“Q: How many politicians does it take tochange a light bulb?
A: One to change it, another to change it backagain.”
Jokesaside, that’s exactly what Republicans in Congress hope to do today in a voteto repeal a de facto ban onincandescent light bulbs. In 2007, Congress “changed the light bulb” by creatingmisguided energy efficiency standards as part of the Energy Independence andSecurity Act of 2007. These standards essentially outlawed traditional incandescentbulbs, allowing expensive LED and CFL bulbs to take their place. Now, Congressis seeking to “change it back again,” and allow consumers rather than Congressdecide which light bulbs they would like to screw in.
Opponentsof the bill say that CFL and LED bulbs have the potential to save households $100a year and the country over $10 billion a year in decreased energy costs. Towhich we say, fantastic! Given that Americans are pretty savvy shoppers, theyshould be rushing out to buy these new bulbs in droves.
Butthey are not. That’s because consumers have decided that any savings are notworth the substantial downsides to the fledgling technologies.
Chief among consumer gripes are the price. CFLbulbs can reach up to 18 times as expensive as traditional incandescent lights.Despite the high pricetag many consumers have been less than pleased with theharsh white light of the new bulbs that seems better suited to hospital hallsthan living rooms.
Moreover,tests on the new bulbs have found that repeatedly turning them on and offsubstantially decreases their lifespan, dramatically reducing any potentialcost savings. And at least where I’m from, turning lights on and off is afeature of utmost importance when deciding which bulb to buy. Finally, despiteclaims of being environmentally friendly, the new CFL bulbs contain a toxicamount of mercury that requires careful disposal. In fact, in most states it isillegal to put the bulbs in the trash because of the threat of mercury – a potentneurotoxin – contaminating the groundwater.
Don’tget me wrong, these are all issues that can be ironed out with a little moretime and research. And when that happens I have no idea that the cost-benefitanalysis that consumers go through when picking a bulb will no doubt change.But until that happens, why should the government have a say?
Infact, government bans and mandates only serve to slow down the innovationprocess. By eliminating the power of competition, Congress has reduced CFL andLED manufacturers’ incentive to invest in innovations. The best way to ensurethe best product at the lowest cost is not by forcing a particular product outof the marketplace, it is by forcing all of the companies to compete on an evenplaying field.
Thatis exactly what today’s vote hopes to do. The bill, H.R. 2417, better known asthe BULB Act, would stop the federally mandated switchover to CFL and LEDlights and restore freedom to consumers to decide for themselves what type oflight bulbs they want to buy.
Sure,it may take two Congress’ to screw in a light bulb correctly, but at least they’llbe at liberty to choose what type of bulb it is.