That bright light hurts my eyes!
August 12, 2011 7:58 PM Subscribe
My aunt is really into the teaparty and has this whole notion that they are banning our old light bulbs. I've looked this up and find conflicting stories. Yes they are and no they're not...does any one know if they are really doing away with our old bulbs completely?
Wikipedia has a pretty comprehensive article on the subject. Basically, yes.
posted by cabingirl at 8:04 PM on August 12, 2011
posted by cabingirl at 8:04 PM on August 12, 2011
Response by poster: I saw that and had already read it. Some other articles I read also said they weren't banning them, just requiring they're more energy efficient... I am all around confused. I'd ask my aunt, but she also swears they want to force us to live in hobbit holes.
posted by Sweetmag at 8:12 PM on August 12, 2011
posted by Sweetmag at 8:12 PM on August 12, 2011
From what I gathered from several newspaper articles (which I can't seem to find at the moment), what is really happening is that the government is requiring a new set of energy efficiency standards that most incandescent bulbs cannot currently satisfy.
There's nothing that I've read to indicate that incandescent bulb manufacturers are prevented from improving their products to meet these standards. This AP article referenced a Sylvania bulb that is incandescent and does meet the new standards; apparently it costs $1 more.
posted by CancerMan at 8:18 PM on August 12, 2011
There's nothing that I've read to indicate that incandescent bulb manufacturers are prevented from improving their products to meet these standards. This AP article referenced a Sylvania bulb that is incandescent and does meet the new standards; apparently it costs $1 more.
posted by CancerMan at 8:18 PM on August 12, 2011
What do you mean by "our old bulbs"?
posted by mr_roboto at 8:18 PM on August 12, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by mr_roboto at 8:18 PM on August 12, 2011 [1 favorite]
The law is requiring a 30% increase in energy efficiency in new bulbs; most incandescent bulbs don't meet that standard. But they aren't being specifically targeted. That would be like saying the safety requirements for modern cars is "banning" a '57 Chevy.
"Banning" implies that we'd no longer be allowed to own them, and this is certainly not the case. No one is taking the bulbs away from you.
posted by spaltavian at 8:19 PM on August 12, 2011 [5 favorites]
"Banning" implies that we'd no longer be allowed to own them, and this is certainly not the case. No one is taking the bulbs away from you.
posted by spaltavian at 8:19 PM on August 12, 2011 [5 favorites]
Response by poster: By old bulbs, I mean normal incandescent bulbs.
posted by Sweetmag at 8:23 PM on August 12, 2011
posted by Sweetmag at 8:23 PM on August 12, 2011
No one is taking the bulbs away from you.
Merely the ability to buy more.
posted by codswallop at 8:24 PM on August 12, 2011 [4 favorites]
Merely the ability to buy more.
posted by codswallop at 8:24 PM on August 12, 2011 [4 favorites]
Right, existing bulbs are certainly not being banned, the rule will be that newly sold bulbs need to meet a certain efficiency standard that many current bulbs do not meet. However, manufacturers are racing to create incandescent models that do meet the standards and there are already some on the market.
posted by ghharr at 8:24 PM on August 12, 2011
posted by ghharr at 8:24 PM on August 12, 2011
Incandescent Bulbs Not Banned. Repeat: Not Banned
It's generally safe to operate under the working assumption that anything novel that a Tea Party person says is incorrect.
posted by andoatnp at 8:26 PM on August 12, 2011 [26 favorites]
It's generally safe to operate under the working assumption that anything novel that a Tea Party person says is incorrect.
posted by andoatnp at 8:26 PM on August 12, 2011 [26 favorites]
As others have already noted; the government is not banning incandescent bulbs, but merely raising the standard for how efficient they need to be. Given that this is 19th century technology, that really shouldn't be too surprising: I'm fairly certain a Model A would not be road-worthy today.
posted by Gilbert at 8:36 PM on August 12, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by Gilbert at 8:36 PM on August 12, 2011 [2 favorites]
Out of curiosity, what is the issue with this for her?
posted by mazola at 9:07 PM on August 12, 2011
posted by mazola at 9:07 PM on August 12, 2011
Response by poster: @ mazola~ her issue with all this (we have been texting about light bulbs for a few hours and our very different views on politics) is the government is telling her what purchases she can make. As far as I can tell, she has no problem with new bulbls, just the government saying what we can buy off a shelf and what we can't.
