the Department of Energy explains that outlawing incandescent bulbs will 'empower consumers with lighting choices.'"

"Unless your choice is to buy the light bulb the government doesn't like. If Republicans can't understand the appeal of sparing Americans from the light bulb police, what are they good for?"

Let me attest to my hatred of fluorescent light by saying that this was the article that caused me — after all these years — to click through and subscribe to the Wall Street Journal.

And, here: Buy some 100-watt bulbs. You have until the end of the year to build up your lifetime stock of 100-watt bulbs. Unless Congress votes for the "Bulb Act" and repeals the loathsome law George W. Bush "signed in one of his all-too typical late-term decisions."
The ban passed at the height of the global warming fad-scare when all proper thinkers were supposed to sacrifice to the anticarbon gods.
Is the fad-scare over?!

You know if you put the argument for repeal like that, it's going to intimidate politicians who are still afraid of being labeled AGW deniers.

97 comments:

Mark O said...

Land of the Not-So Free and home of the Not-So Brave.

Someone's friends are making money on this. Who are they?

Phil 3:14 said...

And if you choose incandescent bulbs...well

edutcher said...

This should be a no-brainer, even for the Demos. They'll have to choose between making kissy-face with the enviro-nuts that still believe in The Goddess or please a few real votes.

Mark O said...

Land of the Not-So Free and home of the Not-So Brave.

Someone's friends are making money on this. Who are they?


You really have to ask?

Scott M said...

Is the fad-scare over?!

The agenda certainly isn't dead, but I think you could sum it up by saying the political strength to do anything about it has certainly ebbed.

What year do we get to ManBearBig's melted poles prediction?

Phil 3:14 said...

PS I would have liked to have read the entire WSJ piece but I had to register

(and I didn't get an invite to the "back room")

Scott M said...

We need someone with l33t photoshopping skilz to do a mock up of the Elian Gonzalez/stormtrooper closet pick, substituting a giant 100W incandescent for Elian.

Revenant said...

One of California's countless misguided "environmental" laws mandated dimmer switches for my house. Regular CFLs don't even work in them.

Marshal said...

It's bad government day. The Department of Education has a doozy.

showbiz111 said...

Truly this was one of Bush's Royal Rovian mistakes of his second term, up there with his shamnesty proposal.
The US public will be paying for this assault on their liberty for a long time to come.

Original Mike said...

"You have until the end of the year to build up your lifetime stock of 100-watt bulbs."

Don't low-ball it. You can always pass them onto your heirs.

Hagar said...

None of the whatchemacallit bulbs I have seen will fit in my living room lamps.

I put one with "mellow" color in my utility room 3 months ago, and it burned out yesterday.
And I just put it in the trash; I did not take it to a haz-mat disposal center.

WV: noodshle - what DoE uses for brains.

TMink said...

The real problem are the choice deniers! They want to dictate what lightbulbs we use, what oils theatres can use to cook our popcorn, how much water we can use to flush our crap, what ingredients we can use to make our pie crusts!

Fight the freedom limiters!

Trey

Hagar said...

and it's a good thing the CFL burned out. I really hated that "mellow" color!

Shouting Thomas said...

Whenever the word "empower" is used, you know that the speaker is flinging bullshit.

DADvocate said...

I'm from the government and I'm here to save/help you.

Original Mike said...

Stockpiling is a problem for me (though I have started doing it). We have a small house, and they take up a lot of closet space.

Guess they want me to buy a bigger house.

Shanna said...

The Department of Education has a doozy

And if you don't use your "lighting choices" to choose the double plus good CFL's they will send the SWAT team to your house. Freedom!

Roger J. said...

We get the government we vote for--the only thing more foolish than the government are the voters that voted them in. As Pogo would say: we have met the enemy and he is us

E.M. Davis said...

I've got a CFC burned out in my laundry room. It lasted less than a year.

Haven't changed it yet because I don't know what to do with it.

john said...

Roger J. -

You probably voted for Bush.
Twice.



(As did I.)

Rick Caird said...

TMink hits on it. The only choice the left wants to allow us is a choice on abortion. Other than that, all choice is off the table.

Hmmm, my captcha is "trifuc". I wonder if that refers to 3 way incandescent bulbs.

Maguro said...

Go ahead and buy the bulbs. You know Al Gore already has a stash somewhere in the bowels of his oceanfront mansion.

Fred4Pres said...

The environmentally friendly bulbs they are ramming us with are not environmentally friendly. They are toxic and the benefits do not outweigh the impacts and costs. The DOE is idiotic. Bush was idiotic for signing this monstrosity. Congress was idoitic for doing the bill. And we should push for congressional reversal of the ban.

