Nasty Surprise Hidden in New Energy Bill

[Guest guest]

This commentary was printed in the Dallas Morning News yesterday. I

thought you all may find it very interesting:

Ferguson: Sucked in by the swirl

There's a nasty little surprise hidden in the new energy bill

09:41 AM CST on Sunday, January 6, 2008

Last month, President Bush signed an energy bill that will, among

many, many other things, force you to buy a new kind of light bulb.

He did this because environmental enthusiasts don't like the light

bulbs you're using now. He and they reason, therefore, that you

shouldn't be allowed to have them. So now you can't.

Ordinary consumers may be surprised, once they understand what's

happened. They probably haven't known that the traditional

incandescent light bulb, that happy little globe shining so

innocently from the lamp in the corner, has been a scourge of

environmentalists for many years. With their stern and unrelenting

moralism, the warriors of Greenpeace have even branded lightbulb

manufacturers " climate criminals " for making incandescents, which

are, they say, a " silent killer. "

In Europe and in a few individual states in the U.S., professional

environmentalists have managed to persuade their colleagues in

government to ban the bulbs altogether, on the grounds that

incandescents use energy inefficiently.

Ninety percent of the energy a traditional light bulb uses, for

example, is thrown off as heat rather than light. This waste

contributes to the overproduction of energy from coal-fired power

plants, which contributes to the emission of carbon dioxide, which

contributes to global warming. Professional environmentalists prefer

a different kind of bulb, the compact fluorescent light, or CFL,

which is much more expensive to make and to buy but also much more

efficient in its use of energy.

American environmental groups have long called for an outright

national ban on the old-fashioned bulbs. But then they came to the

realization, as a spokesman for the Natural Resources Defense Council

told The New York Times this spring, that such a ban might " anger

consumers. "

" We've given up a sound bite, 'ban the incandescent,' " the spokesman

said.

Instead the groups joined with the Bush administration this year in

advocating a steady increase in federally mandated efficiency

standards for light bulbs. The effect of the tightened standards is

to make it illegal to manufacture or sell the inefficient

incandescent bulb by 2014.

So it's not a ban, see. It's just higher standards. Which have the

same effect as a ban – a slow-motion ban that's not really a ban.

Not surprisingly, in long, self-congratulatory remarks at the bill

signing, Mr. Bush neglected to mention that he and Congress have just

done away with the incandescent light bulb. Maybe most of us won't

notice until he's back in Crawford.

Some people really like the new bulbs, of course. Not all of them are

professional environmentalists, though all of them are cheapskates.

CFLs produce the same amount of light, or lumens, as an incandescent

bulb while using only about a quarter of the watts. With proper care

and moderate use, they can last as much as six times as long as a

typical incandescent.

Even if you consider their higher purchase price – six or seven times

the price of a traditional bulb – CFLs can lower your monthly

lighting bill by as much as 20 percent. And because they're deemed

environmentally sensitive, switching them on can give you the same

hard-to-define feeling of exaltation you get shopping for organic

vegetables at Whole Foods. Then you can donate the money you've saved

on your electric bill to the Natural Resources Defense Council or the

W. Bush Presidential Library.

Other people, however, perhaps a very large number, will prefer the

old, pre-Bush bulbs. Their reasons have less to do with the

wonderfulness of the incandescent and their disdain for

environmentalists than with the inconveniences of the CFL.

The new bulbs are particularly vulnerable to extremes of temperature,

for example; you won't want to use them in your garage in winter.

CFLs are also 25 percent longer in size than the average

incandescent. This makes them unsuitable for all kinds of lighting

fixtures – particularly chandeliers and other ceiling lights – which

will have to be either discarded or reconfigured, at considerable

expense, after the Bush ban goes into effect.

You can't use most CFLs with dimmer switches, either; ditto timers.

Newer models that can be dimmed and are adaptable to timers will

require you to buy new CFL-compatible dimmers and timers.

The quality of the light given off by CFLs is quite different from

what we're used to from incandescents. The old bulb concentrates its

light through a small surface area. CFLs don't shine in beams; they

glow all the way around, diffusing their illumination. They're

terrible reading lights. Many people find fluorescent light itself to

be harsh and unpleasant.

Moreover – in a variation of the old joke about the restaurant that

serves awful food and, even worse, serves it in such small portions –

a CFL bulb can take two to three minutes to reach its full

illumination after being turned on. And once it's fully aglow,

according to Department of Energy guidelines, you need to leave it on

for at least 15 minutes. In a typically chipper, pro-ban article last

week, U.S. News and World Report explained why: " Turning a CFL on and

off frequently shortens its life. "

Odd, isn't it – an energy-saving device that you're not supposed to

turn off? Such complications undermine the extravagant claims made

for the CFLs' energy savings.

Let's say you're a CFL aficionado and you want to fetch your car keys

from your darkened bedroom: You switch on the light, wait a couple

minutes, finally find the wallet as the room slowly brightens, and

then leave the light on, because you don't want to shorten the life

of your expensive CFL.

Will you remember to go back and turn it off 15 minutes later? Or

will you get in your Prius, drive to Whole Foods, and leave the light

burning for several more hours while you absent-mindedly fondle the

organics? If you're not a CFL aficionado, by contrast, you turn on

the incandescent light, get your car keys, and then switch it off.

Who's wasting more energy? I'm sure some green-eye-shade in the

depths of the Department of Energy could calculate an answer and

maybe already has. But we're unlikely to hear about it.

Sam Kazman, of the anti-regulation Competitive Enterprise Institute,

likes to cite the now legendary Great Light Bulb Exchange sponsored

by a local power company in the tiny town of Traer, Iowa. Half the

town's residents turned in their incandescents for free CFLs – and

electricity consumption rose by 8 percent. The cost of burning

electricity went down, and demand increased. Funny how that happens.

There are other complications that might give environmentalists

pause, if they were the kind of people who paused. When a CFL bulb

finally dies – after years and years and years! – it cannot be

dropped in the trash like an incandescent; it must be recycled by

specially equipped recycling facilities.

CFLs contain mercury. If one breaks in your home, Mr. Kazman says,

EPA guidelines suggest you open windows and leave the room for at

least a quarter of an hour before trying to clean up the mess. And

for God's sake, don't use a vacuum, which could disperse the poison

into the air.

Even when they're intact, U.S. News happily tells us, " the bulbs must

be handled with caution. Using a drop cloth might be a good new

routine to develop when screwing in a light bulb. "

The mind reels at the joke-like possibilities: How many Bush

administration officials does it take to screw in a CFL? As many as

it takes to screw American consumers!

But the Bushies aren't the half of it. In creating the ban, Mr. Bush

and his environmentalist allies were joined by Philips Lighting,

which is – you should probably sit down – the world's foremost

manufacturer of CFLs. The phased-in ban will position Philips to

crowd from the market any troublesome competitors. It's a perfect

confluence of interests: the Big Environmental Lobby, Big Business

and Big Government Conservatives.

But back to the screwees – those American consumers, also known, not

so long ago, as the citizens of the United States, a free people,

rulers of the world's proudest self-governing nation.

Will there be protests of some kind, expressions of disgust at least?

And what if there aren't? What if, as the ban slowly tightens, we

hear nothing, not a howl, not a peep, just a long mellow moo? Then

maybe it really will be time to turn out the lights.

Ferguson is a senior editor at The Weekly Standard.

[Guest guest]

oprah had a GREEN show Friday in which an energy expert

urged viewers to buy these bulbs.

I wrote to the show & offered up my concerns & rationale.

the " email us " area on her website limits the # of charachers

you type

>

> This commentary was printed in the Dallas Morning News yesterday. I

> thought you all may find it very interesting:

>

> Ferguson: Sucked in by the swirl

>

> There's a nasty little surprise hidden in the new energy bill

>

> 09:41 AM CST on Sunday, January 6, 2008

>

> Last month, President Bush signed an energy bill that will, among

> many, many other things, force you to buy a new kind of light bulb.

