Thursday, July 14, 2011

Liberty and the Light Bulb

An email from Ruth McClung for Congress, which I will print here:

www.ruth4az.com July 12, 2011



H.R.2417 Better Use of Light Bulbs Act



The legislation to repeal the ban on incandescent light bulbs failed in the House today by 233 -193. While a majority voted for the repeal of the Republican pushed legislation that would make Thomas Edison's invention okay to buy, sell, and own in the United States, nevertheless, the bill needed at least a 2/3 majority which it fell short of, since the vote happened under suspension.



To save our light bulb choice fails!





Liberty and the Light Bulb

Op-ed by Ruth McClung





The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 is quickly becoming known for its outlawing the incandescent light bulb, which will begin to take place in 2012. One of the bill's stated purposes is to "increase efficiency of products, buildings, and vehicles." Two questions can be posed about this act. Is it accomplishing this efficiency goal? And, how does this Act affect our personal liberty?



To answer the first question, a brief discussion on energy and cost is useful. A 100 watt incandescent light bulb uses 100 watts of electricity. Burn it for an hour, it uses one-tenth of a kilowatt hour of electricity and costs about one-cent to operate - hardly a large part of one's electric bill. A 100 watt equivalent CFL (compact fluorescent light) bulb uses about one-quarter of this electricity (25 watts) and costs about one-quarter of a cent to run for an hour. The 100 watt equivalent LED (light emitting diode) bulb uses about 10 watts and costs about a tenth of a cent to run for an hour. The costs to purchase the three types of bulbs are roughly $1, $5, and $50 respectively. It is obvious it will take the average person years before the energy saved repays the cost of a $50 light bulb.



Clearly CFLs and LEDs save energy, but in reality how much? On the surface, CFLs and LEDs use one-quarter and one-tenth of the electricity that incandescent bulbs use. But to get the real energy savings, we must look at all the ways energy is used in our homes. We use light bulbs much more in the winter than we do in the summer because the days are shorter, and we spend more time indoors. We also heat our homes in the winter. By conservation of energy, a 100 watt incandescent bulb adds 100 watts of heat to a room, while a 100 watt equivalent CFL or LED adds 25 watts or 10 watts of heat to the room. During the cold months, our light bulbs help heat our homes, and the heat that is not added to the room by a light bulb is added by another heat source. No matter what type of light bulb you use in the winter, there is no difference in the amount of energy saved or used. The energy savings from CFLs and LEDs will only occur during the warmer months of the year, the same time of year we use light bulbs less.



When talking about light bulbs, there is more to discuss than energy and cost. Safety and environmental impact on our land and water is also extremely important. An incandescent light bulb used during the warmer months of the year will use a little more energy, so depending on the type of generator used to generate the electricity, it can contribute to pollution. The other two types of bulbs have a more harmful impact. CFLs contain mercury and fluorescent materials which can be very harmful to our health. White light LEDs contain arsenic and/or other hazardous materials, and many use fluorescent materials similar to CFLs. The CFL if broken, and both CFL and LED bulbs if dumped into a land fill, can pollute ground water and our environment. My nephew broke a CFL bulb last year and it took hours to clean it up appropriately. When our government enacted the Energy Independence and Security Act, it seems they were not thinking through the consequences of their legislation. Maybe all they could think about was the money the light bulb lobby was offering their campaigns.



Other considerations should be used when deciding which light bulb to use. The color of the light and quality of the light can be important. Fluorescent lights like CFLs and some white light LEDs can wreck paintings and fabrics, because their spectra contain ultra-violet light. A closet may need light for only seconds and certain bulbs will not produce light fast enough. In many parts of the country, it is too cold in the winter to use a CFL in the garage or outside, because the mercury inside does not vaporize properly, so it doesn't work.



The reasons to choose different light bulbs are as diverse as each person's lifestyle. I use all three types of light sources in my home. I choose a light bulb for its efficiency and practicality in each situation, whether it is in the garage, a closet, the living room, or my flashlight. One power of scientific innovation is that, as individuals, we get more choice instead of less. However, after 2012 I will be forced to use what Washington has dictated, whether it is efficient and practical, or not.

This leads us to the second question. What affect does this act have on our personal liberty? Thinking of freedoms, a light bulb may seem very small and insignificant. However, the government dictating our choice of light bulbs not only will have a large impact on the light in our homes and businesses, our purchasing power, and our environmental concerns - it also chips away at our liberty. A definition of liberty is to be free from arbitrary or despotic control. Removing choice of light bulbs may seem insignificant, but it is a loss of liberty and not something to be taken lightly.



Our nation's unemployment is high; our country's debt is heading us into bankruptcy; our nation cannot seem to pull out of the current economic slump. Nonetheless, our leaders seem more worried about our light bulbs than our economy. There is something wrong in Washington!



Fighting with all of you to defend our liberties!

Ruth

What will it take to make some real changes in DC?  The current crop of politicians can't govern their way out of a wet paper bag.

Note:  I supported Ruth McClung in the most recent election.  She was running against Raul Grijalva, who is co chair of the so called progressive caucus.

No comments: