• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Morning Bell: Lights Out for the Light Bulb Ban?

    Some politicians in Washington don’t think you’re all that bright. They believe that you can’t make wise decisions in your day-to-day life, so they have taken it upon themselves to impose regulations to protect you from yourself. And there’s no better example than Congress’ ban on the incandescent light bulb, which is up for repeal in the House today.

    The 2007 law is set to phase-out Thomas Edison’s brainchild bulbs in 2012 and replace them with costlier but more energy-efficient alternatives, the most popular being compact fluorescent bulbs (CFLs). Since then, the impending restrictions have become a hallmark of Nanny State overreach, provoking backlash across the country. State representatives in South Carolina went so far as to try to circumvent Congress and push for the state to produce and use incandescents solely for its own use. And just last week, U.S. Representatives Joe Barton (R–TX), Michael Burgess (R–TX) and Marsha Blackburn (R–TN) introduced a bill in Congress to put an end to the bulb ban.

    But the fact that some folks like consumer choice and prefer the soft yellow lighting of less expensive incandescents to the unnatural, office-like white light of pricey fluorescents confounds Nanny State politicians and regulators. Case in point: Secretary of Energy Steven Chu.

    Secretary Chu, who is an advocate of the ban, said of the potential repeal, “We are taking away a choice that continues to let people waste their own money.” Confused by the bureaucratic doublespeak? Reaching for your copy of Orwell’s Guide to Big Brotherisms? You should be. Chu apparently believes that government regulations that restrict choice and force decisions upon you are great things for society because they pre-select the best choice imaginable, taking the guesswork out of being a free-thinking being. And they’re saving you money, to boot!

    Chu isn’t the only one who thinks the light bulb ban is a great idea. Former Senator John Warner (R–VA) said, “We’ll be dropping backwards in America’s need to become more energy-efficient.” And then there’s Jim Presswood of the environmental activist Natural Resources Defense Council, who says, “Clearly, consumers, the economy and the environment will suffer if these standards are repealed.” The organization claims that the ban would save consumers $85 per year.

    Well, that’s not entirely true. In California, utilities spent nearly $550 million to subsidize CFLs for consumers, but they didn’t get such great results. In March, The Wall Street Journal reported that energy savings under the program were 73 percent less than expected.

    That’s not to say cutting energy consumption isn’t a great thing—it certainly is. But guess what? It’s already happening, and not because of the Nanny State. Heritage’s Nicolas Loris explains:

    When you take a look at America’s energy efficiency track record, it’s not too shabby—and it’s a result of innovation and cost reduction, not government mandates and regulations. Overall, energy consumption per real dollar of gross domestic product has dropped dramatically in the past 60 years, because we’ve innovated and become drastically more efficient in the process.

    In short, America has achieved energy savings as a result of the free market—and the free market is fueled by consumer choice, the very thing big government regulators and politicians would like to take away. Fortunately, there’s another way.

    “We should let the marketplace decide,” Barton said of the effort to repeal the light bulb ban. “We should let people decide if they want to buy a $6 light bulb or a 39 cent light bulb.” Maybe, soon enough, Congress will see the light and allow Americans to continue to have that choice.

    Quick Hits:

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    155 Responses to Morning Bell: Lights Out for the Light Bulb Ban?

    1. Mary says:

      lets not forget that CLFs contain hazardous materials.

      • loral says:

        Not only the construction materials. Deadly for women. It takes 15 minutes for the cfl bulbs to reach full intensity. Statistics prove a woman can be raped and assaulted in that length of time. In other words flipping on an incandescent bulb may stop an intruder. The cfl isn't bright enough to tell a man from a woman for the first 15 minutes

      • Loretta says:

        Right. And the disposal is not simple. You can't make me believe that everyone is not just throwing them away in the trash, instead of disposing like they are supposed to. It is not a simple procedure, and no one is going to pay attention to it. So now there's the level of harmful materials being dumped into landfills. And, I had one just start smoking and it was a horrible smell. We of course, had to leave the room till it aired out. What if that was in a child's room? Play room? Those kids would not be able to leave, or be smart enough to turn off light and open window. It's NOT a good idea for them to be in children's rooms… I just don't like them at all. Sorry.

      • Henri Kibler says:

        Mercury is very hazardous. Most of these new light bulbs don't last any longer than the old light bulb and they cost 5 times more. How are we going to protect the land from the mercury??? the people in Washington who make up these stupid laws should go back to school and take a science course. They must have slept through it in high school.
        Henri

      • Franya says:

        Mary, You are correct. According to the May 2007 article on Popular Mechanics:

        Mercury: According to the EPA, CFLs contain an average of 5 milligrams of mercury, which increases the bulb's efficiency. But that also means you can't just trash them–CFLs must be properly recycled. Visit Energy Star or Earth 911 for disposal instructions.

        Read more: The Best Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs: PM Lab Test – Popular Mechanics "

        I wonder how many of these bulbs will make their way into trash dumps, so that the entire country has contaminated trash sites? Then the liberals and environmentalists, who supported these bulbs, will cry "POLLUTION by corporations!" and EPA will step in to spend our tax dollars for a cleanup…..

      • Henry Budding says:

        Only our congress could have the audacity to ban all products containino mercury as being too hazardous and then turn around and mandate that every home in the country must have light bulbs containing mercury. How stupid can they be?

      • glenn says:

        The hazardous material is mercury, but because 50% of our electricity comes from coal that also contains mercury, the CFL over it's life will lower emissions 10 times .

      • glenn says:

        This is a horrible article. Full of misinformation. CFLs don't cost $6 compared to incandescents at 39 cents. They comment on the harmful mercury in CFLs, over the life of a CFL, 90% less mercury is emitted by coal fired electrical plants. They claim the light's color is annoying, CFLs are available in colors that match the Sun, incandescents or the cooler florescent color. They mention states are promoting the right to have a choice, those states are coal producers, that have only greedy motivations. This is the typical right wing half truth site, which has no conscience or concern for this world or it's inhabitants.

      • Temujin says:

        Another issue, which I have NEVER seen mentioned, is that fluorescent light is hazardous for people on a number of medications. My sister takes Plaquenil (a quinine compound). This is a medication for an auto-immune disease, dermatomyositis (also lupus, etc. , etc.). Fluorescent light, being very much like sunlight, will increase the symptoms for patients on these and otehr medications. Her doctor, not witch-doctor Comrade Chu, has advised her to avoid natural sunlight AND fluorescent light.

      • ThomNJ says:

        The mandated mercury-bearing CFLs don't last, don't save much energy and they don't work well in cold weather – they take forever to warm up enough to actually shed some light on things.

        Chu is a fool.

    2. Glynnda says:

      Common Sense thinking…..in Congress???? Let's hope they rescind this ridiculous piece of legislation…..boy! Talk about Big Brother!!!!

      • Ken Jarvis - Vegas says:

        Let's make RECOVERY a Team Sport.
        Which Team are YOU on?
        Things WILL get Better!!!
        or
        Doom and Gloom.

