Study: Incandescent light bulb ban would save $12.5B *updated*


By Jim Snyder

(Bloomberg) — Pulling the plug on a phase-out of traditional incandescent light bulbs, as a U.S. House bill requires, would jeopardize $12.5 billion in consumer savings by 2020, according to a study by efficiency-advocacy groups.

The average household’s energy costs would be cut by 7 percent, or $85 a year, when the standards are fully in place, according to the analysis released today in Washington.

The bill in the Republican-led House, which may be voted on next week, would block provisions in a 2007 energy law that effectively ban the 100-watt incandescent bulb next year and other versions subsequently. Representative Joe Barton of Texas is among Republicans who say the standards are government overreach akin to President Barack Obama’s health-care overhaul.

Supporters said the energy law, signed by Republican President George W. Bush, will reduce air pollution by eliminating the need for 33 power plants while saving homes and businesses money. “Clearly, consumers, the economy and the environment will suffer if these standards are repealed,” Jim Presswood, federal energy policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a statement.

The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, based in Washington, and the Appliance Standards Awareness Project, a Boston Group co-founded by the council and NRDC, researched and wrote the report.

Critics of the bulb ban say replacements don’t illuminate as well as traditional incandescent bulbs and don’t last as long as advertised, which undercuts savings claims.

Representative Michael Burgess, a Texas Republican and supporter of blocking the bulb ban, has said he’s worried that using more of the new compact-fluorescent bulbs, which contain mercury, may harm the environment.

“Traditional incandescent bulbs are cheap and reliable,” Barton said in a statement when he introduced his bill in January. Alternatives “are more expensive and health hazards, so why force them on the American people?”

The 2007 law requires bulbs to be about 30 percent more efficient than the traditional incandescent, said Kyle Pitsor, vice president of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association in Arlington, Virginia. Lighting companies have already retooled their manufacturing plants to make compact- fluorescent, light-emitting-diode and halogen products that comply with the law.

The association, which includes Fairfield, Connecticut- based General Electric Co., is lobbying against the push to prevent the light-bulb changes.

While compact-fluorescent bulbs cost more than incandescents, the average household saves as much as $105 using the newer technology because of its 4 1/2-year lifetime, according to the Energy Department.

87 Responses

  1. olivia says:

    FIFTY MILLION LESS illegal aliens in America sucking up our energy supply will save us a LOT of money – – anyone considering what is about to happen to our water supply with the over population of our country because of illegal aliens?

  2. cliff says:

    My pocketbook, not the government, has the right to tell me what kind of light bulbs to buy. End. Of. Story.

    Back in the 80’s and 90’s we were warned, over and over again, that fundamentalist Christians were a grave threat to our freedom because they would use government to force everyone to live by their values and their moral choices. Isn’t that exactly what fundamentalist greenies are trying to do today – force everyone to live by their values and their moral choices?

    If I don’t want the government in my bedroom, why the hell should I want them in my light socket? (Or the hundreds of other places busybodies in government think the have a divine right to go.)

  3. james says:

    I guess if it was up to the GOP we’d still have whale oil lamps standard in every house. CFL’s are 20 year old technology folks, LED is the future. You are welcome to sit in the dark if you want but once that technology matures, it’d be laughable to look at the old light bulbs.

  4. NikFromNYC says:

    “STEAL THIS BULB!” I must in classic Yippie fashion politely note the loophole futility of Edison bulb prohibition for your due consideration.

    There are already available luxurious excluded-from-the-ban versions of real bulbs which cost only about double of already penny cheap standard ones, namely “100W rough service” bulbs that have beefier filaments and are thus *less* efficient than standard bulbs.

    Ooh la la, back to business, rough service Bachelor.

    This loophole will be outed soon if the ban bans, as prohibition mints blissful rebellion, Edison becoming subversively cool, energy drain big beefy SUVs, status symbols: rebellion ‘gainst green nanny statism.


    (ii) EXCLUSIONS.—The term ‘general service incandescent lamp’ does not include the following incandescent lamps:
    (XII) A rough service lamp.

    Search for: 100W rough service.

  5. lil ol me says:

    marvin: your racism and bigotry is amazing.