To her this is "Big Government", but she doesn't see "Big Government" when talking about taking union worker rights, prayer in school being forced, or abortion being outlawed.
posted by Sweetmag at 9:14 PM on August 12, 2011 [1 favorite]
To her this is "Big Government", but she doesn't see "Big Government" when talking about taking union worker rights, prayer in school being forced, or abortion being outlawed.
posted by Sweetmag at 9:14 PM on August 12, 2011 [1 favorite]
Completely seriously, can you compare it to some product like the horrifying feminine hygiene products of yesteryear? Maybe you don't want to say "menstrual belt" to your aunt, but can you think of a similar thing that, technically did its job, but which one can no longer buy, because the modern options are just plain better?
posted by jessicapierce at 9:20 PM on August 12, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by jessicapierce at 9:20 PM on August 12, 2011 [2 favorites]
...I realize my comparison does not cover the legislation end of things, but maybe if you emphasize the good sense of improved versions of products becoming the norm?
posted by jessicapierce at 9:22 PM on August 12, 2011
posted by jessicapierce at 9:22 PM on August 12, 2011
Maybe she's like me and can't find a CFL that provides the same quality of light as an incandescent does?
posted by elsietheeel at 9:31 PM on August 12, 2011 [4 favorites]
posted by elsietheeel at 9:31 PM on August 12, 2011 [4 favorites]
Pulitzer-winning factchecker PolitiFact has a handy summary with related rulings on the subject.
posted by Rhaomi at 9:34 PM on August 12, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by Rhaomi at 9:34 PM on August 12, 2011 [2 favorites]
As far as I can tell, she has no problem with new bulbls, just the government saying what we can buy off a shelf and what we can't.
the government does this ALL THE TIME—for example, there are safety standards for food and for drugs. would she like to live in a country where you can buy meth straight off the shelf at the supermarket?
posted by lia at 9:37 PM on August 12, 2011
the government does this ALL THE TIME—for example, there are safety standards for food and for drugs. would she like to live in a country where you can buy meth straight off the shelf at the supermarket?
posted by lia at 9:37 PM on August 12, 2011
elsietheeel: incandescent bulbs aren't going anywhere. They simply need to be slightly more efficient. I didn't know this, but apparently, Sylvania has already achieved this even before they were asked to.
I don't personally have a problem with compact florescent bulbs, but I know a lot of people I know do. That's not what anyone is asking for, though, so it need not enter into the argument. The government is no more mandating compact florescent bulbs than they are banning incandescent bulbs. This is basically the equivalent of upping the mileage standards on cars: that wasn't banning cars.
posted by Gilbert at 9:40 PM on August 12, 2011
I don't personally have a problem with compact florescent bulbs, but I know a lot of people I know do. That's not what anyone is asking for, though, so it need not enter into the argument. The government is no more mandating compact florescent bulbs than they are banning incandescent bulbs. This is basically the equivalent of upping the mileage standards on cars: that wasn't banning cars.
posted by Gilbert at 9:40 PM on August 12, 2011
I think your question has been answered, but I'd like to point out that there are people of ALL political stripes who are NOT pro-CFL light bulbs. There are major (legitimate) draw backs to some of the new products on the market (which can be easily researched without the help of people on MetaFilter if you know how to use google). There are educated, logical, reasonable people who prefer incandescent bulbs to CFL bulbs (or various other newer products). A preference for one bulb over another is not a badge of a political platform. There are pros and cons to all the products currently on the market. It is very easy to research those pros and cons, and the issues involved in determining which product best meets a particular consumer's needs is perhaps not as simple as the government is making it seem. There is NOT one clear winner.