    3. Richard says:

      They are simply ugly

    4. RogCol says:

      Another GE bail out.

      • BG says:

        Give me a break…..so you like the government taking away your right to choose? No response necessary

    5. Texasgal says:

      I find it ironic that our government thinks it knows how to save us money in our personal lives but wastes tax payers money like there is no tomorrow.

      • Roger S. says:

        No real paradox: we need to save so Government (its Elites) can spend like drunken sailors on shore-leave.

        Didn't you know that judging by Government's actions the underlying philosophy is that what's yours is theirs already? — You have no rights except those granted you by Government!

        A total reversal of the plain meaning and intent of our Declaration of Independence, Preamble, and Constitution! — We are now, all of us, wards of the state …. and soon to be its slaves!

        Steven Chu has gone from being a maybe great physicist to being a political hack like most of the rest. He needs to get back to doing Physics, that is if he's still capable of it. He needs to get back to doing something he somewhat understands!

    6. David says:

      This is right on. Energy efficiency doesn't need a government mandate to tell a compelling cost-savings story to the consumer. If GE would spend the money it spends on lobbying for such mandates instead on informing the consumer about the financial benefits associated with trading incandescent bulbs with color-matched, instant-on CFL's, consumers might actually prefer them. Problem is, GE's compact fluorescent bulbs are junk, while their competitors produce color-matched, instant-on bulbs. Oh, maybe that explains why GE would rather lobby for a government mandate!

    7. AzGuy1 says:

      As adults we no longer need to have our parents, or nanny, make our decisions. When will the people in Washington D.C. ever going to realize that fact?

    8. Bigjet says:

      Warner (The useless RINO) you are done. NEXT!

    9. G. Hugh Bodell says:

      The idea of the likes of Obama, Schumer, Israel and others annointing themselves God and managing my life make me sick.

      These are people I wouldn't attend a barbecue with they are morally and intellectually vacant…and boring!

    10. Nancy says:

      The fact that the ruling class thinks we plebes are incapable of making choices regardless of what they postulate is not so surprising. Yesterday President Obama echoed Plouffe's statements that we, the great unwashed, don't look at unemployment numbers when deciding for whom to vote. Right. We don't need to look at numbers Mr. President. We ARE the unemployed! Those of us who aren't unemployed know someone who is. There is another statistic everyone ignores when speaking to unemployment figures. Those like my husband who are forced into retirement at the age of 62 even though that was not his personal plan. So, the ruling class will continue thinking they know best for all of us, which is really the height of arrogance, condescension and hubris, and we will continue fighting them. And be called racists, bigots, homophobes, etc.

      • Ken Jarvis - Vegas says:

        Murdoch and the HF are the ones that
        BLOCK THE RECOVERY.

      • Laurie says:

        You are right on, Nancy. We must call the white house, Congress and stand up against this corruption or if we remain quiet and subdued, we will end up like the Soviet Union was, slaves to the state and workers of the "Obama-type empires of the world….."world order." NExt a United Nations Tax…..so steal all your money and food lines and the money goes to the heads of U.N. and their cronies (Soros gang).

    11. Jim Delaney says:

      And if the ban isn't passed by a Congress still infested with Progeessive nitwits, then the sovereign states should simply nullify or otherwise ignore the monstrosity. If the States would but exercise their 10th Amendment constitutional rights, ALL federal overreach/insanity would be handily neutralized. I don't know why the States and We the People don't seem to "fet it". Duh.

    12. cejkn says:

      Chu is a socialist, what else do you expect from someone like that? I'll never understand why some people feel that they have to decide what's best for me. How about it's my money, so let me purchase and use what I want.

      • Ken Jarvis - Vegas says:

        I WISH OBAMA WAS A SOCIALIST
        Why? Socialist believe in Wealth Distribution – GREAT
        When Does it Start?
        and WHERE do I sign up?

    13. SiC says:

      Yes! Overturn this ridiculous light-bulb ban! How preposterous of Chu to think we are so stupid we will not see through his doublespeak: "We are taking away a choice that continues to let people waste their own money." Further, did I hear correctly that the CFLs are also hazardous to dispose?

      • Shonsaya Owen says:

        Yes, the CFLs are hazardous to dispose. More than a year ago Glenn Beck showed his audience a broken one on his show that he picked up very cautiously, not touching it with his fingers, because it contained mercury.

    14. Guest says:

      Rep Michael Burgess represents my district. I will have to remind myself to contact him and thank him. The free market ALWAYS works. And it is no surprise that we have conserved more energy with each passing year. Present the rationale as to why energy needs to be conserved, and the people will respond. When I bought my home in 95, our city already had a recycling program in place for newspapers, cans, and plastic. The city furnished us with a recycling bin, along with a calendar of when they picked up. No lectures, no arm twisting. I have been recycling for 16 years because I WANT to, because it is good for our environment. Human nature rebels at being ordered about by those "who know better".

      • Ken Jarvis - Vegas says:

        Guest – YOU should join.
        The FREE Market Ended when Bush took over the banks in CA.

    15. toledofan says:

      It's about time that the Republicans stand up and do what is right, force the issue and let the chips fall where they may. The entire philosophy of the left is to force everybody to do their bidding no matter the cost or outcome. It's always do as I say but not as I do. So, we can eat certain healthy foods, use only friendly lightbulbs; ones that will require a hazmat team for disposal, we have to have government mandated health care, we should be paying more in taxes, and the President said now we have to eat our peas and suffer a little more, pull off our bandaids, because of their inexperience, arrognace and the inability to do anything positive to fix their mistakes. You're absolutely correct, let the market place decide.

    16. PSF says:

      Repeal! Repeal! And check Consumer Reports' latest issue…new "energy efficient"bulbs reportedly causing fires.
      Check it out…

    17. guest says:

      You failed to also mention the disposal of these fluorescents and the associated costs. As I understand it, these bulbs contain mercury, the scourge of the earth. I notice on the packaging the we cannot just throw these bulbs away, but need to take themn to a designated disposal area….who inturn must have to dispose of them in an environmentally safe way. Has any one taken into account that cost? I doubt it. And I would suspect it will far exceed any savings on energy consumption.

      • guest says:

        You are right. Then the new taxes for clean-up and disposal not to mention the mandated treatment of your home if you break one there.

      • lippydog says:

        I remember reading an article about 2 yrs ago of a young mother who had bought cfl bulbs to save money and the environment….you know, doing her "duty". One of them broke when she was screwing it into the socket. So like a good little saver-of-the-world she read the instructions for cleaning it up and discovered she needed to call a hazmat company. She did. They practically wrapped the whole room in plastic wrap to keep everybody out, cleaned up the mercury, then handed her a bill for a little over $2000.