Scott M said...

Haven't changed it yet because I don't know what to do with it.

1) Unscrew it from the socket.

2) Crush in a small, open-top container. Inhale deeply.

3) Poor out container into a sieve, making sure to capture all the mercury.

4) Drink the mercury.

Shouting Thomas said...

And to answer the question:

Republicans aren't worth a damned dime more than Democrats.

Fucking Republicans won't really fight illegal immigration or oppose race/sex quota systems.

So, they're pretty damned useless.

mccullough said...

They can take away our incandescent bulbs, but they can't take away our Freedom!

T J Sawyer said...

To appreciate this ban, you have to actually read it.

In their wisdom, the lawmakers decided to recognize the need for continued sale of 100 watt "shop lights." These are the ones that don't die when you bang them around a bit.

Well, there's an exception you could drive a truck of bulb through. Congress' solution? They ban the sale of ruggedized bulbs in any type of multi-pack!

And remember, this is just a small part of an 822 page bill!

Fred4Pres said...

Bush had serious problems but the Dems are behind this mess. Al Gore and John Kerry would have been all for it. I do not regret voting for Bush given the choices. Not one bit.

Pogo said...

So people whose medical conditions worsen under fluorescent lights (migraines, lupus, Rheumatoid arthritis) can just suck it up.

rhhardin said...

I unsubscribed to the WSJ after 20 years when they decided to appeal to women.

Freeman Hunt said...

I love the WSJ. Money well spent.

garage mahal said...

Let me attest to my hatred of fluorescent light by saying that this was the article that caused me — after all these years — to click through and subscribe to the Wall Street Journal.

I think you've been mislead, and the WSJ should correct. At least according to this:

Joseph Higbee, a spokesman for the electrical manufacturers association, offered his take on the situation: "Unfortunately people do not yet understand this lighting transition, and mistakenly think they won't be able to buy incandescent light bulbs. This misinformation has been promoted by a number of media outlets. Incandescent light bulbs are not being banned, and the new federal energy-efficiency standards for light bulbs do not mandate the use of CFLs. My hope is that the media can help the American people understand the energy-efficient lighting options available, as opposed to furthering misconceptions."

Link

Bill said...

As someone peripherally associated with the lighting industry, this is especially frustrating. Compact fluorescent bulbs were doing fine easing their way into the market naturally and manufacturers were gradually working the kinks out. People who wanted them, bought them. I use them in several spots around the house and I'm perfectly satisfied with them. If/when I have to put them everywhere, I don't know what I'll do. Candles, maybe.

The regulations surrounding the whole industry are onerous and convoluted. Combined with this idiotic law, they have served to do only two things: retard natural market forces and piss off anyone who's paying attention.

I think this could actually be a big issue in the 2012 election.

G Joubert said...

Pssst, being labeled an AGW denier goes down on the resume as a positive attribute

Joseph said...

I'm hoarding my share of the bulbs. :)

South Carolina intends to bypass the ban by producing bulbs for sale and use only within its borders. The Feds can't stop them, but I'm sure they will certainly try.

traditionalguy said...

The mother of all idiocy that forbids all efficient light bulbs in order to pander to Mythological Climate God Religion reveals how much the Government loves us. Its Nurse Ratchet approach to controlling Americans deserves the chant of "shame, shame, shame" at every politician who tacitly accepts it.

Curious George said...

http://tinyurl.com/ylmhqvj

rhhardin said...

The hubbub has been deeply irritating to light bulb manufacturers and retailers, which have been explaining the law, over and over again, to whomever will listen.

You can't trust an article that gets whom wrong.

Curious George said...

Garage Mahal: "Incandescent light bulbs are not being banned, and the new federal energy-efficiency standards for light bulbs do not mandate the use of CFLs."

Carefully phrased, but the standards factually preclude incandescents. It's like saying a 50MPG standard does not ban the manufacture of SUV's...

Original Mike said...

"I love the WSJ. Money well spent."

I agree. Though the appearance of ads on the front page sucks.

Original Mike said...

"It's like saying a 50MPG standard does not ban the manufacture of SUV's..."

Or, "ObamaCare does not ban HSAs".

Peano said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
t-man said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Scott M said...

ObamaCare does not ban HSAs

Indeed.

t-man said...

Garage -

More classic doublespeak.

It is technically true that the legislation does not directly ban the sale of incandescent light bulb. But it does so indirectly by requiring all bulbs sold to meet energy efficiency standards that current incandescent bulbs cannot meet.

That is why the WSJ article says "Washington will effectively ban the sale of conventional 100 watt incandescent light bulbs."

