Light bulb ban NOT repealed

We fell for it, too.

There has been no repeal of the light bulb ban.

The deal agreed to in Congress merely deprives the Department oF Energy the funds to enforce the ban for 2012. The ban is still on the books — so the DOE may very well get the money next year or the year after or who knows when.

Moreover as the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy points out,

… Five manufacturers are now producing and selling efficient incandescent bulbs that meet the standards. With the new budget provision, the law is still in effect, but the Department of Energy cannot spend money to enforce it. Law-abiding companies will follow the law. Less scrupulous companies will take advantage of the lack of enforcement, selling products that waste energy and increase energy costs for consumers….

It is not at all clear whether light bulb manufacturers and sellers will be willing to break the law simply because there is no money to enforce it.

We were among the first to report the purported ban last night.

We should have known the news was too good to be true.

Now we know why Democrats agreed to the deal; it doesn’t really matter.

24 thoughts on “Light bulb ban NOT repealed”

  1. I agree with the sentiment above that we should look at this as “a step toward” lifting the “ban”. The solution to the problem lies in ending the Democratic Party’s control over this and preventing that until the Democrats have changed again (if ever). The Republicans are not completely reliable on such issues either. At this time they are the means to block the Democrats who have been taken over by their Left.
    This push to mandate energy savings is a maneuver in the greater effort to establish centralized authority, the authroity for central government to control. That is an establishing element in the long-term effort to establish management in a social-corporation. So victory on this issue will be a setback for those pushing this social change, but it will not stop the effort. The goal is “dictatorship of the party of the people”. That was the way it was expressed in the Soviet Union, but the current Democratic Party is not communist and in little to no danger of pursuing that approach.
    The American Democratic Party has become a socialist party and it is important to understand that there is a real difference between socialism and communism because communism was originally theorized as critique and alternative to socialism, not, (as most believe) to free-enterprise. When Marx refers to “Capitalism” he was speaking of the ability of the very wealthy to buy influence and eventual dominance over a socialist society, the kind of societies in which he lived and which he studied. Marx originally described an evolutionary process based on “Dialectic-Materialism” as manifest through class-struggle. Class-struggle (despite current ignorant misinterpretations) exists only in the type of structuire in which the interests of a lower class are pitted against those of an upper and more powerful class. They depend on political power being seizable by cooperative efforts by competing classes. That does not exist in the limited, divided system that facilitates free-enterprise as Smith envisioned it. In the free-market system (which can only be free in the abscence of controlling political structure) mobility beteen varying levels of wealth are too fluid to establish competing classes. The poorest worker is always no more than a good idea or opportunity to a few generations of accumulated and inherited wealth away from entering the upper ranges of wealth. while the wealthy are always a few bad decisions away from falling to a far lower position of wealth. The free-market also pits wealth against wealth. Without a power structure to take over that is capable of controlling opportunty within the society, the greatest threat to great wealth is the potential rise of competition with newer and fresher ideas that will out-compete established manufacturers. So the free-market, like divided government with restricted authorities, pits power against power while the centralization of power ensures the dominance of society by major sources of power; political and economic and physical.
    Marx’s communism was a theoretical point in an evolutionary process. But it critiqued socialism and provided socialism with a strawman to stand against. Because of similarities with theoretical, democratic-socialism the socialists were able to use communism as a false comparison to which they asserted, their socialist ideals were relatively moderate. In competition with free-market models, socialism made poor sense. So the socialists learned to associate communism, with its rich theoretical terminology, with socialism, while they associated themselves with free-enterprise-with-a-democratic-force-to-prevent-the-excesses-of-capitalism. They set up a continuum with communism at one end and free-enterprise at the other and socialism as the moderate compromise between these “extremes”. But it was all a lie to make socialism, the true extreme, seem more acceptable.
    To understand this one needs to understand that communism is only a theoretical social organization. There has never been a large, modern, communal society. This is a pure Rouseauian dream world in which all property and politiacla/commercial activity is controlled by the people who at the level closest to the property and activity through various democratically run “communes” that overlap each other in membership but are distinct based on their application. So each farm or factory is a commune. Each worker also belongs to communes based on where they live and based on any other activities inwhich they are involved, like arts-communes and recreational-communes. All of these communes are members of larger, regional communes and so on. As Marx explained, the “means of production” are controlled by those engaged in the production. It is in socialism that the state controls every (or any) element of society. In communism there would be no central control.

