Are Republicans wrong about their lightbulb repeal?
There’s a proposal in the House that would repeal the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which phased out incandescent light bulbs beginning January 2012, among other things.
The bill in question — HR 2417, the “Better Use of Light Bulbs (BULBs) Act” — gets it right: it repeals the law that phases out incandescent light bulbs and gives Americans the choice of which light bulbs we can buy. Many have complained about the cost of the newer “energy efficient” Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFLs), and others are concerned that the mercury content of some new bulbs pose a health risk.
But does the BULBs Act go too far?
HR 2417 is relatively short, with only 5 sections total, but Sections 3 and 4 are fairly disturbing overreaches by the federal government into the realm of states’ rights.
Section 2 repeals the old provision, but take a look at the text of Sections 3 and 4:
SEC. 3. MERCURY-CONTAINING LIGHTING.
No Federal, State, or local requirement or standard regarding energy efficient lighting shall be effective to the extent that the requirement or standard can be satisfied only by installing or using lamps containing mercury.
SEC. 4. STATE REGULATION.
No State or local regulation, or revision thereof, concerning the energy efficiency or energy use of medium screw base general service incandescent lamps shall be effective.
Sure, most of us hate these new CFLs, but isn’t it our prerogative to purchase them if we want? Furthermore, if this is a power reserved to the states, as suggested in the 10th Amendment, then shouldn’t states be allowed to regulate the production or sale of any manner of bulb?
For example, if California wants to force its residents to use CFLs, shouldn’t that be at their discretion? The same goes for states like Texas and South Carolina, which might prefer incandescent bulbs to CFLs.
There’s an old saying — If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
Congress seems to be fixing a problem where there is none. Sure, Section 2 handles the actual problem. It halts the phase out of incandescent bulbs. But why then did Congress go the two extra steps to stick it to the states? What purpose do Sections 3 and 4 serve?
It may seem like a minor issue – sure, light bulbs. But this minor overreach is just another example of how the federal government tramples over states. And this one is a Republican-backed proposal!
So, thank you Congress for voting to repeal the ban on incandescent light bulbs soon and for giving Americans the right to choose which light bulbs we use (mostly), but you’re still not getting it. Take out Sections 3 and 4.
h/t to the Ronpaulians, who brought this to my attention.
6 comments
Numerous important issues in America — imported oil, billions of dollars to the Middle East, nuclear energy, mountaintop removal and coal pollution — grow from our excessive consumption of energy. Congress and the EPA made a rational, defensible decision to ban incandescent bulbs because they use too much energy. This is clearly interstate commerce.
I wasn’t a fan of CFLs at the beginning, but they’re actually very good once you learn how to buy the right thing. And non-mercury LED bulbs are getting a lot cheaper.
It seems rather disingenuous for conservatives to worry about mercury when they’re otherwise so willing to tolerate pollution.
Just because people want to buy something doesn’t mean it should be legal … heroin, cocaine and child pornography, for example.
Jeff, you lost all credibility with your final paragraph.
Love your posts Matt! I am all for energy conservation and the development of new 21st century strategies to address pollution. However, at this time I believe we as a nation have larger issues to confront than light bulbs.
To clarify my post, I mean to say that our gov’t should not be wasting our money legislating choices for us such as light bulbs. The free market should allow us to do that for ourselves.
[...] margin:4px 4px 4px 4px; } Tweet The irony is dripping off this one. A couple days ago, I wrote about the House Republicans’ effort to repeal the phase out of production of the incandescent light [...]
Unless a better product arises, the future should include low voltage LED lighting — on a voluntary basis, of course.
Leave a Comment