  6. Bill in Houston says:

    What do we do with all that mercury that is leeching into the topsoil?

    Let’s face it, nearly everybody who has a burned out CFL tosses it into the trash. They are never recycled.

  7. marvin says:


    And how many gold mines and gold production facilities are in the US anymore?? Complete straw-man point and doesn’t change the fact that the largest pollution source of mercury in the world (and in the US) is from coal fired power plants. Period.

    All this is moot anyway because despite the whining of a bunch of Tea Party Luddites who hate the fact that an African American is the President of the United States, this bill of Representative Barton, lover of pollution, is GOING NOWHERE.

  8. BobSwarthout says:


    Typical of an enviro-ist, you only quote the part that you wanted. Had you the courage to provide next sentence, your argument would have been nullified. So, I’ll do it for you.

    “Major contribution to emissions from this source category comes
    from gold production using Hg technology.”

    ‘Gold production’, not coal-fired energy plants. By the way, the first author in this report is an economist. Not even a scientist!

    Your argument and your enviro-ist religion are invalid. And…you are still a racist and a sexist.

  9. marvin says:


    Fact check for you.

    “The largest emissions of Hg to the global atmosphere occur from combustion of fossil fuels, mainly coal in utility, industrial, and residential boilers. As much as two-thirds of the total emission of 2190 ton of Hg emitted from all anthropogenic sources worldwide in 2000 came from combustion of fossil fuels. Emissions of Hg from coal combustion are between one and two orders of magnitude higher than emissions from oil combustion, depending on the country.”

    Global anthropogenic mercury emission inventory for 2000.
    By Elisabeth G. Pacynaa, Jozef M. Pacynaa, Frits Steenhuisenc and Simon Wilsond

  10. BobSwarthout says:


    Fact check. Burning coal primarily produces CO2, not ‘massive amounts of mercury into the environment’.

    Another fact check. Coal can also produce SO2, based on the type and quality of the coal, but nearly ALL of it is filtered out as has been the case for the past 40+ years.

    This again is where the enviro-ist religion attempts to supercede science and basic facts. Seems to me, you’re the angry part of your ‘angry, white male’ comment to Kyle.

    And of course, your comment makes you a racist and a sexist. Just another fact…

  11. georgex says:

    Representative Barton is the one who suggested that we apologize to BP for being so critical after the poisoned the Gulf of Mexico.
    For some people change is all futile. Obviously the analyses show the savings in electricity usage and the affects on people’s budgets, the reduction in needed coal fired plants, the environment.

  12. marvin says:


    The cost differential is de minimis. We are not talking 1,000’s of dollars in difference. They are a couple of dollars more expensive and last a lot longer. I know because I use them throughout my entire house already.

    As far as the mercury, it has already been pointed out that their use actually reduces the amount of mercury in the environment because of the power savings. Most of our power is generated from coal which pumps massive amounts of mercury into the environment.

    Look, if the US was the first country in the world to do this, maybe…maybe, you Luddites would have a point. But that’s not the case. Dozens of countries have banned incandescent lite bulbs and people aren’t suddenly dropping dead from mercury poisoning. Australia bans them and they seem to be doing just fine (and their economy is doing a hell of a lot better than ours).

    I suspect, like so many things, this is all about members of the far right of the Republican Party in Congress being against something simply because it’s a signal to their nutjob base to get them all hot and bothered about the big, bad gubment of Obama. Why didn’t they raise this issue when the bill was passed and signed by President Bush? The reason is because Representative Barton and his gang of Tea Parties are doing this to rile up a bunch of white, angry males.

  13. Tom Moore says:

    I’ve got those mercury-laden “long-life” flourescent bulbs piling up in my garage like cord wood. Maybey we can ship them all the the dump where they store the nuclear waste from producing the energy that the flourescents are saving. Isn’t there something called the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy that applies here?

  14. Clif says:

    I get nervous when I hear government bureaucrats tell me they are going to ‘save me money’. This idea is from the same bureaucrats that made us buy ‘low water use toilets’ in order to ‘save’ water. The only problem was you had to flush those 3 or 4 times when you dropped a deuce. Great ideas and technical innovations don’t usually come from bureaucrats.