    I’m not advocating for communism. It is a theoretical stage that I don’t believe could be achieved or maintained. What I’m trying to convey is that what we are told are communism and socialism are not those things. This is a multi-generational fiction developed to disguise what is truly socialism from recognition. Real socialism is actually a slightly modified re-hash of aristocracy and monarchy with trappings of a pseudo-free-enterprise (controlled by the state) and trappings of democracy (with choices limited to more or less active or extensive control by the state). But the state does not actually control. The state is established to act as arbitrator between the masters of various types of power within the society: leaders of Business, Labor, social issues, Bureaucracies and Police and Military leaders. the main differences are that the new aristocrats and leaders of the state arise from the aristocracy through popular acceptance instead of birth-heritage or ability to destroy the competition. Once accepted, they assume the role and powers of modern monarchs and their councils of peers remaining in power by consent of the populace and peers. In the long run this is likely to devolve into a new system of birth-inheritance, (as we see in North Korea and Cuba today) and see throughout the “democratic” countries in family-political-dynasties (or in the 19th Century in the inheritance of prestige by Louis-Napoleon near the end of the post Revolutionary instability.
    The importance of light bulbs saving energy that is only in shortage because of government retrictions on energy production is in establishing the power of the central government to control these things. This is similar to the take-over of health insurance made desirable by the intentional expansion of demand beyond supply beginning with the incentives for employer-provided healthcare insurance, medicare, medicaid and federal regulation of healthcare systems based on those federal “interests”, the promotion of inflated tort judgments leading to inflated liability costs, etc. In every element of life we have seen the government promotion inflated markets leading to suppliments that further inflate the market leading to regulations that further inflate the market leading to more suppliments by central government leading to greater and greater problems with all solutions leading to the establishment of further federal control. At every step, this is supported by statistical studies of dubious, pseudo-scientific merit based on the theory that this can identify great social imperfections that can only be resolved through the application of great society-encompassing political power. And the pseudo-science, Sociology, that justifies these needs was developed by the socialists to justify the need for their take-over of civilization.

    This too crude outline cannot contain the complexity of this development, as complex as the history of civilization over the last few hundred years. What these light bulbs are is a particular tiny step in the grand struggle to reassert the theory that human beings are not fit to run their own lives and need to be directed by a gifted few who can better understand what needs to be done in order to maintain and improve civilization.

  2. Someone should follow the lead of that guy in Germany to get around the EU nannystate. He sold the 100 watt bulbs as “incandescent space heaters”

  3. To summarize,

    It is true that the amendment makes little difference in the short term.

    But it should be added that the Republican amendment was not pointless:
    It was all they could do in a Democrat controlled Senate,
    and it means Congressmen are forced to look again at the whole issue in election year 2012.

    The 2012 sale of regular incandescents was NEVER banned
    Only the manufacture and import.
    Since stores are stocking up, it will not change things for consumers short term.

    Remember too that Canada delayed a ban to 2014, allowing cross-border purchases.
    The Mexico situation is under review, they are suppposed to bring in a ban but grid issues
    are affecting it (following the massive CFL switchover program this fall, copying California etc programs,
    but CFLs affect grids with harmonic distortion etc )

    Long term is a different story:
    Whatever the ban proponents say,
    incandescent technology for ordinary lamps will effectively be banned,
    on the mandated 45 lumen per Watt end regulation standard.