So, people aren't misunderstanding the actual effect of the law, just the indirect mechanism which results in the de facto ban of the sale of incadescent bulbs

andinista said...

The incandescent ban was a result of Bush's no-veto timidity: the Congress can do whatever it wants, as long as it let's me do whatever I want.

And tovarischeva, discussing your personal dislikes is anti-progressive. You support and help elect wise progressive people who deliberate carefully and determine what is best for all of us. Reactionary grumbling is "unhelpful". Your liberties we can no longer afford. Let this be a gentle reminder. If it continues, re-education has to be considered.

Original Mike said...

Don't bother, t-man. Garage has proven himself to be incapable of understanding such subtleties.

edutcher said...

showbiz111 said...

Truly this was one of Bush's Royal Rovian mistakes of his second term, up there with his shamnesty proposal.

The US public will be paying for this assault on their liberty for a long time to come.


I would tend to agree. Putting Rove in that position was like Reagan letting Baker and Regan switch jobs.

Curious George said...

Green jobs....IN CHINA!

Light bulb factory closes; End of era for U.S. means more jobs overseas

http://tinyurl.com/3ah8dvs

Miriam said...

If in the environmentalists' nirvana, New Zealand, the Conservative government can overturn a ban on incandescent bulbs, surely the Republicans can in the U.S.

Peano said...

You can read the article without subscribing.

1. Copy the headline
2. Paste it in Google
3. Click the first WSJ link that appears

You'll have the full article, and it's perfectly legitimate.

Chuck66 said...

I really don't mind the new bulbs, but I resent the goverment telling me that I can't buy Thomas Edison's invention. I use new bulbs for lights that are on a lot, the traditional bulbs for other uses.

I rarely have to change a bulb. My supply of legacy bulbs should last me a decade or more. Maybe longer.

Chuck66 said...

It's like the proposed law that forces unionzation, and they call it "employees free choice act" or something to that affect.

garage mahal said...

That is why the WSJ article says "Washington will effectively ban the sale of conventional 100 watt incandescent light bulbs."

The WSJ article is wrong.

See here. Notice anything? This should demolish this argument but I doubt it will.

Pogo said...

Garage, do you even read the shit you post?

"The law does not ban incandescent bulbs, but instead sets a standard level that the typical incandescent bulb CANNOT CURRENTLY MEET.

It.
Effectively.
Bans.
Incandescents.

Out in Liberal Cloud Cuckooland, there will be incandescents.


Italics and caps mine, of course.

X said...

The law does not ban incandescent bulbs, but instead sets a standard level that the typical incandescent bulb cannot currently meet. This is an important distinction, as several lighting manufacturers are seeking to develop cost-competitive, long-lasting, efficient incandescent bulbs that meet the most stringent standards imposed by EISA.

from your link garage. apparently they just need to invent incadescents that meet the standards. Washington can't be responsible for every uninvented product in America.

Calypso Facto said...

Thanks for effectively arguing against yourself, garage:

"general service bulbs that provide 310 to 2,600 lumens of light are initially required to be about 30% more efficient than today's typical incandescent bulbs. Based on typical incandescent efficiencies, this affects bulbs in the range of about 25 to 150 watts."

Original Mike said...

"This is an important distinction, as several lighting manufacturers are seeking to develop cost-competitive, long-lasting, efficient incandescent bulbs that meet the most stringent standards imposed by EISA."

Verb tense. Something else garage doesn't understand.

Michael said...

Garage: Your link was to projections that indicate what "should" happen under certain conditions. Did you note the number of times the word "should" was used? Did you consider what the meaning of the article would be if the prediction is incorrect?

Seeing Red said...

An article from April from Down Under, via Rantburg a couple of days ago:

Climate models go cold

...Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many thousands of them every year. The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot spot of moist air will develop over the tropics about 10 kilometres up, as the layer of moist air expands upwards into the cool dry air above. During the warming of the late 1970s, ’80s and ’90s, the weather balloons found no hot spot. None at all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves that the climate models are fundamentally flawed, that they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide.

This evidence first became clear around the mid-1990s.

At this point, official “climate science” stopped being a science. In science, empirical evidence always trumps theory, no matter how much you are in love with the theory. If theory and evidence disagree, real scientists scrap the theory. But official climate science ignored the crucial weather balloon evidence, and other subsequent evidence that backs it up, and instead clung to their carbon dioxide theory — that just happens to keep them in well-paying jobs with lavish research grants, and gives great political power to their government masters.

Seeing Red said...

