Watt choice?: D.C. dim bulbs
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Wednesday, Jan. 1, 2014, 9:00 p.m.
Miss those banned 100- and 75-watt incandescent light bulbs? Well, say goodbye to the more popular 60- and 40-watt bulbs in 2014.
As of Jan. 1, it's illegal to manufacture or import the lower-watt incandescent bulbs in the United States under a 2007 federal law that sets strict minimum efficiency standards based not on any market reality, or even practicality, but on the whimsy of government.
And this, when the nation's energy efficiency has improved dramatically over the past six decades without light bulb diktats. Reports the U.S. Energy Information Administration, “energy intensity has been declining steadily since the early 1970s and continues to decline in the EIA's long-term projection.”
Consumers should be outraged by the bulb ban. But sadly, most probably won't notice until all the traditional incandescent bulbs are gone.
That leaves them with the choice of twisty compact fluorescent (CFL) bulbs, which all but require a hazmat team to clean up the mercury if they break, and LED bulbs.
And prepare for the sticker shock. Whereas a six pack of 60-watt incandescents typically sells for under $5, a same-size pack of 60-watt LEDs sells for more than $77, Fox News reports. Oh, and for the record, serious questions are emerging about the touted better longevity of LEDs.
At issue is not just light bulbs but the federal government's unrelenting intrusion into consumer choices, and private lives, where it has no warrant beyond the empty-minded dictates of dim bulbs in Washington.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Sunday pops
- THE BOX
- The new SAT: Rigor gets a pass
- ‘Un-American’? That’s Harry Reid, the Senate’s lowly smear artist
- Saturday essay: The gardeners’ etiquette
- Fixing Ford City’s water leaks: Time is money
- Another EPA crock: Sulfur silliness