Republicans Attempt to Repeal Ban on Incandescent Light Bulbs

by , 03/15/11

Lightbulb Freedom of Choice Act, 2007 Ban on Incandescent Lightbulbs, rand paul, energy efficient lightbulbs, efficient lightbulbs, green energy, national resources defence council, energy department

Ironically, the 2007 Ban on Incandescent Bulbs was signed into law by President George W. Bush. It required manufacturers to produce bulbs that use 25%-30% less energy than standard incandescents. On top of that, President Reagan was the first to ring in federal efficiency standards 30 years ago… but try telling Paul that. Along with Representatives Joe Barton, Mike Enzi and Michele Bachmann, Paul has decided that more efficient light bulbs are an attack on the freedoms of the American People, and they have even called the legislation to reverse the standards, the “Lightbulb Freedom of Choice Act.”

Dale Bryk, Program Director of the National Resources Defence Council recently appeared on the Colbert Report, where she stated that “efficient lightbulbs used less energy and saved money”, which in turn will put a dent in the defecit.

Via USAToday

Related Posts


or your inhabitat account below


  1. LisaH129 April 12, 2011 at 9:14 pm

    I am a strong conservationist but I don’t think it is right to ban the regular household incandescent light bulbs. There are still some good uses for them that other bulbs can’t fulfill, such as on dimmer switches and in rooms where the lights get turned on only occasionally. I try to conserve energy wherever I can, but I really do like the warm “human” light of a 100-watt incandescent bulb.

    By all means, we can encourage more sensible energy use. But this light bulb ban is just going too far in the wrong direction. I don’t own a big screen TV, I don’t own a gas-guzzling SUV, and I am pretty low-carbon-footprint. But I want my incandescent light bulbs! It was a bad law and should be repealed.

    Sorry, but this is one time I am going to disagree with the “party line.”

  2. caeman March 17, 2011 at 2:58 pm

    The Republicans are right. The current 1g/flush rule is pitiful. I’ve seen some toilets with so little flushing power that toilet paper is left in the water after a flush. Some toilets need 3 or 4 flushes to completely clear the water. THIS has caused MORE water to be used than the old 2g and 3g flushers.

    As for the Inc’ bulbs, bring ’em back. CFL are a Mercury disaster waiting to happen. I suppose some of you enviro-hippies don’t seem to appreciate the danger that is even just a little bit of mercury. Why invite more of that danger into our lives? Ban the CFL bulb! We need FEWER products with Mercury in them, not more. But, I guess it’s okay for a few kids to get mecury-sick as long as less electricity is used, right? I mean, what is permanent nerve damage in light of a lower electric bill?

  3. Another Tim March 16, 2011 at 12:57 pm

    I have an old-fashioned toilet and two newer toilets in my house and all are equally efficient. How, you may ask? Because all the water my household uses comes from a local river and sent to me via water towers; all the output is cleaned up and returned to the same river. Why should I have to buy the almost useless newer toilets?

    As for the light bulbs: Like lighthouse10, I think the government should stay out of my decision on what type of light bulb I buy. I would rather buy a locally made incandescent bulb than a CFL that is shipped about 7,000 miles from China to my local store (how energy efficient is that?).

  4. lighthouse10 March 16, 2011 at 9:44 am

    Sure, toilets were irrelevant… but not entirely:
    If you have to flush loads of times – no water saved
    If you have to use more light bulbs – no electricity saved…

    In that Hearing, they also kept saying
    “This is not a ban, efficient incandescent Light Bulbs like Halogens allowed!

    Sure it is a ban
    – any bulb not meeting allowable standards is banned.

    Yes, efficient halogen incandescent replacements are allowed, but
    still have light type etc differences with regular bulbs, apart from
    costing much more for the small savings, which is why neither
    consumers or governments really like them, since they have been around
    for a while now without being sold much.

    LEDs are not yet ready as bright omnidirectional lighting at a good
    price – which leaves CFLs:

    How manufacturers and vested interests have pushed for this ban,
    and lobbied for CFL favors: with documentation and copies of official communications

    All light bulbs have their advantages in different rooms and
    situations – none should be banned
    unless they are unsafe to actually use:
    The “switch all your lights and save lots of money” campaigns are like
    saying “Eat only bananas and save lots of money!”

  5. okeskinen March 16, 2011 at 8:27 am

    If he knew anything, he’d fix his toilet.

  6. xenosilvano March 16, 2011 at 1:23 am

    @WBrooke – “I should be able to waste as much water as I want, If I have enough money to pay it, right.” – Typical American.

  7. XenoSilvano March 16, 2011 at 1:12 am

    wow is there anything the US Republican party won’t repeal.

    Do these people even know why a ban was set forth in the place.

  8. jessica kyca March 15, 2011 at 8:51 pm

    You don’t need to resort to incandescent bulbs! You simply need to do some research and purchase a CFL with a different colour temperature. The new ones have many different temperatures from cold to warm. If this still doesn’t work, LED lights offer great energy efficiency.

  9. jessica kyca March 15, 2011 at 8:49 pm

    You don’t need to resort to incandescent bulbs, you just need to get a CFL with a different colour temperature. Some have the blue hue, but many new ones are just as orange and warm as incandescent bulbs. Check online for different types with different temperatures.

  10. kaptnkrunch March 15, 2011 at 6:45 pm

    Sensible way of thinking.

    Unfortunately this man is totally mad. I’m honestly rendered totally speechless as a european that your politicians are seriously debating something this trivial and frankly simple. Incandescent bulbs are stupid. end of surely?

    At the end of the day, the point of the government is to interfere surely?

  11. WBrooke March 15, 2011 at 6:38 pm

    I am far, far from aligning with the Republican Party, but I think I agree (*shudder*) with Senator Paul. However, I disagree with the arguement that he makes that Americans have the right to choose how inefficient they want to be. I think the point in a capitalist democracy is that the government should not be choosing winners and losers. I think the role of government is to set and enforce standards and then let the market do it’s thing. Rather than saying “we are banning incandescent bulbs”, it would be better to say “all lightbulbs must meet a certain minimum lumen/watt efficacy standard”. And then if the lightbulb manufacturers can find a way for incandescent lamps to meet that standard, by all means let them go on the market.

  12. For Sustainable Living March 15, 2011 at 4:24 pm

    Why didn’t he talk about how toxic Fluorescent bulbs are and that they are being thrown into our land fills by un knowing people rather than properly recycled. My kids broke one last weekend and I had no idea how toxic they really are. This website talks about what you need to do to clean up the toxic waste. If you can afford them, please try to buy LED lights, otherwise incandescent isn’t as bad for our environment (just energy consumption).

  13. Rahmanc March 15, 2011 at 4:21 pm

    Sometimes I really want to pack up and leave the country. . . America is going to run itself into the ground. People want everything but don’t want to pay for anything.

  • Read Inhabitat

  • Search Categories

  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments

  • Browse by Keyword

get the free Inhabitat newsletter

Submit this form
popular today
all time
most commented
more popular stories >
more popular stories >
more popular stories >
Federated Media Publishing - Home