[LINK] US & fluorescent light bulbs

[stephen at melbpc.org.au]

America has no federal policy on climate change .. and now, this.

Why do we in the real world accept a dangerous GOP without comment?

By IBTimes Staff Reporter | July 16, 2011 11:31 AM EDT 
<http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/181438/20110716/fluorescent-bulb-
incandescent-bulb-lights-100-watt-bulb.htm>

Analysis

The world lighting and engineer community is in near-universal agreement 
regarding fluorescent bulbs ... they save a substantial amount of energy, 
compared to tradition incandescent light bulbs ...

So what has the Republican Party focused on? 

Well, they made undercutting the fluorescent bulb implementation act one 
of their priorities.

On Friday the U.S. House voted to withhold funding to enforce part of the 
law that increases efficiency standards for light bulbs, The New York 
Times reports.

The new standard requires most light bulbs to be 25 to 30 percent more 
efficient by 2014, and at least 60 percent more efficient by 2020, and 
that's something the new fluorescent bulbs can accomplish.

However, Republicans view increased energy efficient law as an 
unnecessary intrusion of the government into private lives.

If the House measure becomes law, it would prevent the U.S. Department of 
Energy from enforcing the new light bulb energy consumption standard in 
2012.

Energy/Public Policy Analysis: 

House Republicans view the light bulb law as the federal government 
repressing the market.  

In reality, it shows just how extreme -- and out-of-touch -- the GOP has 
become with respect to the typical person's daily life and struggles.

Incandescent bulbs are more than 130 years old, and are essentially the 
same design that Thomas Edison refined a century ago. 

They are incredibly inefficient: only about 10 percent -- just 10 
percent -- of the energy they consume is used to produce light. The other 
90 percent is wasted as heat.  

Fluorescent bulbs can be up to 65 percent more efficient than 
incandescent, hence one can see the substantial reduction in U.S. energy 
usage that would occur if they're used universally.

Why does the GOP want to turn-back-the-clock on light bulb technology? 

It's a symbolic issue that telegraphs to the party's conservative base 
that the caucus has the power to check progressive policies and maintain 
the status quo ... even if that status quo is regressive and hurts the 
nation. 

For House Republicans, conservative values and policies, no matter how 
regressive and short-sighted, are superior to the national interest and 
progress.

And one can also see how counter-productive and progress-delaying the 
House anti-fluorescent bulb legislation is: it will literally result in 
tens of billions of dollars in increased electricity costs for the common 
person, and for the nation.

Further, a fluorescent bulb bill does not reduce personal freedom: it's 
an energy system improvement stemming from a smarter regulation -- 
similar to the way increased federal miles per gallon requirements for 
cars made cars more energy-efficient.

And, equally significant, the anti-fluorescent bill shows how out-of-
touch the conservative House Republican caucus is ...

--

Cheers,
Stephen




Message sent using MelbPC WebMail Server