Right-Wing Media Continue To Mislead On Nonexistent Light Bulb "Ban"
With some provisions of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 scheduled to go into effect on January 1, right-wing media have revived the false claim that the government is "ban[ning]" incandescent light bulbs. In fact, the law simply restricts the sale of inefficient bulbs and has led companies to develop numerous alternatives, including energy-efficient incandescents.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Right-Wing Media Revive Light Bulb "Ban" Claim
Doocy: "[T]he Government Is ... Essentially Getting Rid Of Incandescent Light Bulbs." On the November 28 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy said:
DOOCY: I hope you're going out to Home Depot or something, [guest] Brad [Stine], to stock up because coming up on January 1, the government is -- they're essentially getting rid of incandescent light bulbs. You got to have those little pigtail things that are made in China with the mercury in them in your house as well. What has happened to this country? Once upon a time, we used to make light bulbs, and now we got to buy them from over there. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 11/28/11]
Wash. Times: "They're Coming For Our Light Bulbs." In a November 26 editorial titled, "Time to stock up on light bulbs: Government ban on mercury-free fixtures takes effect Jan. 1," The Washington Times wrote:
Thanks to a Democratic Congress and the signature of President George W. Bush in 2007, anti-industrial zealots at the Energy Department received authority to blot out one of the greatest achievements of the industrial age. They're coming for our light bulbs.
[...]
Many in the GOP remain cowed by the fraudulent claim that these are just harmless "energy standards" and opposing them would be a crime against the environment. The reality is that this ban is yet another example of the sort of job-destroying regulations that enrich the administration's friends at the expense of consumers. Specifically, the rules turn a 50-cent light bulb into a purchase of $3 or more. [The Washington Times, 11/26/11]
In Fact, The Law Does Not Ban All Incandescent Bulbs -- Only Inefficient Ones
The Energy Independence And Security Act Sets "Energy Efficiency Standards" For Incandescent Bulbs, Doesn't Ban Them. From Title III of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007:
Subtitle B: Lighting Energy Efficiency - (Sec. 321) Amends EPCA to prescribe energy efficiency standards for general service incandescent lamps, rough service lamps, and other designated lamps.
Directs the Secretary of Energy to: (1) conduct and report to the FTC on an annual assessment of the market for general service lamps and compact fluorescent lamps; and (2) carry out a proactive national program of consumer awareness, information, and education about lamp labels and energy-efficient lighting choices. Authorizes appropriations for FY2009-FY2012.
[...]
Instructs the Secretary of Energy to report to Congress on: (1) federal measures to reduce or prevent release of mercury during the manufacture, transportation, storage, or disposal of light bulbs; (2) whether specified rulemaking deadlines will be met; (3) an NAS review of advanced solid state lighting R&D and the impact upon the types of lighting available to consumers of an energy conservation standard requiring a minimum of 45 lumens per watt for general service lighting; and (4) the time frame for commercialization of lighting to replace incandescent and halogen incandescent lamp technology.
(Sec. 322) Sets forth minimum energy efficiency standards for incandescent reflector lamps.
(Sec. 323) Amends federal law governing congressional approval of proposed public buildings projects to require the Administrator of General Services (GSA) to: (1) transmit to Congress an estimate of the future energy performance of the building or space and a specific description of the use of energy efficient and renewable energy systems, including photovoltaic systems; and (2) include, with respect to space to be leased, the minimum performance requirements for energy efficiency and renewable energy.
Sets forth requirements for the use of energy efficient lighting fixtures and bulbs in public building construction, alteration, and acquisition.
(Sec. 324) Amends EPCA to include within its regulatory oversight: (1) metal halide lamp fixtures; and (2) energy efficiency labeling for designated consumer electronic products. [Public Law No. 110-140, 12/19/07]
Philips Electronics Executive: "There Has Been No Ban On The Incandescent Light Bulb." From a December 9, 2010, NPR interview with Philips Electronics Vice President Randy Moorhead:
ELIZABETH SHOGREN (NPR reporter): So will the government really take away your choice in light bulbs?
Randy Moorhead, vice president and lobbyist for Philips Electronics, says no.