[To recap: I know liberals and conservatives who love CFLs. I know liberals and conservatives who prefer incandescents. Personally, I don't see a trend for one party preferring one light bulb variety as a political platform.]
posted by Mael Oui at 9:43 PM on August 12, 2011 [5 favorites]
[To recap: I know liberals and conservatives who love CFLs. I know liberals and conservatives who prefer incandescents. Personally, I don't see a trend for one party preferring one light bulb variety as a political platform.]
posted by Mael Oui at 9:43 PM on August 12, 2011 [5 favorites]
I read a New York Times (I know, liberal media exemplar) review of the current alternative bulb options within the last week or so. It made the point that pretty much, until the legislative death sentence was passed on standard incandescent bulbs, the alternatives weren't that great. Buzzy, slow-to-light compact fluorescents and weird-colored, directional LEDs.
Your aunt shouldn't think about this so much as telling her what kinds of lightbulbs she can buy (because it's not), but rather, telling industry what kind of lightbulbs it can make. By legislating a degree of efficiency (as it does with automobiles), government provides a very good incentive for industry to innovate — and they do!
posted by mumkin at 10:09 PM on August 12, 2011
Your aunt shouldn't think about this so much as telling her what kinds of lightbulbs she can buy (because it's not), but rather, telling industry what kind of lightbulbs it can make. By legislating a degree of efficiency (as it does with automobiles), government provides a very good incentive for industry to innovate — and they do!
posted by mumkin at 10:09 PM on August 12, 2011
Ah, it was Almost Time to Change the Bulb. I now remember that I couldn't actually make my way through the article, because of the author's insistence on using some weird metaphorical Trophy Wife analogies to rate the products, but it opens strongly.
posted by mumkin at 10:24 PM on August 12, 2011
posted by mumkin at 10:24 PM on August 12, 2011
To her this is "Big Government", but she doesn't see "Big Government" when talking about taking union worker rights, prayer in school being forced, or abortion being outlawed.
Ask her how she feels about car manufacturers being required to have air bags, seat belts, or catalytic converters.
Ask her how she feels about pharmaceutical manufacturers having to test their drugs or sell them in sealed packages.
posted by scody at 10:32 PM on August 12, 2011 [2 favorites]
Ask her how she feels about car manufacturers being required to have air bags, seat belts, or catalytic converters.
Ask her how she feels about pharmaceutical manufacturers having to test their drugs or sell them in sealed packages.
posted by scody at 10:32 PM on August 12, 2011 [2 favorites]
For what it's worth, the rules don't even completely ban the sale of inefficient incandescent bulbs. There are exceptions.
posted by wierdo at 11:30 PM on August 12, 2011
posted by wierdo at 11:30 PM on August 12, 2011
This is part of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 signed into law by President George W. Bush.
From Wikipedia:
The efficiency standards will start with 100-watt bulbs in January 2012 and end with 40-watt bulbs in January 2014.
Light bulbs outside of this range are exempt from the restrictions. Also exempt are several classes of specialty lights, including appliance lamps, rough service bulbs, 3-way, colored lamps, stage lighting and plant lights.
By 2020, a second tier of restrictions would become effective, which requires all general-purpose bulbs to produce at least 45 lumens per watt (similar to current CFLs). Exemptions from the Act include reflector flood, 3-way, candelabra, colored, and other specialty bulbs.
So, one will still be able to buy an incandescent light, just not one between 100-watts and 40-watts, or a general purpose light bulb. Incandescent light bulbs will still exist for special purposes.
As for the government telling us we can and cannot buy: the government tells us what we can and cannot buy all the time. Ever try to buy heroin at a drugstore?
posted by wandering_not_lost at 12:21 AM on August 13, 2011 [3 favorites]
From Wikipedia:
The efficiency standards will start with 100-watt bulbs in January 2012 and end with 40-watt bulbs in January 2014.
Light bulbs outside of this range are exempt from the restrictions. Also exempt are several classes of specialty lights, including appliance lamps, rough service bulbs, 3-way, colored lamps, stage lighting and plant lights.
By 2020, a second tier of restrictions would become effective, which requires all general-purpose bulbs to produce at least 45 lumens per watt (similar to current CFLs). Exemptions from the Act include reflector flood, 3-way, candelabra, colored, and other specialty bulbs.
So, one will still be able to buy an incandescent light, just not one between 100-watts and 40-watts, or a general purpose light bulb. Incandescent light bulbs will still exist for special purposes.
