By Kevin Bryant •
Jun 25, 2011 @ 13:10:23
on the Labor, Commerce and Industry committee you and Hugh have both been dealing with bill H.3735 on light bulbs, I hope you can consider supporting it!
Federal light bulb regulations starting January 2012 will in due course (by 2020) ban all known incandescent light bulbs.
SC Bill H.3735 would allow continued South Carolina manufacture and sale of incandescent light bulbs and so is good both for local jobs and local choice.
“This is not a ban” say the regulation proponents.
“We are just setting energy efficiency standards on the bulbs”
A product that does not meet a standard is obviously banned:
The regulations does not just ban simple cheap ordinary household light bulbs,
it will come to ban, by 2020, all known replacement light bulbs of similar incandescent type (Halogen or otherwise), in favor of CFL or LED lighting.
Regulation information and updates, including local state repeal bills: http://ceolas.net/#li01inx
Besides, such incandescent replacements have already existed for some
time, and actually have several differences with simpler incandescents, including a greater expense for marginal savings, which is why neither consumers, or ban proposing politicans like them very much:
If people really took up this “offer” by the politicians to keep buying incandescents,
it makes a ban even more pointless from the savings justification for it.
Neither politicians or manufacturers are therefore keen on providing
such replacements at low cost:
Post-ban EU and Australia indeed see a lack of replacement variety and
availability of the (temporarily) surviving Halogen or other incandescents.
The savings from the regulations assuming a switch to CFL/LED lighting
still only amount to 1% of society energy usage
(US Dept of Energy etc stats http://ceolas.net/#li171x ).
This can be compared with the described alternative electricity
generation and distribution savings, and alternative consumption policies based on market competition or even taxation.
* * Consumers will hardly save money anyway * *,
not just in having to pay more for light bulbs to profit-seeking major manufacturers
(remember – why do they welcome a ban on what they care allowed to make?)
but also because electricity companies are being subsidised or allowed to raise
rates to compensate for any reduced electricity use, as already seen
both federally and in California, Ohio etc (http://ceolas.net/#li12ax )
The energy usage standards that effectively bans “old obsolescent” technology is also a ban on simple cheap safe and known lighting technology,
compared with new complex and questionably safe lighting (CFLs with fire, mercury and radiation risks, LEDS with lead and arsenic risks, http://ceolas.net/#li18eax onwards).
Yes, we should welcome the new: it does not mean having to ban the old.
Normally, unsafe products like lead paint are banned – here we have the irony of the reverse.
More about how people are being deceived about the regulations: