Her resolution, Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act, comes two months after Texas Rep. Joe Barton’s Better Use of Light Bulbs Act, which also seeks to repeal the portion of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 that ultimately calls for the incandescent light bulb phase-out.

Barton’s bill has 28 co-sponsors; Bachmann’s has four.

The Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act would repeal the incandescent light bulb phase-out, “unless the Comptroller General makes certain specific findings.”

Bachmann’s resolution demands that the comptroller general prove the following:

• Consumers will see a net savings, in terms of dollars spent on monthly electric bills and expenses for new light fixtures, compared to dollars spent on incandescent lightbulbs.
• The phase-out will reduce overall carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. by 20 percent by 2025.
• The phase-out will not pose any health risks, including risks associated with mercury containment in certain lightbulbs, to consumers or the general public.

Additionally, the comptroller general’s report would have to include monthly and yearly projections of expenses between Jan. 1, 2012 and Dec. 31, 2017.

“The government has no business telling an individual what kind of light bulb to buy,” said Bachmann in a Wednesday press release. “In 2007, Congress overstepped its bounds by mandating that only ‘energy efficient’ light bulbs may be sold after January 1, 2012. This mandate has sweeping effects on American families and businesses and needs serious consideration before taking effect.”

The American Independent reported this week that, according to U.S. Department of Energy, replacing incandescent bulbs with an energy-efficient bulb would result in $7 in energy savings for the consumer, but if the market share for CLFs were to increase from its current 30 percent to 100 percent, power companies could potentially see a yearly loss of $26 billion.

Newsweek reports this quote from Barack Obama while he was preparing for a debate — a quote which, as an environment reporter, I absolutely love.

“I don’t consider this to be a good format for me, which makes me more cautious. I often find myself trapped by the questions and thinking to myself, ‘You know, this is a stupid question, but let me … answer it.’ So when Brian Williams is asking me about what’s a personal thing that you’ve done [that's green], and I say, you know, ‘Well, I planted a bunch of trees.’ And he says, ‘I’m talking about personal.’ What I’m thinking in my head is, ‘Well, the truth is, Brian, we can’t solve global warming because I f***ing changed light bulbs in my house. It’s because of something collective.’”

From an environmental perspective, what I like about this quote is that it highlights the needs to address the root problems of climate change and to come up with large-scale solutions.

From an observer’s standpoint, the quote confirms my longtime feeling that the basic format of these debates produces an outcome that’s contrived, rehearsed and insincere. The funny thing is, Jim Lehrer, who moderated the first presidential debates, feels the same way.

According to Lawrence O’Donnell, a writer for “The West Wing,” Lehrer told him that he has wanted to break with the format for a long time. O’Donnell tried to get Lehrer to appear on “The West Wing” to host a fictional presidential debate in which the candidates, played by Alan Alda and Jimmy Smits, would completely break with the usual format and engage with each other — ie., have a real debate.

While Lehrer couldn’t appear on the show because of a PBS rule that he wrote, he reportedly wanted to emulate the fictional debate, asking debate commissioners to watch tapes of the show to get some pointers. That’s why Lehrer tried to get Obama and Sen. John McCain to actually talk to each other.

O’Donnell talked about all this in commentary on MSNBC here.