Financial Post

David Evans consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modelling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. He is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees, including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering. The comments above were made to the Anti-Carbon-Tax Rally in Perth, Australia, on March 23.

Maguro said...

I think it's hilarious that garage thinks it's outrageous that the government is meddling in the beer market to benefit well-connected corporations, but just dandy that the government is meddling in the light bulb market to benefit well-connected corporations.

Seeing Red said...

Man-made warming is BUNK!


Socialism kills, free markets feed.


U want socialism?


There's your money.


Y may b able 2 have 1 or the other, but not both.

Roux said...

The Republicans could repeal this stupid law and get a lot of attaboys. What's is wrong with them?

garage mahal said...

Italics and caps mine, of course..

Of course, but it doesn't make what you said any more true. But I'll take the analysis of the link I posted over the hysterical rantings from you or the WSJ. especially when another article in the WSJ refutes it. here

Or did you have something from the incandescent bulb manufacturers themsleves stating that incandescent are dead in the water? No? Just prefer screaming from the back seat?

Original Mike said...

So, when does the "It's Against The Laws of Physics, Garage Mahal Super Bulb" hit the market?

Original Mike said...

Did Freder help you invent it?

Pogo said...

I'm convinced now.
You don't read the articles you post.

"As a result, most of today's incandescent bulbs will be phased out (some specialty bulbs are exempt) by 2014 and replaced...

Initially, consumers will find three main alternatives to incandescent bulbs on shelves...



That is, INCANDESCENTS WILL BE GONE.


Caps, bold, and italics mine.

T J Sawyer said...

Well, technically, the Feds are not banning 100 watt bulbs.

But, your 100 watt bulb produces 1500 lumens of light. And the new law says that bulbs producing 1490-2600 lumens cannot consume more than 72 watts after Jan 1, 2012. A short-term fix would be to produce a 1480 lumen bulb running at about 98 watts.

Meanwhile, the following are your exceptions to the above general rule. Like I said before, you've got to read it to believe it.


‘‘(ii) EXCLUSIONS.—The term ‘general service
incandescent lamp’ does not include the following
incandescent lamps:
‘‘(I) An appliance lamp.
‘‘(II) A black light lamp.
‘‘(III) A bug lamp.
‘‘(IV) A colored lamp.
‘‘(V) An infrared lamp.
‘‘(VI) A left-hand thread lamp.
‘‘(VII) A marine lamp.
‘‘(VIII) A marine signal service lamp.
‘‘(IX) A mine service lamp.
‘‘(X) A plant light lamp.
‘‘(XI) A reflector lamp.
‘‘(XII) A rough service lamp.
‘‘(XIII) A shatter-resistant lamp (including a
shatter-proof lamp and a shatter-protected lamp).
‘‘(XIV) A sign service lamp.
‘‘(XV) A silver bowl lamp.
‘‘(XVI) A showcase lamp.
‘‘(XVII) A 3-way incandescent lamp.
‘‘(XVIII) A traffic signal lamp.
‘‘(XIX) A vibration service lamp.
‘‘(XX) A G shape lamp (as defined in ANSI
C78.20–2003 and C79.1–2002 with a diameter of
5 inches or more.
‘‘(XXI) A T shape lamp (as defined in ANSI
C78.20–2003 and C79.1–2002) and that uses not
more than 40 watts or has a length of more than
10 inches.
‘‘(XXII) A B, BA, CA, F, G16–1/2, G–25, G30,
S, or M–14 lamp (as defined in ANSI C79.1–2002
and ANSI C78.20–2003) of 40 watts or less.’’; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(T) APPLIANCE LAMP.—The term ‘appliance lamp’
means any lamp that—
‘‘(i) is specifically designed to operate in a household
appliance, has a maximum wattage of 40 watts,
and is sold at retail, including an oven lamp, refrigerator
lamp, and vacuum cleaner lamp; and
‘‘(ii) is designated and marketed for the intended
application, with—
‘‘(I) the designation on the lamp packaging;
and
‘‘(II) marketing materials that identify the
lamp as being for appliance use.

dpoyesac said...

Anyone who's had CFLs burn out in less than a year really should get their wiring checked -- sounds like the bulbs are getting the wrong voltage.

I haven't had a CFL last less than 3 years, and some are close to 4 1/2. (I'm all for lightbulb choice, but I would choose CFLs without a moments hesitation.)

garage mahal said...

Initially, consumers will find three main alternatives to incandescent bulbs on shelves...


That is, INCANDESCENTS WILL BE GONE.


One alternative is an energy efficient incandescent! Why did you crop that out?