    18. Bill says:

      No one has mentioned the (very) dangerous mercury vapors that are present in the (new) little energy-saving light bulbs. I watched recently a credible TV program warning that if one of these (new) energy-saving bulbs is accidentally broken, the mercury vapors inside are so dangerous, you should evacuate the room immediately. I wonder why this has not been brought up? How many children manage to break lamp bulbs in a year? This administration is trying to act like China. Stop to wasteful spending on ridiculous projects and make America strong and free again. Businesses might start coming back!

    19. Mike the Bike says:

      Let's face it, the government loves to regulate. All those elected politicians as well as that vast army of bureaucrats think that they were put in place to tell all the rest of us what to do and when to do it. I would think that we could save more electricity if we just taught our kids to turn of the lights when they leave the room. I know that when I moved into my neighborhood years ago that it was so dark at night that you coul;d trip over your own feet. And I loved it. I would take the kids out at night and show them all the starry constellations and how to navigate using the stars. Well no more. The street lights are so bright that you cannot see the stars anymore at all. And besides that there is that awful yellow Sodium color. That is what people call progress. And now we have to pay more in taxes to support the street lighting.

    20. Carolyn says:

      Thank goodness this ban on incadescents is up for appeal. I hope it is overthrown. Then I can stop my hoarding of normal, harmless, traditional light bulbs. Stay out of our business, out of our houses. We have always been a nation of "choice," and I choose to make this administration go away in 2012.

    21. @davereller says:

      Congressional Democrats think the CFLs save money and energy. Ignore the mercury in them plus the fact that if one breaks it's considered toxic waste and you need a HAZMAT team to clean it up. Give me incandescents, or give me LEDs.

    22. Jim says:

      I posted a letter to Heritage, regarding my letter regarding Sen. Sherrod Brown's (OH) reply to my "original" letter commenting on the Incandescant/CFL debacle/debate. Without trying to post all of it here, please educate yourselves, by going to YouTube, and doing a search on the hazards of CFL's. They are a fire hazard, and get very hot as they are in service, and many times not lasting nearly as long as advertised. If you are replacing one in a ceiling light fixture, be careful not to drop it, as immediately upon breaking, it releases toxic mercury vapor, which is very hazardous to pregnant women and children. Plus, who bothers to take them to a recycling center for hazardous waste? They go into the trash can and then to the landfill along with the little mercury batteries which have long since been banned. I have replaced all of mine with "Edisons" ! Check out the YouTubes,,,,,you'll maybe want to do the same ! Have a great day !

    23. Jim Uberti says:

      The ban is not going to be overturned. Dingy Harry won.t allow it. It is now more important than ever that we decide to support WHOEVER is nominated to oppose Obama!! Even if that person doesn't meet all our litmus tests.
      Obama is accumulating , or will accumulate, a billion dollars to hoodwink the voters once more. If we argue over candidates, or God forbid, create a third party nominee, we are doomed.
      Keep in mind that Obama goes into the game 'at the forty yard line" with the votes of those at the public trough. (Not to mention the deceased voters.)
      Can you imagine a second term??!!?? Chu and the other socialist czars, cabinet heads, and other appointees will run rough-shod over the Constitution and our lives will never be the same.

    24. billmva says:

      This needs to be a roll call vote. Those voting "no" should have their names published far and wide. The same thing should happen when it gets to the Senate. If Mr. Reid blocks the bill then Mr. McConnell should use a discharge petition to force a vote. Once again, those voting "no" should have their names published far and wide. If it passes I dare the president to veto it.

    25. Jill Maine says:

      It is sad to see our liberty and freedom being stripped away from us with breakneck speed. Mark Levin said last night that we are really in for it because we have so many people in our country in favor of totalitarianism. I feel so bad for the kids. They will never have the America we had.

    26. Lynda says:

      The State of Texas has the right idea on light bulbs..check it out:
      "State lawmakers have passed a bill that allows Texans to skirt federal efforts to promote more efficient light bulbs, which ultimately pushes the swirled, compact fluorescent bulbs over the 100-watt incandescent bulbs many grew up with.
      The measure, sent to Gov. Rick Perry for consideration, lets any incandescent light bulb manufactured in Texas – and sold in that state – avoid the authority of the federal government or the repeal of the 2007 energy independence act that starts phasing out some incandescent light bulbs next year."

    27. @SnoBurd says:

      Let's just throw out all the lightbulbs and go back to Pioneer days, when everyone who could afford one, used a kerosene or oil lamp. Oh, wait! Now we can't get oil, either. Well, what about coal? Nope, can't get that, either. Guess we'll go back to the stone age, before fire. OK, who wants to go dinosaur-hunting with me?

    28. Senid says:

      Not to mention all the $$ it has cost me to stock my BO armageddon box with real light bulbs.

    29. Jack D Bear says:

      Dr. Burgess is also my rep in the US House, he is pushing hard against the "gubment" train that is trying to drive citizens into a corner where they can control everything we own, do, or say. He came down hard on the obamanation health care reform and continues to do so. If not for patriots like Rep Burgess we would soon be kowtowing to government mandates. The bill forcing people to buy what they think is best for us is similar to forcing us to buy health insurance on their terms…both clear violations of the US Constitution, do you remember what THAT is from 7th grade class you morons?

    30. Anne says:

      Have you ever dropped one of these bulbs. I had to call the fire dept and ask what to do. I had to leave the room for 15 min, open windows, wear a mask and gloves. The ironic thing is that the fire dept told me to put it in the regular trash. How environmentally friendly is that? Scientists are finding more out about these bulbs and saying that several cancer causing chemicals are released into the air surrounding these bulbs. Folks with Epilepsy, and Autism, migraine headaches are sometimes affected by these bulbs. How dare these busy body representatives micro-manage our lives. Let's just follow the money and find out who is benefiting from these bans. Anne

    31. Tom Padamonsky says:

      I can't say they last longer. Certainly not the 5 years they claim it will last. I bought 3 of them one lasted 3 months. The second lasted about 8 months and the 3rd one lasted just about a year. Also the apartment I live in has them as outside lights. None of the bulbs lasted even one year. So what's good about them except for making more hazardous pollution. Most of my regular incandescent lights have been lasting a year at least.

    32. Katherine Brown says:

      Those curlique light bulbs are ridiculous! They are about as dim as canlelight and for an older person who has trouble reading as it is, they are almost torture. Please get rid of the silly things, or at least let us have the old fashioned light bulbs which seem to last longer and are brighter.

    33. royws says:

      When the compact fluorescent bulf (CFL) was supposed to save energy did anyone ever calculate the energy required to manufacture (in the U.S.) that bulb as compared to the incondescent bulb manufactured in the U.S. and see if the savings in energy during the CFL's use did in fact save energy overall. I suspect the calculations were to difficult for congress because legislators can't think for themselves only as a group.

    34. mike says:

      what a bright idea….

    35. Barnabas C. Jessee says:

      The " compact florescent bulbs have mercury in them. So where is the fight about the environmental hazards of mercury. Is it not a hazard to the environment.?

