Stop the LED; what was good enough for Thomas Edison in 1880 is good enough for me

Save the incandescent!

So sayeth Republicans in the 112th Congress.  Because there’s nothing else going on this week.

House Republicans plan to bring to the floor next week legislation that would water down a provision in a 2007 energy law that requires light bulbs to be more energy efficient . . .

Barton’s Better Use of Light Bulbs (BULB) Act would repeal a provision in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 that requires traditional incandescent light bulbs to be 30 percent more energy efficient beginning in 2012.

This Rep. Barton, ardent creationist and perennially anti-science in all its manifestations:

. . . The first question from C-SPAN’s moderator: “What causes, in your perspective, global warming?” Barton’s reply: Well, the short answer would be God.

The House Committee no doubt was forced to act upon discovering to their horror that the 2007 law was totally part of a socialist-terrorist-loving-faggot-elite plot.

Incandescent light bulbs are gradually being replaced in many applications by other types of electric lights, such as fluorescent lamps, compact fluorescent lamps, cold cathode fluorescent lamps (CCFL), high-intensity discharge lamps, and light-emitting diodes (LEDs). These newer technologies improve the ratio of visible light to heat generation. Some jurisdictions, such as the European Union, are in the process of phasing out the use of incandescent light bulbs in favor of more energy-efficient lighting. In the United States, federal law has scheduled the most common incandescent light bulbs to be phased out by 2014, to be replaced with more energy-efficient light bulbs.[3] In Brazil, they have already been phased out (by law from 2007 until 2010)[4]. Traditional incandescent light bulbs were phased out in Australia in November 2009.[5]

13 responses to “Stop the LED; what was good enough for Thomas Edison in 1880 is good enough for me

  1. The incandescent light bulb must have exploded in his head.
    This is the reason why more serious stuff doesn’t get done in Washington, as we have nut bags like him, wasting time with stupid stuff like this.

    Like

  2. In our house, all the lights that are in the most use, bulbs have been replaced with compact flouescents and if you get the correct kelvin rating (listed as k—– on most packages) you can replicate the light quality of incandescents. That said, there are application for which no replacement is available such as the 20+ picture lights in our house. I have already started hoarding the incandescents. There has to be a reasonable solution to this prohibition. Perhaps “suggesting” 75% of lights be energy efficient or somethingsimilar. Withcredit to Charlton Heston, they will have to pry the picture lights from my cold dead hands. And don’t even get me started on the old GE Xmas lights.

    Like

  3. Assholes like Barton would’ve rejected the wheel over dragging shit around on sleds because, well that’s the way my ancestors did it.

    Like

  4. Creationist = whack-a-doo.

    Like

  5. I’m thinking we should open a saloon, train our children to be blacksmiths. It seems that the farther back the nuts take us, the happier they are.

    Musket, anyone?

    Like

  6. Any thing that works better and saves energy should be discarded….

    Like

  7. Yeah, this is dumb.

    Not all Republicans are against LEDs, though. Just the stupid ones.

    http://capwiz.com/repamerica/issues/alert/?alertid=51013516

    Like

  8. I prefer the light of an incandescent when I read. I like the newer more efficient lights in my work areas; kitchens and garages and workbenches.

    I like saving money on electricity using the better bulbs. I like the comfort of reading in peace with the more expensive old bulbs.

    The fact that we are mostly warming due to nature, almost entirely warming due to nature-like virtually ALL warming, shouldn’t change the fact that I should be able to purchase a product that I enjoy.

    Right?

    Like

  9. I’d tend to take cap and trade or a carbon tax over mandates for what kind bulbs to allow. The higher cost of energy would encourage the use of LED and CFL and such. I think the technologies are improving and will tend to push out the older less efficient lamps anyway, and why force Pino and others to buy bulbs they don’t like, at least for some applications. But given that cap and trade is likely dead for 4-8 years at least, maybe bulb requirements are the best we can do.

    Like

  10. If candles were good enough for Abraham Lincoln, they’re good enough for me.

    Like

  11. Pingback: Hidden dangers of the federal mercury mandate – Washington Times – MURDOCK: « Gds44's Blog

  12. More do gooder social engineering . Our betters in Washington have decided for us what light bulbs we can use . This is almost up there with the mandated low flow toilets that you flushed 3 times . And some ” expert ” has a study that more efficient light bulbs will save a gazillion megawatts and 20 billion barrels of oil . God save us from Liberals with good intentions . Same old BS, different day .

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s