> He did this because environmental enthusiasts don't like the light

> bulbs you're using now. He and they reason, therefore, that you

> shouldn't be allowed to have them. So now you can't.

>

> Ordinary consumers may be surprised, once they understand what's

> happened. They probably haven't known that the traditional

> incandescent light bulb, that happy little globe shining so

> innocently from the lamp in the corner, has been a scourge of

> environmentalists for many years. With their stern and unrelenting

> moralism, the warriors of Greenpeace have even branded lightbulb

> manufacturers " climate criminals " for making incandescents, which

> are, they say, a " silent killer. "

>

> In Europe and in a few individual states in the U.S., professional

> environmentalists have managed to persuade their colleagues in

> government to ban the bulbs altogether, on the grounds that

> incandescents use energy inefficiently.

>

> Ninety percent of the energy a traditional light bulb uses, for

> example, is thrown off as heat rather than light. This waste

> contributes to the overproduction of energy from coal-fired power

> plants, which contributes to the emission of carbon dioxide, which

> contributes to global warming. Professional environmentalists

prefer

> a different kind of bulb, the compact fluorescent light, or CFL,

> which is much more expensive to make and to buy but also much more

> efficient in its use of energy.

>

> American environmental groups have long called for an outright

> national ban on the old-fashioned bulbs. But then they came to the

> realization, as a spokesman for the Natural Resources Defense

Council

> told The New York Times this spring, that such a ban might " anger

> consumers. "

>

> " We've given up a sound bite, 'ban the incandescent,' " the

spokesman

> said.

>

> Instead the groups joined with the Bush administration this year in

> advocating a steady increase in federally mandated efficiency

> standards for light bulbs. The effect of the tightened standards is

> to make it illegal to manufacture or sell the inefficient

> incandescent bulb by 2014.

>

> So it's not a ban, see. It's just higher standards. Which have the

> same effect as a ban – a slow-motion ban that's not really a ban.

>

> Not surprisingly, in long, self-congratulatory remarks at the bill

> signing, Mr. Bush neglected to mention that he and Congress have

just

> done away with the incandescent light bulb. Maybe most of us won't

> notice until he's back in Crawford.

>

> Some people really like the new bulbs, of course. Not all of them

are

> professional environmentalists, though all of them are cheapskates.

>

> CFLs produce the same amount of light, or lumens, as an

incandescent

> bulb while using only about a quarter of the watts. With proper

care

> and moderate use, they can last as much as six times as long as a

> typical incandescent.

>

> Even if you consider their higher purchase price – six or seven

times

> the price of a traditional bulb – CFLs can lower your monthly

> lighting bill by as much as 20 percent. And because they're deemed

> environmentally sensitive, switching them on can give you the same

> hard-to-define feeling of exaltation you get shopping for organic

> vegetables at Whole Foods. Then you can donate the money you've

saved

> on your electric bill to the Natural Resources Defense Council or

the

> W. Bush Presidential Library.

>

> Other people, however, perhaps a very large number, will prefer the

> old, pre-Bush bulbs. Their reasons have less to do with the

> wonderfulness of the incandescent and their disdain for

> environmentalists than with the inconveniences of the CFL.

>

> The new bulbs are particularly vulnerable to extremes of

temperature,

> for example; you won't want to use them in your garage in winter.

>

> CFLs are also 25 percent longer in size than the average

> incandescent. This makes them unsuitable for all kinds of lighting

> fixtures – particularly chandeliers and other ceiling lights –

which

> will have to be either discarded or reconfigured, at considerable

> expense, after the Bush ban goes into effect.

>

> You can't use most CFLs with dimmer switches, either; ditto timers.

> Newer models that can be dimmed and are adaptable to timers will

> require you to buy new CFL-compatible dimmers and timers.

>

> The quality of the light given off by CFLs is quite different from

> what we're used to from incandescents. The old bulb concentrates

its

> light through a small surface area. CFLs don't shine in beams; they

> glow all the way around, diffusing their illumination. They're

> terrible reading lights. Many people find fluorescent light itself

to

> be harsh and unpleasant.

>

> Moreover – in a variation of the old joke about the restaurant that

> serves awful food and, even worse, serves it in such small

portions –

> a CFL bulb can take two to three minutes to reach its full

> illumination after being turned on. And once it's fully aglow,

> according to Department of Energy guidelines, you need to leave it

on

> for at least 15 minutes. In a typically chipper, pro-ban article

last

> week, U.S. News and World Report explained why: " Turning a CFL on

and

> off frequently shortens its life. "

>

> Odd, isn't it – an energy-saving device that you're not supposed to

> turn off? Such complications undermine the extravagant claims made

> for the CFLs' energy savings.

>

> Let's say you're a CFL aficionado and you want to fetch your car

keys

> from your darkened bedroom: You switch on the light, wait a couple

> minutes, finally find the wallet as the room slowly brightens, and

> then leave the light on, because you don't want to shorten the life

> of your expensive CFL.

>

> Will you remember to go back and turn it off 15 minutes later? Or

> will you get in your Prius, drive to Whole Foods, and leave the

light

> burning for several more hours while you absent-mindedly fondle the

> organics? If you're not a CFL aficionado, by contrast, you turn on

> the incandescent light, get your car keys, and then switch it off.

>

> Who's wasting more energy? I'm sure some green-eye-shade in the

> depths of the Department of Energy could calculate an answer and

> maybe already has. But we're unlikely to hear about it.

>

> Sam Kazman, of the anti-regulation Competitive Enterprise

Institute,

> likes to cite the now legendary Great Light Bulb Exchange sponsored

> by a local power company in the tiny town of Traer, Iowa. Half the

> town's residents turned in their incandescents for free CFLs – and

> electricity consumption rose by 8 percent. The cost of burning

> electricity went down, and demand increased. Funny how that

happens.

>

> There are other complications that might give environmentalists

> pause, if they were the kind of people who paused. When a CFL bulb

> finally dies – after years and years and years! – it cannot be

> dropped in the trash like an incandescent; it must be recycled by

> specially equipped recycling facilities.

>

> CFLs contain mercury. If one breaks in your home, Mr. Kazman says,

> EPA guidelines suggest you open windows and leave the room for at

> least a quarter of an hour before trying to clean up the mess. And

> for God's sake, don't use a vacuum, which could disperse the poison

> into the air.

>

> Even when they're intact, U.S. News happily tells us, " the bulbs

must

> be handled with caution. Using a drop cloth might be a good new

> routine to develop when screwing in a light bulb. "

>

> The mind reels at the joke-like possibilities: How many Bush

> administration officials does it take to screw in a CFL? As many as

> it takes to screw American consumers!

>

> But the Bushies aren't the half of it. In creating the ban, Mr.

Bush

> and his environmentalist allies were joined by Philips Lighting,

> which is – you should probably sit down – the world's foremost

> manufacturer of CFLs. The phased-in ban will position Philips to

> crowd from the market any troublesome competitors. It's a perfect

> confluence of interests: the Big Environmental Lobby, Big Business

> and Big Government Conservatives.

>

> But back to the screwees – those American consumers, also known,

not

> so long ago, as the citizens of the United States, a free people,

> rulers of the world's proudest self-governing nation.

>

> Will there be protests of some kind, expressions of disgust at

least?

> And what if there aren't? What if, as the ban slowly tightens, we

> hear nothing, not a howl, not a peep, just a long mellow moo? Then

> maybe it really will be time to turn out the lights.

>

>

> Ferguson is a senior editor at The Weekly Standard.

>

[Guest guest]

That's it! We can start buying incandescents by the bulk & when the

new law kicks in we can start our own bootleg bulb business. All you

non-profits, take note, you'll have those autism centers completed in

no time, all off of bulbs.

I'm really not kidding, btw.

Debi

--- In EOHarm , " joannepriftinicholas " <

> >

> > There's a nasty little surprise hidden in the new energy bill

> >

> > 09:41 AM CST on Sunday, January 6, 2008

> >

> > Last month, President Bush signed an energy bill that will, among

> > many, many other things, force you to buy a new kind of light bulb.

> >

[Guest guest]

Hey, all that heat given off by the regular bulb contributes to the heating of the house, so that much saves me fuel oil money...at 1,000== a fill for my tank, what's the difference? math mavens...help? Nora

Re: Nasty Surprise Hidden in New Energy Bill

oprah had a GREEN show Friday in which an energy expert urged viewers to buy these bulbs.I wrote to the show & offered up my concerns & rationale.the "email us" area on her website limits the # of charachersyou type>> This commentary was printed in the Dallas Morning News yesterday. I > thought you all may find it very interesting:> > Ferguson: Sucked in by the swirl> > There's a nasty little surprise hidden in the new energy bill> > 09:41 AM CST on Sunday, January 6, 2008> > Last month, President Bush signed an energy bill that will, among > many, many other things, force you to buy a new kind of light bulb. > He did this because environmental enthusiasts don't like the light > bulbs you're using now. He and they reason, therefore, that you > shouldn't be allowed to have them. So now you can't. > > Ordinary consumers may be surprised, once they understand what's > happened. They probably haven't known that the traditional > incandescent light bulb, that happy little globe shining so > innocently from the lamp in the corner, has been a scourge of > environmentalists for many years. With their stern and unrelenting > moralism, the warriors of Greenpeace have even branded lightbulb > manufacturers "climate criminals" for making incandescents, which > are, they say, a "silent killer." > > In Europe and in a few individual states in the U.S., professional > environmentalists have managed to persuade their colleagues in > government to ban the bulbs altogether, on the grounds that > incandescents use energy inefficiently. > > Ninety percent of the energy a traditional light bulb uses, for > example, is thrown off as heat rather than light. This waste > contributes to the overproduction of energy from coal-fired power > plants, which contributes to the emission of carbon dioxide, which > contributes to global warming. Professional environmentalists prefer > a different kind of bulb, the compact fluorescent light, or CFL, > which is much more expensive to make and to buy but also much more > efficient in its use of energy. > > American environmental groups have long called for an outright > national ban on the old-fashioned bulbs. But then they came to the > realization, as a spokesman for the Natural Resources Defense Council > told The New York Times this spring, that such a ban might "anger > consumers." > > "We've given up a sound bite, 'ban the incandescent,' " the spokesman > said. > > Instead the groups joined with the Bush administration this year in > advocating a steady increase in federally mandated efficiency > standards for light bulbs. The effect of the tightened standards is > to make it illegal to manufacture or sell the inefficient > incandescent bulb by 2014. > > So it's not a ban, see. It's just higher standards. Which have the > same effect as a ban – a slow-motion ban that's not really a ban. > > Not surprisingly, in long, self-congratulatory remarks at the bill > signing, Mr. Bush neglected to mention that he and Congress have just > done away with the incandescent light bulb. Maybe most of us won't > notice until he's back in Crawford. > > Some people really like the new bulbs, of course. Not all of them are > professional environmentalists, though all of them are cheapskates. > > CFLs produce the same amount of light, or lumens, as an incandescent > bulb while using only about a quarter of the watts. With proper care > and moderate use, they can last as much as six times as long as a > typical incandescent. > > Even if you consider their higher purchase price – six or seven times > the price of a traditional bulb – CFLs can lower your monthly > lighting bill by as much as 20 percent. And because they're deemed > environmentally sensitive, switching them on can give you the same > hard-to-define feeling of exaltation you get shopping for organic > vegetables at Whole Foods. Then you can donate the money you've saved > on your electric bill to the Natural Resources Defense Council or the > W. Bush Presidential Library. > > Other people, however, perhaps a very large number, will prefer the > old, pre-Bush bulbs. Their reasons have less to do with the > wonderfulness of the incandescent and their disdain for > environmentalists than with the inconveniences of the CFL. > > The new bulbs are particularly vulnerable to extremes of temperature, > for example; you won't want to use them in your garage in winter. > > CFLs are also 25 percent longer in size than the average > incandescent. This makes them unsuitable for all kinds of lighting > fixtures – particularly chandeliers and other ceiling lights – which > will have to be either discarded or reconfigured, at considerable > expense, after the Bush ban goes into effect. > > You can't use most CFLs with dimmer switches, either; ditto timers. > Newer models that can be dimmed and are adaptable to timers will > require you to buy new CFL-compatible dimmers and timers. > > The quality of the light given off by CFLs is quite different from > what we're used to from incandescents. The old bulb concentrates its > light through a small surface area. CFLs don't shine in beams; they > glow all the way around, diffusing their illumination. They're > terrible reading lights. Many people find fluorescent light itself to > be harsh and unpleasant. > > Moreover – in a variation of the old joke about the restaurant that > serves awful food and, even worse, serves it in such small portions – > a CFL bulb can take two to three minutes to reach its full > illumination after being turned on. And once it's fully aglow, > according to Department of Energy guidelines, you need to leave it on > for at least 15 minutes. In a typically chipper, pro-ban article last > week, U.S. News and World Report explained why: "Turning a CFL on and > off frequently shortens its life." > > Odd, isn't it – an energy-saving device that you're not supposed to > turn off? Such complications undermine the extravagant claims made > for the CFLs' energy savings. > > Let's say you're a CFL aficionado and you want to fetch your car keys > from your darkened bedroom: You switch on the light, wait a couple > minutes, finally find the wallet as the room slowly brightens, and > then leave the light on, because you don't want to shorten the life > of your expensive CFL. > > Will you remember to go back and turn it off 15 minutes later? Or > will you get in your Prius, drive to Whole Foods, and leave the light > burning for several more hours while you absent-mindedly fondle the > organics? If you're not a CFL aficionado, by contrast, you turn on > the incandescent light, get your car keys, and then switch it off. > > Who's wasting more energy? I'm sure some green-eye-shade in the > depths of the Department of Energy could calculate an answer and > maybe already has. But we're unlikely to hear about it. > > Sam Kazman, of the anti-regulation Competitive Enterprise Institute, > likes to cite the now legendary Great Light Bulb Exchange sponsored > by a local power company in the tiny town of Traer, Iowa. Half the > town's residents turned in their incandescents for free CFLs – and > electricity consumption rose by 8 percent. The cost of burning > electricity went down, and demand increased. Funny how that happens. > > There are other complications that might give environmentalists > pause, if they were the kind of people who paused. When a CFL bulb > finally dies – after years and years and years! – it cannot be > dropped in the trash like an incandescent; it must be recycled by > specially equipped recycling facilities. > > CFLs contain mercury. If one breaks in your home, Mr. Kazman says, > EPA guidelines suggest you open windows and leave the room for at > least a quarter of an hour before trying to clean up the mess. And > for God's sake, don't use a vacuum, which could disperse the poison > into the air. > > Even when they're intact, U.S. News happily tells us, "the bulbs must > be handled with caution. Using a drop cloth might be a good new > routine to develop when screwing in a light bulb." > > The mind reels at the joke-like possibilities: How many Bush > administration officials does it take to screw in a CFL? As many as > it takes to screw American consumers! > > But the Bushies aren't the half of it. In creating the ban, Mr. Bush > and his environmentalist allies were joined by Philips Lighting, > which is – you should probably sit down – the world's foremost > manufacturer of CFLs. The phased-in ban will position Philips to > crowd from the market any troublesome competitors. It's a perfect > confluence of interests: the Big Environmental Lobby, Big Business > and Big Government Conservatives. > > But back to the screwees – those American consumers, also known, not > so long ago, as the citizens of the United States, a free people, > rulers of the world's proudest self-governing nation. > > Will there be protests of some kind, expressions of disgust at least? > And what if there aren't? What if, as the ban slowly tightens, we > hear nothing, not a howl, not a peep, just a long mellow moo? Then > maybe it really will be time to turn out the lights. > > > Ferguson is a senior editor at The Weekly Standard.>

