Last fall, before they even won the majority in the House,
Republican leaders were talking about one of their top priorities for 2011:preserving your
right to inefficient lighting. Now, after letting the tyranny of the
compact fluorescent bulbs continue for an entire seven months, the House is poised to vote on a measure repealing the part of a
2007 bill that called for a phase out of inefficient bulbs.
They might not have enough votes to pass it, however. As the New York Times reports:
The sponsor of the measure to repeal the bulb
law, Representative Joe Barton, Republican of Texas, argues that the new
incandescent bulbs, as well as compact fluorescent bulbs and light-emitting
diodes, will be far more expensive than traditional bulbs. “We don’t think the
federal government should tell people what kind of lighting to use in their
homes,” he said on Fox News last month.
The repeal measure will be brought up under a
House rule that requires a two-thirds vote for passage, and it is far from
clear that enough Democrats will join a near-unanimous Republican caucus to
ensure its passage. But even if the House approves the measure, its prospects
in the Democratic-run Senate are dim.
Barton dubbed the bill the
"The Better Use of Light Bulbs Act"—or "BULB" for short—and
says it "protects Americans' access to the light bulbs of their choice and
guards against mandates that force Americans to use bulbs that contain
mercury." Barton failed to mention that the 2007 bill didn't actually ban incandescent bulbs; it only required them
to use less energy. But why let the truth get in the way of a catchy bill title
and some angst about Big Government?
Barton and his cosponsors were sure to throw in a line about
mercury to make it sound like this is a health concern, even though the amount of mercury
is not that big of a problem, at least compared to the amount of
mercury released into the environment by burning coal to power inefficient
bulbs. Besides, if you're eating light bulbs, the mercury is probably the least
of your worries.