So, moving on from dictating to us what size of toilet we are permitted to have in our homes today, the f#*king government has now moved on in taking it upon itself to tell us what kind of light bulbs we are permitted to use in order to light our homes. And so it is then, that the standard 100-watt light bulb has now gone the way of the dodo bird, and its lower-wattage cousins will soon follow. As of today U.S. bulb makers are no longer permitted, by our illustrious government, to manufacture the 100-watt bulb, part of what is a multiyear push to boost the efficiency of the nation's lighting. Boost the efficiency of the nation’s lighting? That’s the excuse they’re using? You gotta be kidding me!
Anyway, for consumers, the law makes the purchase of light bulbs less of a choice of convenience and more like an investment choice, with a need to balance higher up-front costs against what is described as longer-term electricity savings. Some of these, what are called, "high-efficiency" bulbs cost more than $20 each and are, we’re told, designed to last more than 20 years. "The light bulb is moving from a 60-cent commodity that you throw into your grocery cart to an investment just like a refrigerator or major appliance," said Terry McGowan, director of engineering for the American Lighting Association, some industry trade group. "It costs more money and you expect it to do more, and if you move, you might even take it with you."
So now I’m have to treat my light bulbs as if they were just another appliance? That nuts! We’re told that the old-style bulbs will be on shelves for some time, but lower-wattage incandescent bulbs will be phased out over the course of the next two years. This idiotic law allows stores to sell their remaining stocks of these ‘banned’ bulbs and replacement bulbs using halogen and other technologies are already on store shelves. The incandescent bulb, with its tungsten filament, was a breakthrough in lighting 100 years ago, a vast improvement over the 19th-century designs of Thomas Edison and others. Its shortcoming, we’re told, is that only 10 percent of the energy is converted to light, with the rest lost as heat. So freakin what?
Lighting industry officials say that bulb makers have supported the federally mandated switch to energy-efficient, ‘higher cost’ designs, and I can see why. They are so onboard with it that they have already halted production of ‘banned’ bulbs. And, they say, Congress' recent action to bar enforcement of the law by the U.S. Energy Department won't turn back the clock. "The law doesn't change, and we're still complying," said Anne Guertin, a spokeswoman for Osram Sylvania, which retooled its incandescent bulb plant in Pennsylvania to manufacture halogen bulbs that meet federal standards. The law's ban on standard 75-watt bulbs takes effect today and a year later for standard 40- and 60-watt bulbs.
Thousands of specialty bulbs, including 100-watt incandescents designed to stand up to rough treatment, are exempt from the manufacturing ban. Although, I’m not sure how on defines ‘rough treatment,’ when describing a light bulb. Other so-called exempted bulbs include three-way bulbs and flame-shaped lamps for chandeliers. But for consumers, a trip to the store for bulbs is likely to be more confusing and costly because of the array of new, longer-lasting options. Confusing because of new federally mandated labels offer guidance on lumens, or light output, and long-term cost savings on electricity. Consumers looking to replace a 100-watt bulb, for example, would look for a bulb with 1,600 lumens.
Choices will vary, from a compact fluorescent (CFL) bulb, which uses up to 75 percent less energy. A second option looks like a traditional bulb but has a halogen core that supposedly uses 23 percent less energy. Another emerging contender is the light-emitting diode, or LED, bulb that fits into a standard socket. They are energy efficient and long lasting, but cost more than $20 each. LEDs don't offer an equivalent to the 100-watt standard bulb, but one is being developed, said McGowan of the lighting association. The method of choice here for those trying to essentially modify our behavior is to make the claim that we consumers will save nearly $6 Billion annually on electricity costs by 2015. So what, so Barry can raise our taxes?
Some Republicans, and rightly so, have opposed the law as a restriction on freedom of choice. And it was in an omnibus spending bill that avoided a federal government shutdown last month, Republicans inserted a provision barring the use of federal funds to enforce and implement the bulb law for nine months. Though it has caused confusion, that measure may have little effect. The 2007 law still took effect Saturday and manufacturers are still obligated to comply, according to the Energy Department. "The realistic view in the lighting industry is that everything is going to go as normal," McGowan said. "The plans are made. The shelves are stocked. The products are ready."
So, what’s the next step for our government that seems to get a little more out of control with each passing day? Let’s see. I’m almost afraid to even consider the possibilities. More and more of our personal choices are being assumed by the government, with the process having accelerated considerably over the coarse of the last four years. And far to many Americans do not seem the least bit concerned that they are having less and less say in how they are able to live out their lives. Or, for that matter, how their children will be permitted to live their lives. The American dream is dying, actually it’s not just dying, it’s, essentially, being purposely destroyed by those in our very own government.
No comments:
Post a Comment