[Guest guest]

Hey, all that heat given off by the regular bulb contributes to the heating of the house, so that much saves me fuel oil money...at 1,000== a fill for my tank, what's the difference? math mavens...help? Nora

Re: Nasty Surprise Hidden in New Energy Bill

oprah had a GREEN show Friday in which an energy expert urged viewers to buy these bulbs.I wrote to the show & offered up my concerns & rationale.the "email us" area on her website limits the # of charachersyou type>> This commentary was printed in the Dallas Morning News yesterday. I > thought you all may find it very interesting:> > Ferguson: Sucked in by the swirl> > There's a nasty little surprise hidden in the new energy bill> > 09:41 AM CST on Sunday, January 6, 2008> > Last month, President Bush signed an energy bill that will, among > many, many other things, force you to buy a new kind of light bulb. > He did this because environmental enthusiasts don't like the light > bulbs you're using now. He and they reason, therefore, that you > shouldn't be allowed to have them. So now you can't. > > Ordinary consumers may be surprised, once they understand what's > happened. They probably haven't known that the traditional > incandescent light bulb, that happy little globe shining so > innocently from the lamp in the corner, has been a scourge of > environmentalists for many years. With their stern and unrelenting > moralism, the warriors of Greenpeace have even branded lightbulb > manufacturers "climate criminals" for making incandescents, which > are, they say, a "silent killer." > > In Europe and in a few individual states in the U.S., professional > environmentalists have managed to persuade their colleagues in > government to ban the bulbs altogether, on the grounds that > incandescents use energy inefficiently. > > Ninety percent of the energy a traditional light bulb uses, for > example, is thrown off as heat rather than light. This waste > contributes to the overproduction of energy from coal-fired power > plants, which contributes to the emission of carbon dioxide, which > contributes to global warming. Professional environmentalists prefer > a different kind of bulb, the compact fluorescent light, or CFL, > which is much more expensive to make and to buy but also much more > efficient in its use of energy. > > American environmental groups have long called for an outright > national ban on the old-fashioned bulbs. But then they came to the > realization, as a spokesman for the Natural Resources Defense Council > told The New York Times this spring, that such a ban might "anger > consumers." > > "We've given up a sound bite, 'ban the incandescent,' " the spokesman > said. > > Instead the groups joined with the Bush administration this year in > advocating a steady increase in federally mandated efficiency > standards for light bulbs. The effect of the tightened standards is > to make it illegal to manufacture or sell the inefficient > incandescent bulb by 2014. > > So it's not a ban, see. It's just higher standards. Which have the > same effect as a ban – a slow-motion ban that's not really a ban. > > Not surprisingly, in long, self-congratulatory remarks at the bill > signing, Mr. Bush neglected to mention that he and Congress have just > done away with the incandescent light bulb. Maybe most of us won't > notice until he's back in Crawford. > > Some people really like the new bulbs, of course. Not all of them are > professional environmentalists, though all of them are cheapskates. > > CFLs produce the same amount of light, or lumens, as an incandescent > bulb while using only about a quarter of the watts. With proper care > and moderate use, they can last as much as six times as long as a > typical incandescent. > > Even if you consider their higher purchase price – six or seven times > the price of a traditional bulb – CFLs can lower your monthly > lighting bill by as much as 20 percent. And because they're deemed > environmentally sensitive, switching them on can give you the same > hard-to-define feeling of exaltation you get shopping for organic > vegetables at Whole Foods. Then you can donate the money you've saved > on your electric bill to the Natural Resources Defense Council or the > W. Bush Presidential Library. > > Other people, however, perhaps a very large number, will prefer the > old, pre-Bush bulbs. Their reasons have less to do with the > wonderfulness of the incandescent and their disdain for > environmentalists than with the inconveniences of the CFL. > > The new bulbs are particularly vulnerable to extremes of temperature, > for example; you won't want to use them in your garage in winter. > > CFLs are also 25 percent longer in size than the average > incandescent. This makes them unsuitable for all kinds of lighting > fixtures – particularly chandeliers and other ceiling lights – which > will have to be either discarded or reconfigured, at considerable > expense, after the Bush ban goes into effect. > > You can't use most CFLs with dimmer switches, either; ditto timers. > Newer models that can be dimmed and are adaptable to timers will > require you to buy new CFL-compatible dimmers and timers. > > The quality of the light given off by CFLs is quite different from > what we're used to from incandescents. The old bulb concentrates its > light through a small surface area. CFLs don't shine in beams; they > glow all the way around, diffusing their illumination. They're > terrible reading lights. Many people find fluorescent light itself to > be harsh and unpleasant. > > Moreover – in a variation of the old joke about the restaurant that > serves awful food and, even worse, serves it in such small portions – > a CFL bulb can take two to three minutes to reach its full > illumination after being turned on. And once it's fully aglow, > according to Department of Energy guidelines, you need to leave it on > for at least 15 minutes. In a typically chipper, pro-ban article last > week, U.S. News and World Report explained why: "Turning a CFL on and > off frequently shortens its life." > > Odd, isn't it – an energy-saving device that you're not supposed to > turn off? Such complications undermine the extravagant claims made > for the CFLs' energy savings. > > Let's say you're a CFL aficionado and you want to fetch your car keys > from your darkened bedroom: You switch on the light, wait a couple > minutes, finally find the wallet as the room slowly brightens, and > then leave the light on, because you don't want to shorten the life > of your expensive CFL. > > Will you remember to go back and turn it off 15 minutes later? Or > will you get in your Prius, drive to Whole Foods, and leave the light > burning for several more hours while you absent-mindedly fondle the > organics? If you're not a CFL aficionado, by contrast, you turn on > the incandescent light, get your car keys, and then switch it off. > > Who's wasting more energy? I'm sure some green-eye-shade in the > depths of the Department of Energy could calculate an answer and > maybe already has. But we're unlikely to hear about it. > > Sam Kazman, of the anti-regulation Competitive Enterprise Institute, > likes to cite the now legendary Great Light Bulb Exchange sponsored > by a local power company in the tiny town of Traer, Iowa. Half the > town's residents turned in their incandescents for free CFLs – and > electricity consumption rose by 8 percent. The cost of burning > electricity went down, and demand increased. Funny how that happens. > > There are other complications that might give environmentalists > pause, if they were the kind of people who paused. When a CFL bulb > finally dies – after years and years and years! – it cannot be > dropped in the trash like an incandescent; it must be recycled by > specially equipped recycling facilities. > > CFLs contain mercury. If one breaks in your home, Mr. Kazman says, > EPA guidelines suggest you open windows and leave the room for at > least a quarter of an hour before trying to clean up the mess. And > for God's sake, don't use a vacuum, which could disperse the poison > into the air. > > Even when they're intact, U.S. News happily tells us, "the bulbs must > be handled with caution. Using a drop cloth might be a good new > routine to develop when screwing in a light bulb." > > The mind reels at the joke-like possibilities: How many Bush > administration officials does it take to screw in a CFL? As many as > it takes to screw American consumers! > > But the Bushies aren't the half of it. In creating the ban, Mr. Bush > and his environmentalist allies were joined by Philips Lighting, > which is – you should probably sit down – the world's foremost > manufacturer of CFLs. The phased-in ban will position Philips to > crowd from the market any troublesome competitors. It's a perfect > confluence of interests: the Big Environmental Lobby, Big Business > and Big Government Conservatives. > > But back to the screwees – those American consumers, also known, not > so long ago, as the citizens of the United States, a free people, > rulers of the world's proudest self-governing nation. > > Will there be protests of some kind, expressions of disgust at least? > And what if there aren't? What if, as the ban slowly tightens, we > hear nothing, not a howl, not a peep, just a long mellow moo? Then > maybe it really will be time to turn out the lights. > > > Ferguson is a senior editor at The Weekly Standard.>