    A full explanation of current light bulb regulations,
    and any amendment effect







  5. I propose that we from now on refer to CFLs as “mercury light bulbs”. That oughta get the greenies good and panicking

  6. Re Last, correction
    the bulbs and building, cars, washing machines etc
    could simply be taxed — and pay for price reduction on their energy saving alternatives, of course
    (= not just CFLs, LEDs !) on such ideology

  7. Art,
    Why does not a Liberal Bankrupt California Government,
    simply tax electricity, coal, electricity from coal to reduce use
    (The government income of which could help pay for insulation of poorer affected homes – or whatever.
    Product bans give no such income!)
    – and it avoids chasing consumers around the place with lots of silly little regulations

    the bulbs (and building, cars, washjng machines etc etc )
    could simply be taxed, on liberal ideology
    – with the money helping to pay for price reducing CFL/LED subsidies
    “so people are not just hit by taxes” – and keep choice

    Free market competition better,
    but I mean from viewpoint of a liberal bankrupt Gov guy in Sacramento…

  8. Ahh, life on the left coast… People of California:

    You don’t like the ban? Then do the only thing you can actually do about it, that might make the usual idiots in Sacramento to listen:

    Buy all your light bulbs going forward from out of state. Get’m in Vegas, Reno, Oregon, or over the internet, but whatever you do, don’t buy from any company that collects CA sales tax.

    Then, just for fun, if you really want to annoy the CA government, for each conventional bulb you buy, send in the sales tax, but do it, one check for each bulb. Send lots of checks for lots of bulbs. Maybe we can bury the CA government in 5 or 10 million checks a year that they would have to process, file, cash, receipt, confirm, etc.

    And then start doing FOA’s to find out more about how many bulbs have been purchased out of state…

    If we can’t control’m let’s bury the government in its own waste.

    CA businesses, don’t like it? Tough! I don’t hear you shouting loud enough, or spending enough to stop all the taxes and other nonsense out here.

    Maybe someone might even cook up a demonstration of how stupid it is… For example, as a form of 1st amendment protest, how about visiting the Capitol in Sacramento. If people dropped a few hundred CFL’s one afternoon or evening in each government building, as a protest, the end result might be CA Hazmat being required to shut down all those government buildings for weeks while the cleanup (HazMat style) takes its time. Don’t forget to report it so someone can sue for a hostile – dangerous work environment. Your protest will be heard. Now I’m not advocating such action, but rather musing about those things.

    If the mixed bag of crazies, professors, students and paid union workers tied to Occupy movements can shut down or ports, the least we more intelligent people can do, is shut down our government, by using their own regulations against them.

    BTW, after a 10 minute flood in our house a few years back, (washing machine). All the major water was literally mopped up in 10 minutes. Within two hours we had cleanup folks with blowers, etc.

    But, after a couple of hours of clean-up, when we thought it was all done. only minor wet carpet… we were advised by the cleanup company that they found a piece of mold about the size of the head of a pin, in the kitchen island under the sink.

    Do to that, it became a “hazmat” event. For two weeks our kitchen was plasticized, and off limits. The total bill to the insurance company was about $20,000 I believe (which no doubt they negotiate down)…

    But the point remains – nonsense… First, the mold was no where near where the water had been. But a stupid rule, causes huge insurance costs, etc… Of course it provides “green jobs” cleaning up harmless mold (as 99.?% in such cases, seems to be). Hey, don’t all you guys on the east coast have mold on your basement walls? -a

  9. That is fantastic news! I plan on becoming a light bulb salesman. Why not you? If we all become light bulb salesmen, what can they do to us? Maybe Congress will sail back to their motherland of totalitarianism.

  10. Thor, I’ll agree with replacing the vast majority of Congress, imposing term limits, and certainly making all bills 100% public immediately. However, I think you’ve gone slightly off the deep end with your accusations. If you don’t calm down and dampen your rhetoric, no one is going to take you seriously.

  11. If I read the news correctly, the US Department of Justice will soon have to divert finds from its budget for prosecutions (some of which must remain in place while they pursue an Arizona Sheriff for enforcing US law) to its budget for defense over the “Fast and Furious’ controversy, which has been getting some serious criticism from Congress. It is being called “Obama’s Watergate.”