    36. Mike says:

      Those of you bashing GE should look back to 2007 when they were developing a High Efficiency Incandescent that was slated to be 4 times more efficient than conventional incandescent and cheaper than CFLs. These HEI lamps weren't supposed to replace CFLs (as GE was also developing and selling CFLs also), but be an option for consumers (whoa free market?!). They were supposed to hit the market last year, but after the anti-incandescent legislation got rolling I'm pretty sure they canned the project. Here's the initial press release http://pressroom.geconsumerproducts.com/pr/ge/HE_

    37. Bubba says:

      I've stockpiled enough of the old bulbs to last till I die.

    38. HEDY says:

      HURRAY THE ARE SO WORTHLESS I WILL NOT HAVE THEM IN MY HOUSE

    39. Wm. Brownfield says:

      Hey! another great report form Heritage revealing the nanny state of an overseeing govt. What is next, perhaps the amount of TP we can use daily.

    40. Al from Fl says:

      Most people I know would be glad to save on energy, if for no other reason than to save money. I bought my first CFL to replace the light I was reading by. It was supposed to be the equivalent in lighting but I couldn't read by it – not bright enough. In addition, the hazard the CFL provides and what the gov't tells me I have to do to throw it out or in the case of a breakage to clean up is enough for me to forgo the pleasure of this new invention. LED lights have some appeal but not at the curent price. In any case, this is another incident of gov't trying to tell us what to do and in the process, makes the matter worse. In the environmental arena, we are long on emotional good intentions and zero on data or guidance that relates human activity to changes in the environment. So why would we take steps that lose jobs, increase energy costs and/or reduce standard of living when there isn't a shred of data to show what benefit would come from those steps?

    41. Ken Jarvis - Vegas says:

      Oh, say, can you see by the dawns
      CURLEY
      light…..

    42. D. White says:

      And where did GE and the other American manufacturers of light bulbs send the factories to make all light bulbs? China and India and the our stimulus money followed them. I have one of the new LED lights to try out. Its OK but at $30 bucks a bulb and every thing else going up in price it will be a long time before all 54 light bulbs in my home get replaced.

    43. NC Tarheel says:

      NC Tarheel
      The CFLs are being made in China. Our EPA etc will not let them be manufactured here. Too dangetruos for the environment!!!

    44. J B McCoy III says:

      My wife suffers from brain cancer and two surgeries have left her hyper sensitive to light, especially
      flourescent light. Flourescent light causes her to almost immediately suffer partial simple seizures.

      Guess the Nanny State overlooked the special needs of some of its citizens (wards).

    45. L Sue Hood says:

      We Need a citizens-people committee…They are imposing so many laws and many unconstitutional that eventually we will wake up and realize America is not free anymore…We need a committee to over -see the the laws and taxes that the politicians impose. And to appeal the unconstitutional laws and communistic laws.

    46. Alan Shaffer says:

      Your comment is great. The last 2 years of our congress prior to the election have been, "You are stupid and we are smart." The passing of this law is frivolous, but it speaks loudly. Incidentally, Sen Boxer has promoted this. Guess what? Her compatriot California US Senator's husband does a lot of business with China and guess who makes these dilly things. Why aren't you chasing that down? This is typical politicianese to make millions off the public and at the same time take their taxes to get fat raises and staffs. Gut Washington, DC and especially the EPA and we will see jobs explode across America. Texas is also taking this light bulb mandatory on by having plants make the incandecents there. I will buy from them even if I live in Missouri.

    47. Dale says:

      I had to read one sentence twice…'the ban would save consumers $85.00 per year' ?!? What?? Big whoop!! I can waste $85 a week if I want to and the difference is I CHOOSE TO WASTE IT! I have been for the last year or so, slowly buying boxes and boxes of light bulbs…the ones Mr. Edison gave us and still work just fine thank you… just so I can have some of the really good SAFE light bulbs in our home come 2012. I do so hope that our congress can see the stupidity in this of all things…light bulbs and our choice of them!! They surely have more important things to tend to don't they??!!

    48. cynthia overland says:

      The tax on tea ignited the first revolution–the "curly fry" light bulb is rapidly becoming the symbol of the new revolution. In my teaching of American history, I taught that the early Americans fought that war because they resented the fact that they were being taxed without representation. They did not have any say in the matter. Since when do our "elected representatives" have the right to pass legislation to limit our choice of consumer products? One kind of light bulb??? My god, we can still buy many kinds of cigarettes, if we can afford them, and they kill us!! Perhaps that's the idea.

    49. VC Geezer says:

      I have quite a few dimmers on my lights and CFLs do not dim. The ones labeled as "dimmable" do not dim more than 10% and below that just go off. Also several versions of CFLs do not just go out when they get old, they actually self destruct. I'm surprised Big Brother isn't forcing LED lighting onto all of us ignorant, unwashed plebes; they are the most efficient yet if you ignore the fact that they cost 100x what an equivalent incandescent lamp would cost. Like everything else, there are applications where certain types of lighting are practical or desirable and others where they are not. Having the government mandate what we can buy or not buy is Marxism. Let the free market decide, instead. In the long run, the free market will always make the best decision.

    50. HEDY says:

      HURREY THE ARE WORTHLESS NO SUCH LIGTHS IN MY HOME

    51. ALW says:

      I'm a relamp technician/student at the U of O. We are phasing out every incandescent after their lifecycle has been spent and replacing them with Compact fluorescents which ultimately does save us money. we dont do this out of a ban on incans (because incans are cheaper and more practical) we do this because our local power provider gives us credit dollars towards our next power bill. It also reduces labor costs in the long run for maintenance. Although I do believe that the freemarket should be able to choose what consumers prefer this article does not weigh out the pro's for CFLs in their entirety. To answer any questions, the amount of mercury in compact flourescents is less than in the caviar served at the nanny state dinners (fortunately).

      • Kvp says:

        Hey ALW, where do you think the money that your power provider credits you with comes from? Answer, from everyone else’s bill. Just another redistribution of wealth scam. If CFL’s had to compete head on with alternatives (including in cans) they would lose.

    52. Judith in Michigan says:

      Gee Wiz! Just when I thought I was going to reap big bucks on the incandescent light bulb black market. Perhaps I could re-open a light bulb factory here in America that was forced to close because of the Socialist /Greenies. Hmmm….

    53. Moment of Clarity says:

      just as limiting choice with light bulbs, the US gov't wants to limit choice with health care and other issues that people should decide for themselves – and just as with the light bulb, gov't should stay out of our lives and let the market decide – gov't's ONLY 2 roles in our lives should be 1) to protect us (by maintaining a strong military, by enforcing commonsense laws, and through diplomacy with other nations) and 2) to provide an infrastructure (through transportation systems, communications systems, power and water systems) and THAT IS ALL gov't should do.

    54. ReConUSMC says:

      One suspects If the mad men in Congress get away with this stealing our personal rights and choices .
      This could easily be next .
      Need we forget Most Russian entire Families live . No I'm sorry exist in 650-700 ft Apartments on average .
      Two baths on a floor of 20 apartments .One at each end .. Been there !
      Where no AC is allowed and Winter day time heat is set by the State at 64 and
      55 at night .
      Need we forget Obama is pushing for Temp. monitors to be on all homes .

    55. Cari B. says:

      I have an autistic child and until we know for sure what causes autism, I would rather not be forced to add additional sources of mercury to my home that could potentially hurt my child. I love how the environmentalists and Al Gore, march ahead without weighing the cost of their solutions. A while back, I saw a promoter of the light bulbs on the Today Show and Ann Curry asked the lady if the bulbs were dangerous for children (since they had a warning on the label) and the lady casually said, "Oh sure, but you just dispose of them like any hazardous materials" Ann said."Oh, Okay." Like that was no big deal. HELLO?

    56. Krehbiel says:

      "In short, America has achieved energy savings as a result of the free market-and the free market is fueled by consumer choice, the very thing big government regulators and politicians would like to take away."

      Right on Heritage. In order for Socialism to prevail free choice must first be eliminated.

    57. Refet Ramiz says:

      The starting point for the evaluation is interesting. But I think the congress ban, also some other laws, decisions, etc. are not enough to explane why such a protection of a person from himsels/herself should be controled by congress' ban. Because for example a person is a mobile, together with the armed (reel and imaginary) matters, and also the problems he/she faced are related with the subjects he/she involved deeply. Considering these simple points, to help a person to protect him/her from himself/herself ahoulf be considered together with two points: (i) protecting system from a person, (ii) protecting person from the system. So the related persons should evaluate this subject under these conditions. Thats all I can explane right now with written sentences. Once the whole subject here considered simultaneously, it will be more easy to realise how a person can control his/her day-to-day life, and all other life. :))
      Assist.Prof.Dr.Refet RAM?Z, Facebook: Refet Ramiz

    58. Migraine sufferer says:

      How about providing your representatives with the information regarding the exacerbating effects of CFL light bulbs on migraine sufferers? Just Google "cfl bulbs and migraines". This documentation is readily available on the internet from sources outside the US, but very little of it is reported inside by the US press.
      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/8462626/Energy-
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-50

      And whatever happened to the ideal of "recycling" to keep the planet green? The old incandescent bulbs can be ground up and recycled. The new ones have to be disposed of in an "environmentally sensitive" way….NOT. Most of them will end up in the trash, just as the old ones did, but have the potential for far more serious environmental hazard than the glass and wire bulbs of the past.

    59. Wallyblu says:

      If choise is so bad for light bulbs, why are liberals so in favor of choise for gay marrage and abortion?

      Just asking.

    60. Jon says:

      Ban the CFL's and the morons that endorsed them!

    61. dtom76 says:

      We need jobs in Michigan. i wish our state Gov't would follow SC & TX .

    62. Lauarie says:

      We must do more than hope. We need to call White House 202 456-1111 and Congress 202 224-3121.
      They are making laws to benefit their new factories in China and the Global Warming scam investments of Al Gore, George Soros and the rest of them….so they become very wealthy at our expense. They think we are ignorant children and not wise to their corruption. (thank you for closing down our wonderful American light bulk companies, Al and the rest of you crooks!).

    63. edfromtexas says:

      Republicans must stand against all forms of soft tyranny, or they are no better than the other party!

    64. Jim says:

      And don't forget at least one factory that made incandescents has closed instead of retooling for the CFLs. BYE BYE to US jobs, Hello China. We recently remodeled our house and installed 28 recessed ceiling fixtures. I thought the energy costs for incandescents would be way too high so I am using CFLs. Their energy use is lower but they sure don't last the four to seven years the advertising. I have replaced almost all of them in two years or less. When they cost three to four times more than incandescents, that is no savings. The only saving grace is that, being skeptical, I saved all of my receipts and have made a claim against the warranties on all of my burned out CFLs and have received cash, coupons or new bulbs. The companies are finding out their warranties are becoming costly so FEIT (also Bright Effects at Lowes) no longer offers one.

    65. Unsafe CFLs says:

      In addition, I've had two curly_Q CFLs overheat and smoke, soot stains on the ceiling.

      If the house burns down or mercury gets into the air as vapor… I am I really better off??

      I never had these problems with my incandescent bulbs.

    66. Mike says:

      the "energy efficient" alternative is more expensive and must be handled like hazardous waste due to the mercury in many of the bulbs. How much does the necessary "hazmat" type of handling cost compare to the energy savings…?

      I think this is more about federal control and power than saving the environment and needs to be repealed!

    67. KC - NM says:

      Get government professional politicians out of my house! I want to be free to purchase what I want. I do not need government to tell me what I must buy. Government has much more important things to do than waste our tax money on a debate about light bulbs. We need change – "yes we can" elect carring and concerned Americans in 2012.

    68. Unsafe CFLs says:

      Some CFLs were recalled (see http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine-archi…. The ones that smoked in my house were NOT of this manufacturer, so the issue must be more widespread.

    69. Jeff says:

      What can you say about the new White house Council on rural development?
      I have a friend at the USDA who has queried many of his co-horts in the government about their understanding of this renewal to exert UN sanctioned "agenda 21" which will impose yet more interest investment by the
      federal government for agriculture sustainability. It appears in the language that the intent is to expand government into rural America where the food, fiber and protein is.

      Any thoughts?

    70. JUNE says:

      THEY ARE THE LIGHT BULBS WE SHOULD BAN!!!!!!!!!!!!

    71. Jim H says:

      At the rate this administration and Congress are going I expect them to pass a law telling us when to go to bed and when to wake up next. We don't need to worry about Big Brother creeping up on us. He is here and he is watching while he tightens his grip.

    72. Lew Richards says:

      WOW!! WATT is this? another case of a liberal nanny want to run our lives, right down to the lightbulb we choose!!
      Next thing You know they will want to tell us what car to drive, what type of food to eat,what type of fuel we use, what to think and when.
      You see our Chief Nanny promoter on T.V. hourly telling us how he must spend our money, who he gives it to and why we must surrender our values to him and his Anti – Constitution , Anti – America political party!

      How many lightbulbs does it take to "screw "up a nation? Just one when your leader is against your FREEDOMS! THINK!

    73. Migraine sufferer says:

      How about providing your representatives with the information regarding the exacerbating effects of CFL light bulbs on migraine sufferers? Just Google "CFL bulbs and migraines". This documentation is readily available on the internet from sources outside the US, but very little of it is reported inside by the US press.

    74. Guest says:

      Many years ago, in taking a seminar for a vitamin sales, learned that florescent lights remove a very good vitamin from our body. With this in mind, exclusive use of this particular light would be an unhealthy aspect to our lives.

    75. Kelly says:

      I am shocked to hear that Congress is wasting its time with this issue this week. Our nation is in crisis, and this bill — and this article — are clearly designed to incite Republican rage against Democrats, and nothing more. How is this productive? Light bulbs are not a major issue. Unemployment is a major issue. Why can't we pull together, put our ideologies in perspective, and sort out our priorities?