MOORHEAD: There has been no ban on the incandescent light bulb. The incandescent light bulb actually lives. It's just going to be 30 percent more efficient.
SHOGREN: An energy bill signed by President Bush three years ago requires light bulbs to use at least 30 percent less electricity than traditional bulbs. But Moorhead says in anticipation of the new standards, companies like his have started selling new incandescent bulbs that comply with the law. They're made with a slightly different technology than Thomas Edison's invention. They use halogen gas. Moorhead says consumers won't notice a difference in the way they look or work compared to old-fashioned incandescent bulbs.
MOORHEAD: They're just going to find their electricity bills are a lot lower. [NPR, 12/9/10]
PolitiFact: "Current Law Does Not Ban Incandescents, But Rather Says Most Light Bulbs Must Meet Increased Efficiency Standards By 2012." PolitiFact has stated of the Energy Independence and Security Act signed by George W. Bush in 2007:
The current law does not ban incandescents, but rather says most light bulbs must meet increased efficiency standards by 2012. The standards themselves, which were developed later, include several exceptions for incandescent light bulbs, including three-way bulbs, colored lights, bug lights or plant lights. [PolitiFact, 3/6/09]
And Manufacturers Are Offering A Wide Variety Of Bulbs, Including Energy-Efficient Incandescents
2007 Energy Bill Reportedly Spurring "Tremendous Amount Of Development." From a January 24 Philadelphia Inquirer column:
Walk down today's lighting aisle, and it's intimidating.
Incandescents. Halogens. CFLs. LEDs. All sizes. All shapes. All colors, from warm white to a crisp bluish tint. And more to come.
So read on for a tour of the ever-burgeoning bulb-land.
"There's a tremendous amount of development," said Brian Fortenbery, an energy efficiency lighting expert with the Electric Power Research Institute, a national nonprofit. "It's not a one-technology game, by any stretch."
Driving the change is a provision in the Energy Independence and Security Act that Congress passed in 2007, during the George W. Bush administration.
It set energy efficiency standards for lightbulbs, which will begin to phase in come Jan. 1, 2012. [The Philadelphia Inquirer, GreenSpace, 1/24/11]
GE Offers Incandescent Halogen Bulb Which "Operates Up To 22 Percent More Efficiently" Than The Traditional Incandescent Bulb. From a February 14 General Electric press release:
U.S. consumers shopping for light bulbs this Valentine's Day and in the coming months may notice changes on retail store shelves: fewer incandescent bulbs and a wider selection of energy-efficient incandescent halogen bulbs. GE Lighting offers a light bulb that looks like the century-old and beloved incandescent bulb, produces nearly the same light output but operates up to 22 percent more efficiently.
Today, U.S. consumers can find GE's incandescent halogen bulbs -- clear and Reveal® clear versions (MSRP $5-$7) -- nationwide in two-packs in 29-, 43-, 53- and 72-watt varieties that dim and turn on instantly like their 40-, 60-, 75- and 100-watt incandescent bulb cousins that are phasing out of production between 2012 and 2014 as a result of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (learn more at www.gelighting.com/2012).
[...]
"A bulb that uses less energy costs less to run," says John Strainic, global product general manager, GE Lighting. "Halogen is an incandescent technology with a big efficiency advantage over standard incandescent bulbs. Each of the bulbs in this line-up consumes fewer watts than the incandescent bulbs we've all used for decades, while delivering a precise dimming capability and a bright, crisp light."
[...]
GE has produced incandescent halogen spotlights and general service light bulbs for accent and general lighting for many years. The technology is in the spotlight now more than ever because governments around the world have instituted new laws that set higher efficiency levels for lighting. The greater efficiency of GE's incandescent halogen bulbs enable them to comply with the lighting efficiency laws on the horizon in the U.S. and globally. [General Electric, 2/14/11]
For more on the variety of bulbs manufacturers are offering, SEE HERE.
Apparently not.
Person 2: "My uncle Angus puts sugar in his porridge and he was born, raised, and continues to live in Scotland."
Person 1: "No true Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge."
Bush isn't a true conservative like Angus isn't a true Scotsman...
