Join online today and as a special thank you, we'll send you a free rucksack as well as a one-year subscription to Sierra magazine and the City Sierran.One of the significant news issues out of Congress today, overshadowed by the backpedaling on the XL pipeline hold, is the hold on the “ban on incandescent light bulbs” with the goal of abolishing it altogether. At least, that’s the way the news is being played. What is actually going on?
In 2007 Congress passed, with bipartisan support, and George W. Bush signed legislation that would require light bulbs to increase their energy efficiency by 25 percent. This would, over time, save consumers and businesses money and reduce energy use nationwide. Since lighting in homes and businesses represents about 20 percent of electricity use, the energy savings would be very significant.
It’s hard to imagine who could be against all this. And, now, there are a range of light bulbs, including new incandescent ones that reduce energy use by 28 percent, that fit the bill. Moreover, compact fluorescents (CFL’s) and light emitting diode (LED) bulbs actually save 75-80 percent on energy use. Even the descendants of Thomas Edison, who famously invented the incandescent bulb, support the measure.
In fact, this is a case of regulations doing exactly what we want them to do: The 2007 Act set a January 1, 2012 date for implementation of the regulations. This gave industry time to adjust to the new standards. And, adjust it did by innovating and, in the words of analyst Suzanne M. Kirchhoff, “undergoing the most sweeping technological changes in decades.” Moreover, according to Kirchoff, repeal “could undercut LED manufacturing efforts, where U.S. companies have a technological edge,” at a time when most incandescent and CFL bulbs are imported from China and Mexico.
However, conservatives have turned this into an issue of Washington taking away people’s right to choose for themselves the kind of light bulbs they want to use. The have made the cheaper cash-register price of traditional incandescents the talking point, shouting down the long-term cost-savings. CFL bulbs, for example, generally last as much as ten times longer than incandescents. Some conservatives, with memory problems, like Michele Bachmann, even blame Obama for restricting our “freedom” here.
This idea of “freedom” is, when you think about it, kind of silly. It reminds me of the commercial – I no longer remember for what – that showed a new homeowner standing at his open door with all the lights in the house blazing, who realizes he no longer has to obey his father’s demand “to turn off the lights he’s not using.” Of course, he will have to pay the bill.
The other issue conservatives bring up is the color of the light. CFL’s are whiter – more like sunlight – than the yellow light of incandescents. And this can have odd effects. We painted our living room an “ochre” color that worked very well with the incandescent bulbs in the room. When we switched to CFL’s the room looked rather odd and we weren’t entirely happy. We’ve learned to live with it and will definitely choose another color when we repaint. So, yes, CFL’s will require some changes over time. Or, you can buy the new energy-saving incandescents, if you really hate these changes.
So, this is a case where conservatives have managed to reverse the obvious lesson here – that smart regulations can aid the economy, save consumers money, and improve our energy use – - and made it about liberty. What is worse, we have done little to counter the message. Yes, we do put forward better, more rational, more fact-based answers. However, our problem is that we have not been able to create messaging that goes to the heart of the emotional issues that conservatives prey on. And that is a critical lesson for us as environmentalists to learn and to act on.
