Congress outlaws the 100-watt incandescent light bulb.
"In this bill, we ban by 2012 the famously inefficient 100-watt incandescent bulb," said Rep. Jane Harman (D-Venice), who co-sponsored that provision.
- Chicago Tribune
With a vote of 314-100 the U. S. gave final approval to the bill that the Senate had approved 86-8, last week.
Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said the bill would improve the energy efficiency of "almost every significant product and tool and appliance that we use, from light bulbs to light trucks.
- Chicago Tribune
But will it really? How many people actually use the 100-watt bulb? In fact, most light fixtures I have seen suggest that no bulbs larger then 60-watts be used.
Harman's provision would require that by 2020 light bulbs be at least three times more efficient than current ones. It also includes a provision that allows California to set stricter energy-efficiency standards for light bulbs.
- Chicago Tribune
On top of that, is it really Congress' business to tell us what type of bulbs we will be using? The goal of Congress is to eventually get rid of the incandescents altogether. Still, I think it should be a personal choice, made through education, much the same way Kansas has approached motorcycle helmet laws. ***In Kansas, the legislature has refused to pass legislation to require helmets. Instead riders are encouraged by education.***
Back to the bill that Congress approved, they also wrote into the bill a provision to require car makers to increase the minimum mileage to 35 mpg by 2020. Some critics believe that, instead of a savings, that the cars made to meet the new mileage requirements would cost $10,000 to $15,000 more than they do today.
No comments:
Post a Comment