Bill Maher makes a good point when he says "it would be a shame if four years of Democratic rule came to an end in 2012 without trying Democratic policies."
________________________________________________________________
TWOP
First time I read that it was written by some WingNut.
I laughed, I cried, I thought how sad it has become to see a someone calling themselves a Conservative being so void of reality when one of the hallmarks of Conservatism is reality.
Then you got the Nut Jobs out there saying how Shrub wasn't Conservative enough ... WHAT? After years of holding Dubya up as the epitome of Conservatism? Making AWOL out to be some kind of hero ?
I laughed, I cried ...
Thing is, I'm a Conservative!! Todays Conservative calls me a liberal. I can live with that since they don't confuse me with them.
That is why Fox is fighting the "ban", think of how many hard core right wingers wouldn't be able to come up with ANY ideas once the only light bulb that will work disappears!
Though I keep telling them a candle works just as good as those old school light bulbs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=767XHA5KQKY
Of course he hasn't, because the mercury isn't the issue.
The issue is that it's a great idea to insist that light bulbs become more energy efficient. It's sad that we wasted so much energy for so long by using inefficient incandescent bulbs! This change should have happened long ago, but it's only recently that the general public has realized that energy efficiency can pay for itself with cost savings down the road.
The Obama Administration came up with a terrific idea that can't be attacked upon its merits, and so Fox News is left with bogus attacks mentioning mercury and government bans that don't actually exist.
We don't drive cars without safety belts and shoulder harnesses anymore because the government forced a ban of those cars. Does anyone really think that it was a bad idea to prevent deaths in auto accidents and replace those deaths with fabric burns and bruises from shoulder belts that restrain car passengers?
joni, I have to disagree with you here--and it was the point of my initial post. Fox and all it's slobbering viewers are getting irate about legislation that passed in 2007. Signed into law by George W. Bush. Everything else you said was good, and this was a terrific idea. Unfortunately, it wasn't Obama's.
Sure it was initially passed into law under Bush. That has nothing to do with why they're against it. But you're right, I shouldn't have written that the Obama Administration "came up with" the terrific idea - I should have written that they're implementing a terrific idea.
They're against it because it's a great idea being implemented by the Obama Administration. When they see a thing that deserves praise, and praise might accumulate for those on the left, they morph that good thing into a bad thing in any way possible.
And that's why they won't let this issue go - because it's a great idea, and credit for that great idea would flow to the administration that was in power when the change went into effect.
This is part of the greater campaign to create irrational hatred of anything, and I mean anything related to sustainable energy, environmentalism, or conservation among the drones.
"Those damn liberals want to make me buy more expensive light bulbs so Al Gore can buy a bigger house!"
"Those damn liberals and democrats want to pass bills to put the oil industry out of business, it's socialist, Marxist, anti-capitalism!"
"They want to indoctrinate our kids into caring about the environment, screw the damn environment, they're anti-business!"
"They're just a bunch of loony, tree hugging, dirty, liberal, hippies. They want us to live in caves!"
You may have heard actual everyday people utter this kind of idiotic nonsense. It's clear they're getting this irrational hate from a steady stream of lies and propaganda courtesy of Fox and other right wing media.
All to create a controlled knee-jerk reaction to anything that merely -might- stand in the way of maximum, immediate, short term profits for the wealthiest members of society, regardless of responsibility.
Again, this isn't about the facts though. It's about the right not wanting Obama to get any credit for a good idea (and he would get credit for the policy going into effect during his administration - regardless of who passed the bill initially) and so they are inventing objections to the ban on inefficient incandescent light bulbs.
In one year I have saved more than enough money in electricity and replacement bulbs to justify the increased cost.
Its a no brainer, no wonder Faux News hates them.
Recently, some of the righties were made aware of the fact that, despite their paranoia, the Obamanation had made no effort to take away their guns. How did they explain this? He's trying to get re-elected, so he can do it in his second term.
I guess he has a bet with somebody that he'll be a two-termer, but the logic isn't important here, it's just being able to mold reality to fit your fears and hate.
So, the Foxbot may go into Home Depot on January 1st and see incandescent bulbs, but that will just be a sure sign that the Kenyan Usurper is campaigning, setting up his big plan; to take away their old-timey lightbulbs.
