rssMcCotter, Liddy invent the death of the incandescent light bulb
- 6 Comments
U.S. Congressman Thaddeus McCotter (R-Livonia) says Republican Rep. Fred Upton and the Democrats are denying Americans an opportunity to innovate — and he seems to have invented a law that does not exist.
In an interview on the radio show of conservative radio host and convicted Watergate figure G. Gordon Liddy, McCotter and Liddy seem to believe that incandescent light bulbs have been banned in the United States — and that this is some sort of liberal plot against American technological innovation.
Here is a transcript from the folks at Think Progress:
LIDDY: Is there any chance that you fellas can talk to [House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred] Upton and get our light bulbs back, for heaven’s sake?
McCOTTER: Yes, yes. I saw that some on the left were praising the end of the incandescent bulb, at the very time they’re talking about an innovation economy. The irony is striking. One of the greatest innovations in American history was the incandescent bulb and I think we got to put it back where people can use them again.
I’m afraid the irony has been reversed here. First of all, incandescent light bulbs have not been banned. A provision in the 2007 energy bill sponsored by Upton phases in a requirement that light bulbs be at least 25 percent more efficient than they currently are. The incandescent bulbs currently in use do not meet that standard, but the requirement will, of course, spur more innovation to ensure that they do.
Secondly, the bulbs on the market that do meet that new efficiency standard — compressed flourocarbon, or CFL bulbs — were invented by an American, Ed Hammer of General Electric. And they save on energy and last longer than incandescent bulbs. Sounds like American innovation to me.
6 Comments
Comment posted February 10, 2011 @ 11:50 pm
Todd-
1. GE was one of the major backers behind EISA. GE and Phillips have both stated they wanted incans gone because profit margins weren’t high enough. It has nothing to do with climate. It was also an easy way for politicians to appear to be doing something without actually having to do anything. GE and Phillips both have stopped making regular incandescents and now just burning off backstock.
2. As for not being a ban, Bullshit. EISA set standards that current incandescent bulbs cannot reach. If they can’t reach the standards, they cannot be sold. This is a ban. Period. This effectively eliminates the most common inexpensive light bulbs currently in use, while essentially making lighting more expensive for no legitimate reason.
I am excluding the speciality bulbs and Halogens because EISA is removing the most common bulbs used, and the lumen/light output is not the same on the specialty bulbs. Halogens have their own issues and even Halogens cannot be used in some applications because they put 1.5x more heat than regular incans.
So I ask again, how can a restriction against a class of product based on performance standards, and if those standards are not met, cannot be sold? How does that not equal a ban?
Comment posted February 11, 2011 @ 8:58 am
In my view mccotter is right -as is artcurus comment here.
Understanding why the regulation-for -innovation argument does not hold:
http://ceolas.net/#cc2x
All lights have their advantages, people pay for the electicity they use, and there is no USA electricity shortage to justify telling them what to do – any shortage of finite oil/coal/gas sources raises their prices anyway, and reduces their use, without legislation
Besides: the supposed energy savings are not there,
see explanation, also with
official US Dept of Energy references:
ceolas.net/#li171x
Under 1% overall energy savings from a switch
Comment posted February 11, 2011 @ 9:03 pm
…one of the more efficient light bulbs on the market today that meets the standard is an incandescent! So there is no ban on the “incandescent light bulb.” What is this incandescent? More commonly called halogen – the halogen light bulb is just a more efficient incandescent – same principal…and yes, they have ones that look just like a light bulb.
Comment posted February 12, 2011 @ 1:36 am
Some things should be banned, others not. The banning must have a legitimate basis. We have defiled the planet and sealed our fate. To prolong the end of life, we must ban all that harms our only home. Efficiency is the name of the game now, so if some bulbs last 10 times or longer than incans and use less power in doing so, they should be banned except where their use is necessary in specific cases.
Comment posted February 12, 2011 @ 3:15 am
Rd4,
Read what I posted more carefully.This is a restriction on a class of product based on arbitrary standards. Standards that regular incandescent bulbs cannot reach. if they can’t reach these standards, they cannot be sold. There also provisions in this bill that eventually will remove halogens. The EU’s version of this bill eventually removes ALL incandescents. I excluded Halogen for a specific reason. 1. They are not applicable in all fixtures because of too much heat and 2. Dimming them can cause some spectacular bulb failures and shortens the life because it lowers the temperature for the halogen cycle.. Hence, yes, they are incandescent, but not a good replacement in all instances.
Pingback posted February 13, 2011 @ 12:40 am
[...] 164th Birthday Edison, but Bye Bye Incandescent Bulbs –(BUSINESS WIRE)–Did you know that if every home in the country replaced a [...]
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