      • Jane says:

        Light bulbs may not be a big issue – the big issue is that the government has no right to tell me what bulbs to purchase. This is another example of taking away the rights of the citizenry. This is not about partisanship it is about my right to choose any kind of light bulb for my home that I choose – not one the government has chosen for me. Your are right, our congress – and president – have other issues to deal with but I'm not sure any are more important than the taking of our freedoms…..

        • Kelly says:

          Thanks for your thoughtful reply, Jane. I deeply respect your concerns about maintaining personal freedoms and the right to choose. (I also respect lawmakers' concerns about long-term environmental sustainability, and I would be interested to hear more about both sides of the issue — though I do not think that this issue merits consideration in Congress at the present time, in light of our budget and unemployment crises). More than anything else, I'm worried that issues like these are being brought to the table now in order to distract us, and to increase divisiveness and partisanship in our country at a time when it has never been more important for us to bridge divides, work toward compromise, and band together for a better future. It's an extremely disheartening time to be an American, and I follow the news every day in the hope that compromise and collaborative rebuilding are on the horizon. Best wishes!

    76. conservative says:

      According to Forbes the last so-called "green economy" was in the 13th Century (envision Monty Python & the Holy Grail scenes). So, our wonderful liberal leadership is leading us back to that age. There is no way "green" energy sources can power a modern economy.

    77. Donald DaCosta says:

      Some already use CFLs because of their inherent energy efficiency and longer life though the latter benefit is somewhat uncertain in my view. But that decision should be a free choice not a George Orwell, "1864" big government enforced mandate. As the author of this article suggests the free market will ultimately decide and the free market has now come up with a third choice; LED bulbs. Like all technology advances newly introduced to the free market they are currently somewhat expensive but very efficient in terms of lumens/watt output, don't have the hazardous mercury content and purported lifetimes of over ten years and all this was done without Government oversight or intervention. What a miracle.

      These are currently available in stores, the price will inevitably come down and the "ignorant masses" will eventually figure out when they become cost effective. May the best technology win, as it will, in the free market.

    78. KLC says:

      If the light bulb ban continues forward then we have given in to big government lies and mandates and have rolled over without a fight. This just makes the slope more slippery for government intrusion into our lives. What makes any of us think they will stop with just mandating a light bulb. Look at Obamacare, gun control, and over the counter supplement regulation with a possible prescription only mandate (yes folks, that is what big pharma is pushing for). All of these things have happened or soon will be invading our lives. The light bulb ban should be the beacon to which we are drawn and to where we draw the line.

    79. Mr. Potter says:

      The idea that SCE and PG&E would waste half a billion dollars trying to subsidize those stupid soviet-style light bulbs is beyond idiotic. And don't forget the similarly giant waste of money on those ridiculous "smart" meters and the endless media buys just to hector the public about cutting back use. Is the price per kilowatt so subsidized by tax dollars that the relation between price and demand is distorted thereby justifying commands to cut use? All the while, our moral betters in the government and NGO classes are trying to shove electric vehicles down our collective throats. Query – were we to wholesale adopt electric klown kars as our new mode of transportation, where is all that additional generating infrastructure going to come from? It's not as if the utilities out here have been investing their dollars on new generation facilities.

    80. G. Davis says:

      Mr. Chu must have family and/or friends in the CFL business…

    81. Dr. H.D. Sinopoli says:

      'Dim-witted' politicians focusing on decisions that should be market-based.

    82. Jeanne Stotler says:

      We have both in our house, the CFL's in the lamps we use the most and incacandesent in others and our outside lights( CFL's don't work on motion and timers) I prefer the old fashion. As to recycle of these, Home Depot and Lowes have bins for them as do Target,(also batteries) As far as recycling, my kids laughed at their father and me, when we reused Alum wrap and saved juars for reuse, some were even good canning jars, well we were doing this during WWII, all cans were opened on both ends the squashed with lids in middle, we piled papers and did other things to make products last. We had everything rationed, gas, food, shoes, nylons were only available on Black Market, we didn't know what a throw away society was, now it's uilt in. We had a GE frig ought before the war my folks gave it to a friend in 1952, still running, we drove a 1937 Chevy until 1946. We cannot blame the gov't for all our waste but we can blame it for fostering it and we can blame ourselves for not teaching our children what we learned from living during the depression and WWii, we incouraged them to live high as we went wild when rationing was lifted.

    83. Ben C., Ann Arbor, MI says:

      What a lost opportunity for Obama’s giveaway programs. Given the cost differential betweens CFL’s and old light bulbs and the “unfair” cost to the poor, I am suprized the current administrion has failed to offer “free CFL’s” to the poor. I am surprised Obama supporters have not thought of this situation. Afterall, there is the giveaway program of cell phones for the poor, whyt not CFL’s?

    84. Nancy says:

      Also, as a former teacher of the visually impaired, I am worried because for many visually impaired people, fluorescent lighting is the worst thing in the world for them. It is harsh and actually interferes with those folks being able to see decently. Where is the compassion for those people?

    85. martin d says:

      No mention of how this law came to be. Why not mention that Bush supported this bill? Why not mention that only 4 republicans voted against it in the senate?

    86. Tom says:

      Good going obama, more jobs out the window for Americans, more jobs for the chinese. Obama wins for the U.S. = a big fat zero as everything he does!

    87. backtotheplate says:

      I actually don't mind the curly lights. (My wife hates them; her liberal mother does so much she might vote Republican). But I have a couple of old pretty lamps that have minor shorts in them, I guess, so they blow their bulbs every six months or so. That would defeat the money savings for the CFL bulb right there, but in fact the CFL bulbs blow out in those lamps in one day! I need incandescents for them. Of course the government would have an answer to that too (throw out your lamps, re-do your wiring). Thanks, dictator.

    88. Sis says:

      Saving money by using less energy will enable us to pay more in taxes.

    89. Sal says:

      I've had five CLF bulbs burn out in less than one year of use. I wrote to GE about it because i was concerned that the Mercury leaked out. They said it didn't . How would they know if they didn't examine the bulbs? Then why did they burn out?
      I don't think I saved any money.

    90. Anne says:

      Congress is such a mess and they want to micro manage light bulbs? OMG

    91. Bruce says:

      These new bulbs don't even fit in half the fixtures in my house. Also, some of my lights take very small based bulbs that don't come in the new murcury-filled, safe and child friendly flourescent bulbs. That's it! I'm going back to candle light.

    92. Andrea says:

      I hope the government stays out of the bathroom! I am real particular about my toiletpaper.

    93. Roger Davis says:

      As I recall reading, all of the CFL's are made in China and GE closed its last incandescent plant probably about one year ago. Government forced unemployment in the private sector but 200,000 hired by the government on our tax money – are we sliding towards Marxism or not?