Another possibility is that Obama, working in league with Satan, will place those incandescent bulbs on the shelves as a trick, or a test of faith, just like they did with the dinosaur bones.
...perhaps, or maybe because his opposition can't hold a candle to him. Mark my words, if Obama's reelected (and it's still an "if," but a much stronger one than even a year ago), cons will declare he rigged the election. I personally can't wait for the traditional Republican Second-Term-Impeachment-Kangaroo-Court-Hearings. Worked so well for Clinton.
Very few media-hyped fake controversies have an actual activation date that proves them wrong.
Um... WHO was President in 2007 again? It was so long ago... can't seem to remember...
---------------------------------------
IMHO
UTOPIA
These people have no intelligence....
[/scarcasm]
Wouldn't be a bit surprised, however, if the above (fake) history made it's way into a Texas history book.
But, I will put forth my own answer.
None of them. They'd yell and scream for someone else to do it.
This is a comedian? Did he forget to bring the funny? Seems to me he's just a cranky hobo with the same politics as my crazy uneducated uncle I can only stand to see once a year at the holidays.
I think wingnuts don't understand that comedy is funny because it's true. It's not even a subtle distinction.
...wait.
They only want Jews, Muslims, and everybody else to join in worshiping Jesus with them, that's all. Why do the non-Christians insist of being catered to so much ?
No Washington Times, just your stupidity!
So, improving a product is "blotting out" the existence of the earlier, less efficient version of that product ?
I guess when wooden wheels were replaced by pneumatic rubber tires, that was an assault on one of the greatest inventions of man, the wheel !
FSM, these people are idiots. And they're still paying $3 for a bulb ( not considering the long term savings) when I get a four pack for a buck. I guess the shifty light bulb salesman sees a sucker coming.
They never answer....
But, you're right. It doesn't take a real genius to see the "big picture" on this one. Maybe the typical wingnut has trouble coming up with that three bucks up front.
Was it between five and ten years ago, when gas prices started to shoot up, that the prices began to drop on some of the bigger SUVs? I'm sure it was the same morans rushing out to "save" a grand on the Canyonero, and spending that 1000 on gas in the first couple of months.
GOD but you are pathetic. We get it. You are stupid. You are brainwashed. You have been programmed to hate the government. Which of course means hating America since WE are the top layer of gov. The President works for ME. It is just sad how stupid you are
While you are free to continue to show just how stupid you are and just how brainwashed you are. We know you have no choice
Incandescent light bulbs are a great example of the government doing exactly what they should be doing. They've been horribly inefficient for decades, and we should have been more concerned about saving energy years and years ago. Finally, the government got fed up with the light bulb industry not improving their product, and so they've forced them to do so, to the benefit of the general public.
You know, the general welfare clause of the Constitution? This is exactly the role government should play in our lives!
You're 100% wrong, as usual, "jamesB/right ON/tommy/westla/etc/etc."
Oh, sorry, it probably sounds crazy to you when I say it.
No you werent. You were stupid as you usually are. Too bad you are too much of a moron to know the difference
Sure you assume a lot of nonsense. The slippery slope logical fallacy. You are pathetic
If you want to show how this WILL lead to the above scenario, then by all means do, prove your slippery slope.
You never showed that the government of America would actually do that.
They already regulate the efficiency of doing so. Let's not get into comparing apples to oranges.
OK, kid, let me clue into a little thing called pragmatism. Mandating more efficient lightbulbs is a small change that just about every American citizen can endure without much, if any, hardship. It will save billions of kilowatt hours of wasted energy, thus postponing the harder choices we'll all be facing in not much time if major advances in electrical generation and distribution infrastructure aren't made.
Mandating that citizens keep their homes cold or update their HVAC with ultra-efficient plants is not a feasible alternative because most Americans simply can not absorb such a cost.
See, forcing the change to lightbulbs forestalls rationing electricity and rolling blackouts. But you wouldn't know about pragmatic government policy because you're an idiot anarcho-capitalist whose entire conception of government is rolled up in the childish reactionary politics of idiot teabaggers. Idiot.