  15. Kyle says:

    Marvin – I have not seen you once try and dispute the fact that the CFL bulbs do in fact cost more and are perhaps more harmful to the environment because of the mercury. You only seem to want to defend the right of the government to tell consumers what they should and shouldn’t purchase. This argument is not about light bulbs, but the over reach of the government trying to regulate our lives. What’s next…everyone must purchase a Prius if they want to drive?

  16. Jacque Anderson says:

    Did they consider how many extra lamps/fixtures are needed to get the same amount of light in the room? We used 100 watt bulbs in our many recessed light fixtures but can only find 75 watt equivalents now. The hallways and rooms are not as brightly lit. Mrs. Magoo in Texas, who hates government intrusion.

  17. David - budalla says:

    The savings just reflect energy costs. What about the actual increase in the cost of the bulbs? And the hidden costs.?What about the increased costs in making a vastly more complicated bulb? What about the environmental costs of the added mining of mercury needed to make the bulbs and the disposal of old toxic bulbs? The medical costs associated with increased mercury in our ecosystem? I have no idea what they might be and neither do the publishers and authors of the “study”, or should I say “data crunch”? These people have a platform they promote and they crunch only the data needed to “prove” their point. They may be right, they may be wrong, but no one really knows based on this pseudo scientific study.

  18. SEEITCLEARLY says:

    Government overreach. Let’s bring back lead in gasoline and paint, cars that explode upon impact, and repeal all financial regulations!

  19. JamesJ says:

    I’m with olivia July 8, 2011, 2:36 PM
    They’re made in china. The over-the-air DTV converter boxes are made there as well. The US Government is mandating that we have to buy chinese made products. Time to get our finances in order so we are not so mired in foreign entanglements. Hmm… where have I heard an admonition to NOT get entangled before…? Our founding fathers were VERY smart. What have we done?

  20. Eric_7_V2 says:

    I’m a treehugging enviro and I won’t touch CFLs. Most people will not know how to dispose of them properly. More importantly, they do not last anywhere near as long as they are supposed to last.

  21. marvin says:


    Representative Barton for one.

    He was against a bill that funded research into the causes of autism because he was afraid that the study would pin some of the blame on environmental pollution. He’s a chronic climate change denier although like most, he zero training or background in climatology. He’s an industrial engineer who worked for an oil company before politics (shocking). He’s against wind energy and regularly votes against subsidies for the wind industry (of course he has no problem what-so-ever with subsidizing the oil industry). Oh, and who can forget his public apology to Tony Hayward in front of the entire world.

    The man LOVES pollution.

  22. B Williams says:

    What is all the b/s about Mercury, it is a proven fact that the extra power that must be generated to supply the dinosaur incandescents will result in more Mercury and other pollutants in the environment. So, to all the Luddites, quit whining and get on with your life.

    PS. I am not a tree hugger but have worked in the energy industry for 40+ years so I know what I am talking about.

  23. Not Convinced says:

    I use both kinds of bulbs. Where I need bright light, I use incandescent. Otherwise, I use CFL.

    I find that CFLs that have the same shape as an incandescent, for whatever reason, are a poor investment. The curly CFLs last FOREVER. I have some that are 4 years old.

  24. James says:

    More voodoo numbers….no facts….from the libs…

  25. JC says:


    Name one person who fits your description of: “Tea Party types who love pollution”

  26. John says:

    You say we’d save $12.5 billion? Isn’t that about what the Obamas have spent on their various vacations and so-called ambassador trips?

  27. Diogenes says:

    This is more of that AGW nonsense…stop it!

  28. marvin says:

    GOP Girl,

    Let’s just assume you are right. Are you going to get a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate? The Republicans have shown us that majority-rules is no longer how the Senate operates. What’s good for the goose, is good for the gandor, right?

    Oh, and need I remind you that the original bill was signed into law by a Republican president, none other than President Bush! I suspect that Representative Barton won’t even get the majority of Republicans to support such a move, let alone the majority of the country. No, this is a crusade by Representative Barton and his band of tin-hat Tea Party types who love pollution and hate just about everything else, including the majority of their fellow Americans.