    94. k. reitz says:

      These bulbs are lining some person's pockets! It's all about personal motivation ($$$$$) to some one influential. We all know the poor quality of light, high cost and dangerous product warnings YET the federal government is forcing this product on us! I agree, if the States would stand up against Obama mandates the citizens would be better served. Remember Reid/Pelosi/Obama's push for Obamacare? Now Nevada, California and the President, himself ( and over 1,200 big businesses) are EXEMPT from having to participate in this great health care plan! Pelosi and Reid got exmptions for their states after sticking the rest of us with it. This administration STINKS with corruption and violations to our Constitution!

    95. gkop says:

      Curious the way NOBODY is mentioning the fact that more than one European country has put out danger signals regarding the bulbs themselves – not just the hazardous materials they contain and the cost to the environment in their production – but the fact that the bulbs themselves emit hazardous gases that can cause migraines, nausea and brain damage. That's right: these bulbs make us sick. And NOBODY is talking about this in our country.

    96. Tom Ragsdale says:

      My parents used to put an incandescent bulb in the pump house utilizing the heat to prevent the pump from freezing.
      When freezing temperatures threaten my plants that are not freeze hardy I wrap burlap around them and place an incandescent bulb around the base of the plant. This utilization of the heat given off buy the bulb to save things from freezing temperatures will require much more expensive and inconvenient methods to be used in the future.

    97. Richard Langill says:

      How did it come to be that Congress is even in the position to "ALLOW US TO HAVE A CHOICE". I say we get rid of all of them and start over with a new group of sane representatives. "Representatives". There's a misnomer for you!

    98. J B McCoy III says:

      My wife is a brain cancer survivor. Unfortunately, her surgeries have left her highly sensitive to flourescent
      light. She has simple partial seizures when exposed to that type of lighting., which can accelerate to a grand mal seizure if the exposure goes on for any length of time. The Nanny Staters in their infinite ignorance, do not take into account specialized needs populations.

      The market does.

    99. Jim - Texas says:

      I use the light bulbs as part of my heating plan in the winter, i.e. I get both light and heat. In the summer because of extended daylight my lights are off more than they are on so I am not adding heat.

    100. Ralph Johnson says:

      How can you expect the government to see the light when they cannot even see the tunnel !!!!!

    101. Bobbie says:

      Presswood of the environmental activist Natural Resources Defense Council, who says, “Clearly, consumers, the economy and the environment will suffer if these standards are repealed.” clearly?? WHAT A BALD FACE THREAT!!!!! SUFFER? IN WHAT WAY? SPECIFICS!! Clearly it will only be if these activists go out of their way TO make it so!!!!

      Tax payers dollars telling us what we already know? The "organization" claims this would save consumers $85 per year? How the heck can they possibly figure that with any accuracy? Are citizens being informed of the mercury poison implemented by activists, supported by government? The president shows too much favoritism in areas that are unconstitutional. this isn't the role of government.

      Because we are confined by high taxes beyond our means and a limited working income, the first thing we cut in use is our electricity. Don't let em' touch our choice in bulbs. They're used when needed without government Chu('s) input.

    102. Blair Franconia, NH says:

      The light bulb ban is stupid. It should be lifted.

    103. guest says:

      You guys all know that this law doesn't explicitly ban any type of light, but instead requires energy efficiency standards, which current incandescent bulbs don't meet. So the market is able to come with what ever light bulb meets those standards. Kinda like CAFE standards for cars. Currently CFLs and LEDs are available technology. The more competition between these technologies will only improve efficient choices for Consumers. Specialty incandescent bulbs will still be available for certain applications.

      Mercury is concern, but we still have to recycle our used motor oil and lead batteries.
      And for fire hazards, Incandescent bulbs get freaking hot, much hotter than other types, that is why they waste so much energy.

      • Bobbie says:

        Guest, but the energy efficiency standard is set by usage. Of course the incandescents throw of heat which could reduce heat in the house in the colder months, but they'd have to be on for periods of time. True but still trying to make a point. It's something people can figure out for themselves with the information regarding efficiency standards. No hand holding necessary.

        They've created all kinds of products that only take this type of bulb. it's impractical. It's not efficient to need a light for 2 seconds but the efficiency standards in florescent lighting doesn't hit until it's on for 2 hours where the switch in fluorescents takes up the energy! The government or any affiliate does not belong here.

    104. Allen S. Krasinski says:

      A short time ago I was driving along I-75 listening to talk radio on a Sunday morning. The Emcee was speaking to an engineer of long standing and experience. He told a story of a school sytem he was involved with that had an abnormal increase in ADD, HDD, well above national averages. After investigating this change, he found that the only thing that had been changed in the school system was that they went from incandescent bulbs to CFL's. Once they went back to incandescents the problem started to reverse itself and new cases began to drop.

    105. Tonuse says:

      For every day that Congress is away from Washington, we conserve millions in light & heat energy and safeguard our freedoms at the same time.

    106. Mary Smay says:

      This light bulb issue is just one more example of the lame, brain dead politicians who can't find
      enough ways to mess up our country. It's been said that the liberals, alone with their profound thoughts,
      consider it their job, raison d'etre, to bring America down. How insane is that ! How traitorous is that !
      These people are products of OBE, Outcome Based Education, the dumbing down of students. Let's
      call them the OBE "scholars".

    107. JLassiter says:

      Have you noticed that people who aren't smart enough to do their own job always spent their time minding our business. Obama could not run a lemonade stand with the people he chooses to work for him.

    108. Clearhead says:

      The "present" says he's not going to recognize the part of the Constitutionally passed Defense of Marriage Act. So let's you and I, America, just ignore the laws WE don't like. You don't like to be honest? Then don't be honest. You like to steal? Go ahead and steal. You like incandescent bulbs? Use them. You like dumbocrats? You need help.

    109. njalldayCC2016 says:

      CFLs should be phased out too, and we should skip straight to LEDs. They're expensive now but they don't have mercury and are more efficient than CFLs, look better and last way longer. I use CFLs now, haven't had to change a bulb in years. Saves a ton on electric bill over the life of the bulb, just can't put them on a dimmer switch. We shouldn't have cars that get 2 mpg, and we shouldn't make the same lightbulbs Edison made anymore. Would you still want the first cell phone? That's basically what incandescents are, and they won't be gone after these rules go into effect but hopefully people start voting with their wallets and bring down the cost of LEDs to the point they're the same as CFLs. It's time to stop wasting so much energy when we can do a lot better, trying to encourage that isn't a bad thing. Repealing the "ban" would be stupid, the manufacturers helped craft the new rules it would hurt the investments they've made in anticipation of the implementation of the rules they helped create. The GOP is on the losing side of several issues when it comes to science, technology, the environment, and the 21st century in general. Young people may agree with a lot that the GOP has to offer, but it's the little stuff that they just screw up so bad and look so embarrassing. If it wants to have any members in 25 years when all the old white people are gone and minorities are the majority they need to get with it, they tried with Micheal Steele…we all know how that went. Waiter there's a fly in my soup!