Yes, jamesB, and the point you refer to is usually hidden by your hat.
There was a bill ( I think it was trashed pretty quickly) proposed to regulate thermostats in homes during peak hours, in an effort to prevent blackouts when demand was highest.
It was about certain scenarios, say, libertarians and drug addicts cranking their air conditioning to meat locker levels, blowing the grid, and shutting off somebody's medical devices, or the AC of some old or frail person who might not survive without that AC.
The wingnutosphere worked it as "Nanny state telling you what temperature you should be at, just for kicks".
Again, it's a big picture thing, common sense, and a response to irresponsible idiots who can't think outside their own bodies.
The reaction to the thermostat thing was the same child-like and emotional reflex that drives most on the far right, and Jimmy's odd anti-government sloganeering here, in response to the long-term cost of a light bulb.
.They're not smart enough to figure out things on their own, but they sure don't want the government helping them be a little smarter.
(Yes, it sounds just as stupid when I say it.)
newsflash; liberals may need the govt to help them in tough situations like buying light bulbs, but the rest of us can manage these things on our own. better yet, ask your mommy, she can help you with stuff like this too.
And in daniel's anecdote above, it was a liberal who refused to answer as to why he was choosing the worst value because "something something I hate teh government!" ?
I can tell you're getting emotional when you start getting things this backwards. Maybe you should take a little nap.
Seriously, get a little shut-eye, you're just fussing now.
New from Micro-soft "WING-BOT"
Allowing you to make inane comments and parrot Wing-nut talking points without lifting a finger!
Daniel's anecdote was about people he knows ( and I know them, too) who will waste their hard-earned money by making an emotional, spite-based decision that the man on the radio told them to make.
Daniel's point was that they can't explain why they do this. There's no logic to it, of course they can't.
So Jimmy volunteered that they don't answer because of some completely unrelated matter that wasn't even a factor. They don't want the government telling them what to do. Just the man on the radio.
When it's pointed out that Jimmy's the one who interjected the government into it, he doubles down with the default position- "with libs, it's all about the government".
Even when they get confused and bring something up, it's all teh libs' fault.
Just like when the wingnut says something racist, somebody else mentions it's racist ..."Libs are always mentioning race!".
what you can't seem to grasp is that it is none of your business what other people choose to do with their hard earned money. can you not understand that? nor is it the govt's. as i said many times, if you need help in how to spend your money, ask your mommy. the govt has more pressing matters. sorry.
Would you clam up ? Or just scream that it was none of his business?
You see, in the real world, people have conversations with their friends. If a person sees their friend engaging in self-destructive or illogical behavior, they might feel inclined to ask that person why they're doing that.
If that person has a rational explanation, they'll normally provide it. It may be "nobody's business", but we humans are known to take an interest in our fellow humans abnormal behavior from time to time.
That's why I appreciate your initial response to this. You're another emotional wingnut who can only reply to perfectly reasonable questions with some unhinged non-sequitur about the government.
I have no problem deciding how to spend my money. If anybody asks me why I'm spending it on a certain thing, I have no problem justifying it, even if it's "none of their business".
It seems that somebody who bristles at having their logic questioned may be the one who needs a little help. Does your mommy live nearby ?
And anybody who doesn't imagine the hallucinations you do is not steadying the real truth/agenda...uhhh... Jeebus, I can't even follow your insanity.
I never said anybody was obligated to explain anything. Are you running low on straw yet ?
You are a LIAR. I have been around long enough to know when you start telling us what liberals think or what liberals do you are lying. I know you are stupid. That is obvious but you seem to get sheer joy out of telling lies about liberals. Liberals being complex people that you are FAR too stupid to even approach understanding.
Why do you lie so much?
What I cannot imagine is someone being as stupid as you or as brainwashed as you. I cannot imagine anyone being so completely programmed that you have a visceral reaction to even the THOUGHT of government doing anything. You are pathetic and stupid and you act like a chatty Kathy doll. You have a few programmed responses that you spew no matter WHAT the topic is. You are too stupid to even begin to think beyond those parameters. Your stupidity is epic
It's mentioned a lot here, the reptilian right wing brain, all emotion and knee-jerk, and Jimmy confirms it with;
He can't not think about the government. He imagines others are talking about the government, he thinks it's some hidden element that he's being distracted from by focusing on reality.