  29. PayAttention says:

    “Ban” is a word I hate to see used as a solution for anything other than doing harm. Ban polutants, ban deceptive trade practices. When it comes to things like cars that suck gas or incandescent lightbulbs, the Government should have no right to ban them outright. That is the proverbial road to hell that is paved with good intentions. Responsible use of incandescent bulbs has purposes that cannot be replaced by Compact Flourescent. The Prohibition mindset is alive and well. They should not phase out the bulb, but phase in a tax on it, so that the effect of transitioning is econimcally driven, not some “war on bulbs” enforcement mentality. That way, incandecent bulbs will be able to do what they do well, such as warm pipes safely, but not as cheap as flourescent for room lighting. On one side we have idiot righties afraid to use taxation responsibly (or energy) and on the other we have idiot lefties that are too quick to regulate everything under the sun.

  30. Mike says:

    I’ll continue to hoard incandescent bulbs. Screw the government. If you break one you have to have a hazmat team clean up the mercury. Plus the light generated is terrible and hard on my eyes. Any government that can tell you what light bulb to use is TOO MUCH government. This is just a pay off to GE.

  31. GOP Girl says:

    Don’t worry. We’ll get to keep our incandescent bulbs once Obama is thrown out on his butt next November, and we capture the Senate and keep the House.

  32. olivia says: – we could save a LOT More with the expulsion of illegal aliens in our country on welfare.

  33. DanMan says:


    this has as much credibility as a democrat on the budget

  34. BobSwarthout says:

    Hey AnimuX,

    A report recently came out from the enviro-ists (my name for those practicing the green-at-all-costs religion which it has become) that contends the cool-down for the past decade was caused by the significant increase in SO2 and other industrial emissions in China and most of SE Asia.

    Huh? Sort of flies in the face of what the enviro-ists have been preaching for the past couple of decades. In fact, it’s another contradiction in that religion.

    Just this once, let’s follow that report’s logic… If global warming is so bad, shouldn’t all coal powered plants be operating at max capacity? This way, we can invoke the next ice age sooner, rather than later!

    If the envio-ists want to go back to the stone age, fine. Find a cave, move in, and let the rest of us progress.

  35. Newsworthy says:

    If you think that changing to the new bulbs will lower your electric bill you’d better think twice. All this energy savings talk is BS. Ethanol was supposed to lower gasoline prices…did it happen? The healthcare bill will lower healthcare costs….r i g h t…

    Nothing government gets involved in ends up costing less…it always costs more and that leaves you with less…hello…anyone at home?

  36. Brian Wilkin says:

    This plan is just like ethanol. In a scheme to go green, it will cost consumers more in the end. Anytime our government regulates, we lose.

  37. POWInTheKisser says:

    I’ll pay a lil more for the incadescent usage, a lot less dangerous than the mercury bulbs, which take too long to properly light a room when you immediately need the light necessary…I went to Home Depot and purchased several CASES of each type of bulb my house takes…If the government is willing to put my health at risk for fiscal savings (I know that will have to tie into the health care law somehow), then I will buck their system and prepare for the alternative: there will be no mercury in my house for at least 10 years; and if absolutely necessary beyond that, I’ll go the LED replacement route: lasts a LOT longer, minimal heat generation, and lower electricity consumption (bought my incandescents before I knew about the LED bulbs) and the costs then will be commerically viable to the general consumer…

    @ Jeff B: losing Starbucks and Mickey D’s is no skin off my back, but PLEASE LEAVE BURGER KING ALONE!!!!

  38. traintrack says:

    lets see 75 cents a bulb or $7.00 a bulb for one that doesn’t last any longer. I’m missing the savings…….

  39. Bert says:

    I do not have any problem using the supposed to be cost- and energy-saving bulbs if they work as advertised. Some of these bulbs burn out prematurely(so where are the savings?) and I challenge the companies who make them to dispute that.

  40. olivia says:

    They are MADE IN CHINA – GE is the moneymaker here – they pay NO TAXES. I am going to go buy up a bunch of the old ones. This entire project was a George Bush idea (his bulb stays OUT), but it is not such a horrible flash as “weapons of mass destruction. I will NEVER get in my car and drive someplace to dispose of these stupid lightbulbs.

