Obama Seeks to Regulate Lighting in Homes

by Stephan Tawney on June 30, 2009

I always got a kick out of the libertarians and even moderates who supported Barack Obama because they were tired of Republicans bringing religion-based morals into public policy. I never understood how they could possibly imagine that a President Obama would interject his morals, often based in junk science, any less into their lives. Surprise:

WASHINGTON — Aiming to keep the focus on climate change legislation, President Barack Obama put a plug in for administration efforts to make lamps and lighting equipment use less energy.

“I know light bulbs may not seem sexy, but this simple action holds enormous promise because 7 percent of all the energy consumed in America is used to light our homes and businesses,” the president said, standing alongside Energy Secretary Steven Chu at the White House.

Seven percent of energy consumed in America is used for lighting? You mean so that Americans can see after the sun goes down, do homework, and generally live their lives? A travesty!

Obama said the new efficiency standards he was announcing for lamps would result in substantial savings between 2012 and 2042, saving consumers up to $4 billion annually, conserving enough energy to power every U.S. home for 10 months, reducing emissions equal to the amount produced by 166 million cars a year, and eliminating the need for as many as 14 coal-fired power plants.

The president also said he was speeding the delivery of $346 million in economic stimulus money to help improve energy efficiency in new and existing commercial buildings.

Wow, he sped the delivery of $346 million of his stimulus package…out of over $700 billion in appropriated funds. The overwhelming majority of the package, intended to create jobs in a timely manner, remains unspent. Meanwhile, national unemployment is climbing into the double-digits.

Senator McConnell points out a flaw in the energy plan:

“Conservation is only half the equation. Even as we use less energy, we need to produce more of our own,” said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. “We have to admit there’s a gap between the clean, renewable fuel we want and the reliable energy we need.”

As the Associated Press points out, the passage of Obama’s lightbulb regulation plan is less-than-certain in the Senate. There are a few Democrats, especially those in more moderate or conservative states, not eager to jump on the far-left envirowacko bandwagon. Hopefully they’ll keep their senses and sustain a filibuster of such a plan.



One Response to “Obama Seeks to Regulate Lighting in Homes”

  1. ceolas Says:

    Yes, Stephan, ban consumers from buying what they want to buy and applaud the savings!

    Edison’s simple safe light bulb is bought 19 times out of 20 in the USA.
    The popularity is the reason to ban it: After all, that’s why the savings are supposed to be so great, no reason to ban what people don’t want.
    Think about it!
    ———-
    About saving energy =
    Does society need to save energy? No, no shortage of electric energy sources…
    and anyway the savings aren’t that great,
    as seen on http://www.ceolas.net/#li13x and onwards.
    ————–
    About what Obama also said, “saving lots of emissions banning bulbs” =
    Does your light bulb give out any gases?
    Since power stations might not give out any gases either, bans are unfair on emission-free energy households being able to use what they want, now or in the future, and emissions can be dealt with directly – as is planned anyway – by using new cleaner coal or renewable (or nuclear) energy.
    ————
    ALL lights have advantages, that’s why they exist for people to choose:
    It’s a pity that just complaints about “energy saving” saving lights are used against a ban, those lights are useful too.
    However: Energy Secretary Steven Chu’s Lab was behind the compact fluorescent light: Conflict of interest?
    —————

    Why a ban is wrong:
    For a list of reasons, with references, why a ban on ordinary light bulbs is wrong, see:
    http://ceolas.net/#li1x onwards

Leave a Reply