  12. 1 RE manufacturing,
    only a few small US plants eg in South Carolina, Pennsylvania
    now making the relevant incandescents anyway

    Legal manufacture in Texas since June 2011,
    seemingly after clearing with Fed authorities, the Attorney Generals office, Gov Perry spokesmen personally told me
    (and at least to the extent that it had put off the Arizona govcernor Jan Brewer from signing their similar bill)
    Gov Perry’s office are (or were ) looking for interested investors..
    SC has local 2011 bill passed in House held to early 2012 Senate session
    to allow continued local manufacture, again independent of federal law.

    Pennsylvania has (Matt Gabler) bill underway to allow current incandescent manufacturing at the Osram-Sylvania factory in St Marys, of which Matt Gabler is the State House representative.

    RE all 7 US local bills and linked updates

    2 RE retailers,
    Word is some retailers won’t stock them,
    but most are seeing it as a right to continue selling them, on current media reports
    Also legal in Canada until 2014 at least
    = ? stop/search/confiscation at borders allowed or not… interesting legal case

    3 RE legislation,
    It’s a 9 1/2 month delay and still needs formal approval, but should go through ok before deadline Friday night:

    As seen , it was the only Republican rider that was allowed through by Democrats,
    *on White House instruction* during the discussions,
    which gives hope of permanence of this repeal, in 2012 election times…

    So hopefully you are a little too pessimistic ..for now 🙂

  13. If you want any 100Watt light bulbs, I can supply from England. Problem is they are for 220/240volt and might be a bit dim. However I am developing a nice line in superconducting transformers …….

  14. I love my incandescents. I buy em by the case and have more than enough to last me the rest of my life. Someday I will be handing them out as gifts to people who will appreciate them. I burn a 60 watt outside on both sides of my garage door and I just wonder how long before the light bulb police will show up.

  15. Like in Australia, the price of electricity to run them will eventually cause their demise.
    But there will still be the need for these older globes due to the failure of technology to give us a reasonably priced LED type globe which is bright enough.
    By theway, the Fluoro type are OK but dont take any notice of the comparable wattage ratings. Buy the 22 watt types for all fittings. These will do the job. I dont see the point of getting a lower wattage rating with all the smaller wattae ones having been much too dim for years anyway. Unless its for reading when lighter ratings may be needed to prevent glare.

  16. Consumer demand remains for the old bulbs, so they will assuredly be sold. This is effectively a 1 year delay/repeal, and realistically was the best that could have been done with a Democratic Senate. It was an appropriations bill for 2012, they couldn’t have actually repealed the law via this bill.

  17. Well, the House alleged attempt at repeal was a con from the git-go. Never did the house attack the ban directly to clean the bureaucrats dung off the floor. It was always an elimination of money to enforce the regs. Not one of the so-called tea party class in the house did a damn thing to eliminate the government’s overreach for the benefit of crony crapitalist Jeffry Immelt and the fascist GE. A lesson to be learned: Washington, D.C. infects anyone who comes close it it with a freedom hating virus that grows exponentially throughout their system. That is why we need to replace every stinking Congressman and Senator. No exceptions. period. Then we need to set up long distance voting for all of them along with long-distance appearance at Committee meetings, and immediate release on the internet of every bill introduced in Congress. Also, there should be a prohibition, punishable by prison time for any Congressman or Senator to ever set foot inside the boundaries of Washington, D.C. during their term of office.

  18. I also have stockpiled bulbs! No incompetent “guv’ment” is gonna get away with this sort of edict far as I am concerned. Ultimately, this will merely generate a thriving black market for incandescents; easily bought similar to R-12. Man, what a bunch of ultimate non-thinking losers!!!

  19. I’ve been stocking up on the incandescent light bulbs for a while. The government can stick the crappy CFL’s that cost an arm and a leg and are about as bright as watching Rosanne Barr right where the sun don’t shine.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.