[LINK] US & fluorescent light bulbs

[Marghanita da Cruz]

It isn't just Fluorescent Lighting we are talking about. LED lamps provide 
longer life, better efficiency per lumen and no mecury. In addition to 
direct replacement (bayonet, eddison screw, 2 pin) are leading to new forms 
of lighting.

The US has introduced a new lighting labelling standard.
<http://ramin.com.au/eco-sydney/LED-Lighting-standards.shtml>

Marghanita

stephen at melbpc.org.au wrote:
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
> 


-- 
Marghanita da Cruz
http://ramin.com.au
Tel: 0414-869202