  41. almostdallas says:

    Cars and trucks are more fuel efficient today than they were 30 years ago, using less oil and creating less pollution. Thanks, Federal Government!

  42. marvin says:


    YES. You obviously do need someone to tell you what to do.

    Add to your list the fact that the government is going to tell you that you can’t use DDT because it decimates the population of bald eagles. Otherwise rednecks and companies run by them would happily kill off our national symbol all the while pledging that they are “more American” than those “hippies” that care about the environment.

  43. Davethewave says:

    Mercury causes cancer.If you can fathom a bulb breaking and your toddler putting mercury laden fingers in his mouth and do not have a problem with that – buy a non-incandescent bulb…Darwin’s law wins..always

  44. Peter says:

    Hey EPA, you’re against CO2 which we all produce 24/7, but you’re all for putting addtional mercury in every household?
    almostdallas, do you really want more mercury going into landfills where some will slowly work there way into our water supply? Is that really what you want in order to say “look at these fancy new fangled bulbs”?

  45. J. Michael says:

    CFL’s don’t last any where near the advertised life, they cost more than they save in electricity besides all of the enviromental concerns. I have stocked up on gobs of incadescent bulbs so I will have light in the future and they will probably be a good investment to sell for a big profit. And I like whatever General Electric doesn’t.

  46. Zilch says:

    Ban the Federal Government.

  47. dishelved1 says:

    If power plants close because of the EPA regs and all of the other hope and change coming not many will be able to afford to have the lights on.People will be burning candles if they are not outlawed by the government or some city council.

  48. The_Observer1271 says:

    No Marvin, speed limits are a safety issue. So the government is going to tell me that I HAVE to buy these light bulbs? Then what? The government is going to tell me I HAVE to use low-flow showerheads and toilets? Then I HAVE to recycle my newspapers (some citizens in other cities have already been fined for not recycling newspapers or ticketed for throwing them away in the trash). Then the government is going to decide that I HAVE to only use recycled paper towels, buy homes and furniture out of recycled wood.
    Where does it end? I dont need the government telling me what I HAVE to do. The only thing I HAVE to do is pay taxes and die and thats as far as the government should be involved in HAVE to’s.

  49. Steve C says:

    What this article fails to detail is the options to the incandescent bulb. Most people assume that flourescent is the only alternative; these contain mercury which creates another set of problems. However, LED retrofits are now available. I have several in my home. They give the equivalent lighting of a 60 Watt bulb while consuming 12 watts of power and are rated to last about 20 years. The price is coming down on them, too. They don’t contain mercury, either.

  50. Been There says:

    We have solar tubes in the closets and throughout the house. On moonlit nights we don’t even turn on a light. I will not fly because they made me take my boots off and now I will use a candle. I wouldn’t even think of having mercury in my house. The Apache prior to the 1800’s would not paint their faces with Cinnabar or red ocher. Dah, no children.

  51. almostdallas says:

    We line up and shell out big bucks for the latest iPads and Kindles, but hang on for dear life to our Edison-era light bulbs. Our priorities are messed up.

  52. A guy says:

    Bob, if it is the better solution. The reason that only a few of the bulbs have been changed out is simple

    1: Disliking the qualty of light given.
    2: Inability to use them in 3-way lamps.
    3: Very poor performance and short lifespan in “extreme” conditions such as being on your front porch.
    4: Dislike of having toxic materials in a fragile container. While the amount is small (~5 mg), it is in vapor form, which is the hazardous type.
    5: If you dispose of a bulb, you have 5 mg of mercury in your trash can. I hope you have at least 40 lb of trash because if not, your entire trash can is hazardous waste (EPA Code D009).

    The environmental benefit is less than minimal. It is non-existent. We are sacrificing our freedom to chose something so simple as a light bulb to reduce our electrical usage by a small fraction of a percent.

  53. marvin says:



    You probably have a problem with speed limits as well.

