The Debate over the Incandescent Light Bulb

In 2007, Congress passed an energy act that requires light bulb manufacturers to upgrade the efficiencies of their products. This act is part of an extensive federal movement to encourage Americans to use resources – in particular energy, more wisely. While most agree that the intent behind the initiative is good, some lawmakers believe that the method behind the 2007 legislation wrongfully prevents consumers from buying traditional, cheap incandescent bulbs. The Republican coalition is led by Texas representative Joe Barton, who argues that personal liberties are at stake as a result of the law and that the federal government must be mindful of the ideological implications of its actions with respect to the Constitution. The so-called Barton bill is currently circulating in the House and its proponents point out that alternatives, such as CFL and LED light bulbs, cost much more than traditional incandescent bulbs and that some even pose health risks with their mercury content. rnDemocrats assert that consumers will save money, despite the extra cost of fluorescent and LED bulbs, because the efficiency of these bulbs will be accounted for in immediate savings on energy bills, not to mention the overall longevity of the lighting source compared to tradition incandescent bulbs. Additionally, opponents of the Barton bill contend that the small concentration of mercury in compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) and advances in technology, make any perceived health threat negligible. The Obama administration officially opposes the bill because it would repeal measures that encourage technological innovation, increase employment, and reduced emissions. rnIf the 2007 act remains intact, 100-watt light bulbs will no longer be available for purchase from most vendors after January 1st, 2012. 75 watt, 60 watt and 40 watt bulbs will follow suit within the next three years following the January 1st threshold. For comparison sake – that 60-watt incandescent bulb (the most popular kind) can be replaced by a 13-watt compact fluorescent light bulb (CFL), or a 4-watt LED light bulb. In addition to the impressive wattage savings of 47 and 56 watts respectively, most CFL light bulbs have a 10,000-hour lifetime, compared to just the 1,000-hour lifetime of an incandescent bulb. Furthermore, LED light bulbs have an amazing 50,000-hour lifetime, meaning it will last up to 50 times longer than the traditional incandescent bulb! While the up-front costs are obviously more than the incandescent bulb, the long-term investment is certainly well worth it by both the amount of energy the bulb consumes as well as its relatively long life span. With technology and demand increasing daily, the type of CFL and LED bulbs being produced are becoming more diverse, offering more choices for consumers at even lower prices. With the government as a driver, the prices for these advanced lighting technologies will soon reach market parity in that it will cost the same as traditionally inefficient incandescent bulbs. Sounds like a bright idea to me! One Stop Green is looking towards a ‘greener’ future, sharing the latest and greatest ideas in green living and green technology with you through our staff written blogs. Going 'green' is no longer a choice, it's our responsibility, that's why it's so important to try and do the small things that can help change the outlook of the planet - and this is essentially the purpose of One Stop Green. We believe even the little things like recycling or using less water helps the environment out in a big way, and that's why our various solutions seek to nurture and edify your home or business in an eco-friendly manner. Learn more at http://www.onestopgreen.com