As for the government telling us we can and cannot buy: the government tells us what we can and cannot buy all the time. Ever try to buy heroin at a drugstore?
posted by wandering_not_lost at 12:21 AM on August 13, 2011 [3 favorites]
As far as I can tell, ALL halogen incandescent bulbs meet the standards. The standard is simply: lightbulbs must provide the light of a 100W "standard" bulb while using only 74W.
The standard has nothing to do with CFL, LED or anything else. Simply that light sources must use less electricity.
posted by gjc at 5:10 AM on August 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
The standard has nothing to do with CFL, LED or anything else. Simply that light sources must use less electricity.
posted by gjc at 5:10 AM on August 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
Yes, it will be illegal to sell current models of incandescents, so effectively there will be a ban. I think it's fair to say ban. One thinks of US Prohibition where sales of alcohol were prohibited, yet in vernacular we refer to it as when the US banned alcohol and most don't complain. (I believe they will still let us transport incandescent bulbs, but it's a close analogy. And no, I am not predicting a light bulb bootlegging era.)
Also, you should be happy your aunt is not wrong about everything.
posted by michaelh at 8:07 AM on August 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
Also, you should be happy your aunt is not wrong about everything.
posted by michaelh at 8:07 AM on August 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
Except that in Prohibition they didn't say 'alcohol must be a certain strength' to be sold, it was actually banned outright.
And you can feel free to stockpile current incandescent bulbs and use them into the future without fear of Elliot Ness breaking into your house and smashing things up.
This is much closer to car standards, as noted above, where cars are becoming safer and more efficient due to regulation and older, non-compliant cars exit the ecosystem through attrition.
There is a rational argument to be made for incandescent bulbs, but the 'Big Government' angle seems purely emotional by my eye.
posted by mazola at 8:19 AM on August 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
And you can feel free to stockpile current incandescent bulbs and use them into the future without fear of Elliot Ness breaking into your house and smashing things up.
This is much closer to car standards, as noted above, where cars are becoming safer and more efficient due to regulation and older, non-compliant cars exit the ecosystem through attrition.
There is a rational argument to be made for incandescent bulbs, but the 'Big Government' angle seems purely emotional by my eye.
posted by mazola at 8:19 AM on August 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
quick note: when buying a CFL, there are two things you need to know...
1: what is the color temperature? the warmer the color temperature, the more like an incandescent it is.
2: what is the warmup time? some go to full brightness like an incandescent bulb right away, while some start off dim and grow brighter over the next few minutes.
pick a coll color tempperature and slow startup and you will hate CFLs; pick a warm temperature and instant-on, and you will be hard- pressed to tell the difference.
posted by davejay at 10:37 AM on August 13, 2011 [4 favorites]
1: what is the color temperature? the warmer the color temperature, the more like an incandescent it is.
2: what is the warmup time? some go to full brightness like an incandescent bulb right away, while some start off dim and grow brighter over the next few minutes.
pick a coll color tempperature and slow startup and you will hate CFLs; pick a warm temperature and instant-on, and you will be hard- pressed to tell the difference.
posted by davejay at 10:37 AM on August 13, 2011 [4 favorites]
Best analogy here is the air bag requirement: The Gov't said car makers had to meet passive restraint requirements; all the auto makers settled on airbags to do the job.
Now the Gov't is saying bulb makers have to meet an efficiency requirement; they've settled on CFLs to do so. She should be mad at lazy bulb makers who haven't found a way for incandescents to meet the regulations. Doesn't she care that Anericans don't try to invent that kind of high tech anymore? Does she want to settle for imported light bulbs because we're killing math funding and chasing science out of schools?
posted by anildash at 7:47 PM on August 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
Now the Gov't is saying bulb makers have to meet an efficiency requirement; they've settled on CFLs to do so. She should be mad at lazy bulb makers who haven't found a way for incandescents to meet the regulations. Doesn't she care that Anericans don't try to invent that kind of high tech anymore? Does she want to settle for imported light bulbs because we're killing math funding and chasing science out of schools?
posted by anildash at 7:47 PM on August 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
Kill The Myth: Incandescent Bulbs Are Not Banned [fastcompany.com]
posted by dgeiser13 at 7:12 AM on August 15, 2011
posted by dgeiser13 at 7:12 AM on August 15, 2011
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Houstonian at 8:02 PM on August 12, 2011