  54. AnimuX says:

    I love the way conservative supporters denounce mercury in new bulbs while ignoring the coal burning power plants that dump tons of the stuff directly into the atmosphere to power those electricity hungry incandescent bulbs…

    If you’re so worried about mercury, buy LED replacements. They’re mercury free.

  55. marvin says:

    Paranoid Luddites on the far right who act like some old geezer chasing kids of his lawn are the only people complaining about this.

    Thankfully, even if the House passes a law to repeal the ban, it’s going nowhere in the Senate and, even if it did, it would be vetoed by the President.

    It just shows how the current House is comprised of a bunch of Tea Party nutjobs. These lunatics would overturn the ban on DDT if given the chance.

  56. DandyDon_dd says:

    Greenies are liars… for their profit and ignorance.

  57. The_Observer1271 says:

    almostdallas said “If it takes government intervention to help us see what’s best,rather than what’s cheapest right now, then so be it.”

    I have a real problem with the government telling me what it thinks is best for me.

  58. ntangle says:

    As much as I abhor unnecessary Federal mission creep, people that pay their own power bills would have to be morons to keep using incandescent bulbs. As well as people that have to change their own bulbs, esp. in hard to reach spots.

  59. PaleRider says:

    Go price out the cost of replacing just a few in your home. For a ceiling fan, those can’t even be dimmed and cost $10 a piece, minimum. If it’s CFL, you have mercury to deal with if one breaks, and LED casts a harsh blueish light.

    They are not yet ready for the mass market.

  60. HUH? says:

    Let’s try this in Washington first!

  61. USA1 says:


  62. Energy Moron says:

    Even though my summer electric bills are less than $100 a month (neighbors like $360) I did buy some rather new bulbs for about 160 dollars last November.

    They were 8 watt LEDs (6 of them) to replace the outdoor lights (BTW, I don’t like the light and would never use them indoors) and about 20 7 watt CFLs to replace the 13 and 10 watt ones I already had in the ceiling fan stuff.

    I am saving 2 kWH per day from daily tracking, which I can do with the stupid meter (I could do it before by going outdoors).

    So, my 160 dollar investment is saving me 73 dollars a year.

    I (or anybody else for that matter) can dispose safely of CFLs at Home Depot.

    As somebody who went door to door for Ronald Reagan these tea party nuts are as bad as the democrats. The way they are going out of their way to WASTE money shows that they too cannot be trusted to spend our money wisely.

    Why are all politicians of both ilks so stupid?

  63. Jeff B says:

    We could all save billions by putting McDonald’s/Burger King/Starbucks out of business as well.

  64. BobSwarthout says:

    Uh… Looks like the reporter (Jim Snyder) just recited the analysis summary without (no surprise) digging deeper into the report which is based on flawed data and unfounded premises.

    – These reports fail to include the cost (disposal, monetary, environmental, health, etc.) of the mercury in these bulbs.
    – These reports over-estimate the savings and underestimate the costs overall.
    – These reports fail to include the cost differences (initial purchase vs. usage cost) between the two types of bulbs.
    – These reports claim 33 power plants can be closed. Not a chance!
    – And the list goes on…

    Next time, Jim, be a reporter, not a part of GE’s PR campaign!

  65. Cosmop says:

    I’m not worried, I have alread horded a 10 year supply of 100w and 75w bulbs.

  66. Bob says:

    This saves people money. Lots of it. Even the lightbulb industry wants the phase out and does not want these Rs to change the law. It’s only the fringe right wing who cares enough to complain about something no one else is worrying about.

  67. David says:

    I don’t see where this article accounts for a 60 watt LED equivalent bulb is $25 vs. a 60 watt incandescent is 50 cents.

  68. Hotpuppy says:

    The easier thing to do is simply replace the bulbs and save $85 yourself. I did it years ago, works great, no regrets, no complaints. As an added bonus, the bulbs produce less heat which means less AC. Do you *really* need Congress to tell you to save money? c’mon.

    • Dave C says:

      That’s the point. I don’t need the government deciding for me how I should save money, especially be replacing a fifty cent bulb with a $20 one.