With conservatives its always about the lies. Why do you lie so much?
This has nothing to do with telling consumers what to buy.
Steering producers to more efficient products only makes sense. No corporation or idustry is going to do it out of the good of their heart.
You are a liar and you are a punk. Newsflash it is rightwing morons like YOU that dont know what they think until Rush tells them
I dont care WHAT you are indifferent to. You drop by to tell lies, smear liberals, show how ignorant and brainwashed you are I am going to point out that you are a LIAR, and a brainwashed moron. What YOU do is your concern
- Considerations of Representative Government(1861) CH.7 Cited in Oxford Dictionary of Quotations 5th Edition (1999).
You are a LIAR and too stupid to know what the word hypocritical means. THIS logical fallacy is known as the false dichotomy or missing middle. GOD but you are a stupid and pitiful Randinista moron
The government CAN dictate some things for us, it can place laws/bans on certain products considered too harmful, impose age limits or other regulation on certain products that may be considered harmful to those too young to use them. By your all or nothing comparison we'd be left with the choice of either supporting the government doing the above as well as dictating EVERYTHING (including how we spend our every waking minute and what posture we sleep in) or advocating that the government do NOTHING to interfere in the lives of people which includes regulating on harmful products such as drugs as well as age legislations.
It just doesn't work that way, and no you are not considered a hypocrite for saying that the government has a mandate to decide SOME things for its people but not ALL things.
People like jamesB would suggest that this is forcing my hand because the government regulates this kind of thing. I wonder if jamesB also thinks this way about traffic signals and signs which regulate the flow of traffic or contract laws which regulate how contractors and contractees can act.
My guess is that, if it helps a business, then jamesB is perfectly fine with it, but if it helps the average American, it's socialism.
Just like contract laws are valuable. Just like traffic signals and speed limits are great ideas. Just like the FDA is a great idea.
Our nation can afford to have a government which looks out for the general public's welfare.
Not only is it the basis/function of language but also the major function of codified law - from the customary law of primitive societies to the common law and civil code systems of modern times. As every first year law student is taught, the primary purpose of the law is to provide certainty.
The false dichotomy, along with the strawman, are the kinds of logical fallacies that are sacred to the rightwing. Without them they have NOTHING.
In a roundabout way, Deluded, you've just captured the problem with Faux Con/Republican binary thinking in action. Either they're arguing for a completely fascist state, complete with state religion, or they're arguing for a complete absence of government; i.e., total anarchy.
The whole concept of nuance seems to be beyond their ken.
It's also what breeds extremist thinking. I am right therefore you are wrong and should not be tolerated, that sort of ideology.
I keep telling you that it isnt UP to you what the goverment should be doing. You are incredibly stupid. We arent. We arent stupid enough to allow brainwashed Randinista morons like you make those kind of decisions for us
Are you this far gone ?
That's why the government led us to a colorblind society, with the south kicking and screaming the whole way. That's why the government forced carmakers to put in safety features along the years, despite their protests that those safety measures "cost too much", all the while ignoring the "cost" to the families of the people injured or killed because of the lack of those safety features!
More likely they didnt answer because they are as stupid and brainwashed as you and they couldnt understand the question. You are a pitiful excuse for a human being
I can't remember where I got it from but I think it fits.
Glenn Beck
A Halogen light is is a fine bulb.
The trouble with them is that to operate, they incandesce at a much higher temperature than the old Edison lamps.
Halogens run so hot that GE makes a high speed cooking oven that uses a halogen lamp for a heat source, the Advantium.
I, for one, will not have them near anything flammable.
1)The GOP
2)Corporations that support the GOP
3)Americans...but only those belong to the GOP
The other canard they like to throw around is about the harmful mercury in these bulbs - a very small amount which is of concern - however nary a peep when it comes to limiting mercury emission from the burning of coal.
James if you are so against regulations I still have an old Pinto to sell you with a gas tank that explodes in collisions. I'll give you a really good deal on it too.