    110. pegmom says:

      There is way too little thinking going on at the EPA . They want us to jump into things without looking at the consequences- for instance this light bulb ban.
      The mercury in the new bulbs makes them dangerous for 2 reasons.#1 they are breakable and therefore a danger in our homes and #2 have to be disposed of and added to our "hazardous waste"- and how many people do they think will actually dispose of them as recommended?
      Then look at wind turbines. No one wants them in their back yard because of the noise, they freeze up and don't work in winter, they don't produce nearly as much electricity as expected and we still have minimal storage capacity for that energy in case of a windless day. Also, what effect do these wind farms have on the winds and climate change? Has that been studied? Or how many birds do they kill?
      Then there is ethanol. It does not pollute less than gas, it is not as efficient, and we are using food goods that are much needed in other parts of the world.
      These are problems the EPA has not considered in depth as well as the impact of their bans on coal mining, oil production restrictions, nuclear energy restrictions, natural gas exploration restrictions.
      If we must have a department like this EPA, any recommendations they make must be fully vetted so we do not make things worse rather than better. Being smart is not the most important thing, being right at all costs is not most important, being careful and using common sense (which apparently is not so common in DC) is MUCH more crucial!

    111. One must wonder. Does the government use the toxic light bulbs in their homes, offices and buildings? I will bet 10 years of my life that the answer to that is NO.

    112. David Wheeler says:

      I've done my own experimenting with CFLs. According to the EPA's website, I should save $40/year per bulb, or $3.33 per month, and last 8 to 10 times longer than incandescents. I've replaced 24 bulbs in my home with CFLs. Based on that, I should see an $80 per month decrease in my electric costs. In reality, the CFLs have delivered no measurable change to my utility bill. I also find that I am changing them out more often than incandescents when in recessed applications, and about half as often in non-recessed applications. This is just another way for government to pick winners and losers in the "free" market.

    113. Guest 727 says:

      My problem with the new light bulbs isn't just that they are being forced on us, but that htey don't work as well as the bulbs they replace. When you turn on the switch you have to wait, then walk into the dimly lit room. Within a minute or so they warm up and work fine. For outside lights it's much worse. The new lights barely glow for a couple of minutes, then slowly come up to speed. If you only need the light on for 20 or 30 seconds to get the morning paper you need to plan ahead and run the lights for 3 or 4 minutes to be able to see where you're going. This experience is living in a very temperate climate where it hasn't snowed since 1976. In cooler climates where it's dark longer and light is needed more, these bulbs would be quite useless – confirmed by friends in cooler climes. All of the locally available brands perform the same. So, less light, a longer wait, more money to buy – and try different brands, and the noted breakage and disposal problems. Besides, they don't fit in a half of the fixtures in my home. It sounds like a great choice to me. Oh, wait, it's not a choice …

    114. lighthouse says:

      Also, the supposed amount of energy savings are in fact not there
      (only c2% grid electricity savings, see the DOE etc data http://ceolas.net/#li171x ),
      and even they were,
      there are much better and more relevant energy savings in Electricity Generation and Grid Distribution as well as Consumption, as described.

    115. lighthouse says:

      Consumers as a whole will hardly save money – regardless of what the
      energy savings are.
      That is not just in having to pay more for the light bulbs as an
      initial cost (or being forced to pay for them, via taxpayer CFL programs)
      - but also because electricity companies are being taxpayer subsidised
      or allowed to raise Bill rates to compensate for any reduced
      electricity use, as already seen both federally and in California,
      Ohio etc, and before them in the UK and other European countries
      ( http://ceolas.net/#californiacfl )

    116. lighthouse says:

      It is a BAN: ____All known – and New Incandescents – will effectively be banned__see the 2007 Energy Act Second Phase, before 2020:__45 lumen per watt minimum specification, which no incandescent can meet, __and which the profit-seeking CFL-pushing manufacturers behind the ban would be unlikely to pursue anyway.____The basic intent of replacing incandescent technology is also made clear in section 321 of the Act:__"The Secretary of Energy shall report to Congress on the time frame for commercialization of lighting to REPLACE incandescent AND halogen incandescent lamp technology"__(Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007/Title III/Subtitle B/Section 321)__
      = not "improve" but "replace!"

    117. Pamela J Solcih says:

      this truly is How Stupid politicians have become. Light blubs??? when is that any of their concern? When is that an issue that effects this country as a whole for those of us that AREN'T living off the government.
      Time to get rid of parties and career politicians ENOUGH ENOUGH

    118. Denver says:

      The CFL's virtues are absolutely FALSE. They cost more to produce, so Immelt is making them in CHINA so his profits are untaxed and production costs are low. They don't always last longer and they perform poorly and break one and the clean-up takes days and is potentially ridiculously wasteful energywise,if you have to leave the room open during adverse weather. This is just another criminally bogus govt. regulation like the elimination of chlorinated fluorocarbons so DuPont could introduce R134A and the ridiculous extinguishant Halotron… all to reduce mythical "global warming" Honest free enterprise in America is sure getting strange.

    119. Ed Texas says:

      Now we get to throw mercury in land fills all across the country. Now thats a super fund sight.

    120. Temujin says:

      Comrade Chu has obediently memorized his Alinsky Rules and the little red book, "The Thoughts of Chairman ObaMao."

    121. Thoimas Gramza says:

      This is another stupid idea from our political left. It cost us 1,000,s of jobs. These new bulbs are being produced in China. It is typical of nitwits in Washington! Have you also noticed how quiet the EPA is regarding the mercury in these new, more expensive alternative. PLEASE, allow us to make our own decisions and you will see how well the marketplace handles these political boondoggles.

    122. Toni Carver says:

      Thousands of children are affected by Scotopic Sensitivity (Helen Irlen), which hampers their ability to read or focus, particularly under fluorescent lights. I was one of those children. Fortunately, I discovered while quite young, that I could successfully manage all of my reading and other work at home; although classroom tests remained a nightmare. Many of today's children, who could capably complete assignments at home, without consciously understanding why, would fail miserably as a result of fluorescent lighting being mandated in the home environment as well as in their schools. Many thanks to those few who stood up against this craziness!

    123. Marsha says:

      When did John Warner say that? He has been dead a while.

    124. Mango says:

      Hopefully more people are waking up to the fact that running for Congress does not make you brilliant. Personally I have found most with high IQ have very little common sense and too much ego. And for our sakes stop voting in ATTORNEYS or anyone with a law degree.

    125. Glen says:

      in the same way that eliminating broadcast tv made cable and satellite the only way we can watch tv and HAVE
      to pay for it, now we HAVE to buy more expensive light bulbs. not to metion the fact that cfl bulbs do not work with deaf equipment. phase out incandescent and millions of deaf and hard of hearing no longer have alerting
      equipment.

    126. Glen says:

      just like broadcast tv where now we HAVE TO PAY someone to watch tv, we will soon HAVE TO PAY higher prices for light bulbs. never mind that they don`t last as long as they claim, never mind that florescent bulbs don`t work in alerting equipment for the deaf and hard of hearing, lets just let special intrests take over the light bulb market.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×