  69. calhou says:

    What about the cost of the bulbs – they are MANY times more expensive and burn out just as fast – flourescent bulbs outlast incandecent bulbs ONLY if you leave them on 24/7. If you turn them on AND off – they don’t last as long. Between this and the mercury – flourescents are a BAD IDEA

  70. No Name says:

    Washington would never understand the concept. You see, if you use less energy then you consume less energy and if you consume less energy then you save more money.

    It’s just like spending…if you spend less…..oh well, you know what I mean and you get the concept but Washington doesn’t and never will.

  71. JackBennyfan says:

    In another 20 or 30 years, the big story will be the hundreds of thousands of the mercury-ladened bulbs sitting in landfills because nobody came up with an easy way for consumers to properly dispose of them.

    • Silhouette says:

      Not to mention the number of people needing glasses or other optical treatments due to the harsh white glare of the bulbs. I will use kerosene lanterns before I purchase even one of those bulbs. By the way, does a HASMAT suit come with each purchase for accidental breakage in the home?

  72. RightWingDino says:

    Shouldn’t do it until LED lightbulbs are more commercially viable

  73. Brent Jatko says:

    You should check out the new LED light bulbs.
    I saw them in an article on yesterday.
    They last longer than do CFLs, plus they contain no mercury.
    See for more information.

  74. I. R. Ubertaxed says:

    Bright idea!

  75. justbob says:

    they may be more energy efficient, amd that would be because they don’t give off enough light to see anything.
    just another disaster shoved down our throats by green goonies and big business[GE comes to mind].
    i am really getting sick and tired of people that think they know what is best for us. remember the green idiots that convinced us plastic was better than paper.

  76. almostdallas says:

    Failure to see the big picture will be the end of us. If it takes government intervention to help us see what’s best, rather than what’s cheapest right now, then so be it.

  77. Cletus J. "Bubba" Huckabee Jr. says:

    Rather than maneuver like a nanny state and dictate to citizens how they will conduct economic transactions such as purchasing light bulbs, why not use a little more sophistication and create incentives that will make the buying public want to purchase the more efficient bulbs? Hamfisted governance has never gone over well in the United States, but most consumers are clever enough to be attracted to a more cost-effective product.

  78. bigfishh says:

    My personal experience with these new bulbs can be summed up as: the cost is huge, the bulb lasts no longer than an incandescent bulb, and the savings on our electric bill cannot be detected. Add to this the hazard of mercury and the possibility of future contamination, and I don’t see how this is such a good idea. For one thing, it seems far from green unless you mean green for the light bul manufacturers.

  79. Cowgirl says:

    T O T A L B S

    Al Gore is laughing all the way to the bank.

  80. eiioi says:

    The costs for mercury (Hg) release into the environment from used bulbs, costs of Hg treatment at landfills and recycling facilities, and medical costs to treat workers/consumer exposed to Hg have not been taken into account.

    Get back to us when these costs are accounted for.

  81. Indianpaintbrush says:

    “The association, which includes Fairfield, Connecticut- based General Electric Co., is lobbying against the push to prevent the light-bulb changes.”
    —————————— I bet G E stands to make quite a bit of money on this, plus they wouldn’t want to see all of their R and D expenditures go down the drain , if it was repealed.
    It seems to me that an efficient way to dispose of the bulbs should have been implemented before the government required a switch-over.

  82. David says:

    I’d like to propose a law that bans people from owning pets (dogs, cats, birds, hamsters, etc. etc.). Just think of the money that people could save if they weren’t allowed to buy pets. No more food to buy. No more kitty litter and doggie bags. No more visits to the vet. Consumers would save billions.

    And for those of you who say that people should be allowed to chose whether or not they want to own a pet… shame on you! Don’t you want Americans to save money?

  83. Charles says:

    I doubt you could find 500 each 100 watt incandescent light bulbs in use if you entered every house in Harris County. Probably still a lot of 60 watt. I think the savings have already been taken.

  84. Brazil says:

    This article doesn’t nearly describe in enough detail how pulling the plug on that bill will “jeopardize $12.5 billion in consumer savings by 2020”.

  85. Ryan says:

    What about the excess costs in disposing the mercury-filled replacements? Bad, bad, bad idea. Don’t tell what what kind of light bulbs to use.