Initially, consumers will find three main alternatives to incandescent bulbs on shelves: halogen-incandescent, compact fluorescent (CFL) and light-emitting diodes (LED)

Original Mike said...

re: T.J.'s post: Now multiply rules like that by hundreds of thousands. That's what those of us who decry excessive regulations as a damper to the economy are talking about. Yes, we need regulations to protect our health and environment, but this is control-freak-nation.

Pogo said...

Oh yeah, the one that costs 10 times as much as a 25 cent incandescent.

Fuck the poor.
Win win!

I gather your neck hurts, whipsawing from decrying gubmint favors for breweries to lauding gubmint favors for GE.

Dunno if chiropractors will be covered under Obamacare. Yes, if they donated enough is my guess.

Maguro said...

One alternative is an energy efficient incandescent! Why did you crop that out?

Would you have a problem with Scott Walker regulating your favorite craft beer off the market, but still leaving you a choice between Miller, Coors and Budweiser? That's what's being done here.

Original Mike said...

(XV) A silver bowl lamp.

Original Mike said...

(VIII) A marine signal service lamp.

Original Mike said...

(VI) A left-hand thread lamp.

garage mahal said...

I gather your neck hurts, whipsawing from decrying gubmint favors for breweries to lauding gubmint favors for GE.

I don't agree with the law.

Pogo said...

"I don't agree with the law."

Then why the love letters?

garage mahal said...

Well, I didn't say "WALKER IS OUTLAWING BEER!!!! STOCK UP!

It's just looks gay.

Drew said...

Romney lost me when he recently came out as a Warmist. (Or at least someone who thought he needed to cater to the Warmists.) We don't need someone in office who crumbles so easily. I will cast my vote for the first candidate who tells the Warmists to burn in hell (as long as they don't emit any CO2 when doing it).


wv: loonat. Emphasis on LOON.

rhhardin said...

It used to be that you could get all the left-hand thread bulbs you wanted in the NYC subways.

What you needed was left-hand sockets.

dbp said...

dpoyesac said...

"Anyone who's had CFLs burn out in less than a year really should get their wiring checked -- sounds like the bulbs are getting the wrong voltage."

Aside from the mystery of how a wire can change the voltage of its input. I highly doubt that the electricity savings from CFLs would ever pay for the cost of replacing all of a home's wiring.

Original Mike said...

"Anyone who's had CFLs burn out in less than a year really should get their wiring checked --"

What's the voltage range they'll accept?

Pogo said...

The people can't afford the new light bulbs?

Let them eat candles!

dbp said...

Just to forestall the nitpickers out there. Yes, any wire that is not a superconductor will cause a voltage drop. If you have copper wiring that is so thin that it drops your voltage by any significant amount, you need to worry about your house burning down before you concern yourself with bulb efficiency.

Revenant said...

An article from April from Down Under, via Rantburg a couple of days ago:

The article makes the mistake of treating "the models are flawed" and "the theory is flawed" as if they were equivalent statements. They aren't.

The failure to find the "hot spot" does not constitute evidence that the theory of CO2-driven warming is wrong. It constitutes proof that the model is wrong. This tells us not to trust the model; it does not tell us not to trust the theory.

Oligonicella said...

"Is the fad-scare over?!"

Dunno. Are people still using the phrase "carbon footprint" as if it means anything?

Oligonicella said...

Revenant --

"This tells us not to trust the model; it does not tell us not to trust the theory."

In this case, the model pretty much is the theory.

JohnG said...

I wonder if there is a loophole if they are marketed as 100W electric space heaters?

Drew said...

The people can't afford the new light bulbs?

I have seen the future and it involves government subsidies so the poor can afford light bulbs.

We are so totally screwed.

Curious George said...

Drew:
"I have seen the future and it involves government subsidies so the poor can afford light bulbs.

We are so totally screwed." No need for a chrystal ball...it's already happening.

Original Mike said...

"I wonder if there is a loophole if they are marketed as 100W electric space heaters?"

Half-credit. That's the intuitive answer, but Prof. Freder Frederson has explained, on these very pages, that a Watt dissipated in a light bulb filament is not equal to a Watt dissipated in the heating element of a space heater.

Paul said...

Ann,

How about the market for 99 watt light bulbs. Care in invest in a new factory?

Original Mike said...

"Care in invest in a new factory?"

Aye, there's the rub. Ask Boeing about the risk of building a new U.S. factory at the moment.

Skipper50 said...

George Orwell, please check in with the Ministry of Truth.

Jamieson said...

We need someone with l33t photoshopping skilz to do a mock up of the Elian Gonzalez/stormtrooper closet pick, substituting a giant 100W incandescent for Elian.

http://yfrog.com/h2el95j