Light Bulb Bullies

The impending congressional ban and phase-out of the sale of incandescent light bulbs has met opposition from CFACT since its inception.  It opposes three of CFACT’s four tenets: Prospering Lives, Promoting Progress, and Protecting the Earth.  This is because the ban and the resulting prominence of Mercury-containing compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) creates a two-fold violation of the tenants: 1. A CFL bulb breakage in the home will become more dangerous to humans than in the past with incandescent bulbs due to Mercury exposure; and 2. Careless disposal of CFL bulbs will be detrimental to the environment.  Not to mention, the last of the American incandescent light bulb factories are being shuttered, while CFL factories are being established abroad.  The EPA has chosen to overlook the environmental concerns that arise from CFLs in deference to the popular term in our political lexicon, “energy efficiency.”

The Better Use of Bulbs Act, or BULB Act, was an attempt within the House – led by Representative Joe Barton of Texas – to repeal the ban and allow consumers to purchase incandescent bulbs after this year.  Unfortunately, it did not gain the required two-thirds majority to pass.

I have two slight, and I mean slight, grievances with Rep. Barton’s bill, and they relate to both the timing of its proposal – during a heated federal budget debate – and the message brought forth by the bill’s author and co-sponsors.  In regards to messaging, the BULB Act seemed to be advertised as a chance to usurp the power of a malevolent, industry-constricting government.  While such a message is not necessarily bad, those that advocated for the BULB Act (almost exclusively Republicans) allowed that message to dominate.  This paved the way for the BULB Act to be trivialized by the media as well as some Democrats who may have otherwise voted for it.  Fewer references were made to the environmental hazards that CFL bulbs create as well as how CFLs and incandescent bulbs should continue to be sold together in stores under the auspices of a free market, allowing competition to improve both products.  If these concerns were emphasized more heavily, and brought forth in less politically tense times, bi-partisan support may have resulted.