Skip to content

The House “very close” to repealing the ban on the incandescent lightbulb

June 22, 2011

  Back in 2007 President Bush made the egregious error of signing the legislation which would ban the incandescent light bulb. The gradual phase out of these lightbulbs was set to begin on January 1st 2012 with the 100 watt bulb being the first to obtain contraband status, with the total banning of these threats to the planet being completed by 2014. How the hell a man claiming to be a conservative could ever go along with such a big government, nanny state overreach as this is something that I have never quite been able to figure out.

  With the deadline looming on these lightbulbs the pushback has begun as the Texas legislature has passed a bill which would allow the incandescent lightbulbs to be manufactured in Texas despite the federal law; it is now headed to Governor Perry’s desk for further action. And now we are learning that the House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman,  Fred Upton, is leading the charge in the House to overturn the ban, and in fact he feels as if he is very close to getting the votes needed to do just that.

  Of course Fred Upton actually sponsored the bill which President Bush signed banning these lightbulbs in the first place, so here we have another example of a politician who glommed onto the global warming scam when it was trendy only to back away from it now that it has been debunked. He saw a political opportunity to do something to save the planet back in 2007–as did George W Bush–and so he acted without regard for the American people because he thought it was politically expedient to do so.

 The result of this legislation is an unconstitutional encroachment on freedom loving Americans all across the nation who find it offensive that the government feels they have the right to tell us which lightbulbs we can and cannot use. We are living in an age where the government feels they have the authority to tell us what we must purchase–healthcare insurance–and what we can no longer purchase–lightbulbs–and it is beyond time for these usurpations of our freedoms and our rights come to an end, while we still have the right to  petition the government for a redress of grievances.

  In my opinion this bill will likely pass the House, but the problem is that there is still a Democrat majority in the Senate filled with warmists, and a president who has bought wholeheartedly into the warmist theology so in the end it is highly likely that the lightbulb will still be offered up to the earth gods as an offering as a sign of contrition for the sins of the people.

17 Comments leave one →
  1. June 22, 2011 10:00 pm

    it makes me sick that this law was promoted by Republicans. Let’s see if there is enough common sense in the two houses to repeal it.
    Steve, didn’t the Senate recently pass a repeal of the ethanol subsidies? If so, do you know where it stands in the House?


    • June 23, 2011 6:19 am

      I still don’t understand what Bush was thinking when he did this. I expect this type of legislation from the statists but is even more frustrating when it comes from our side.
      The Senate did attach an amendment to a bill that would eliminate subsidies, but I don’t know where it now stands in the House.


  2. Noah permalink
    June 22, 2011 10:53 pm

    “How the hell a man claiming to be a conservative could ever go along with such a big government, nanny state overreach as this is something that I have never quite been able to figure out.”

    Like his father, Bush wasn’t a true conservative. True conservatives don’t spend Other People’s Money as if “deficits don’t matter” – they understand that such behavior can only debase a currency and perpetuate the regressive tax that we call inflation. (And of course, they don’t ban light bulbs!) As we face a difficult future, we must be careful to distinguish “Republicans” from “conservatives” – not always the same.


    • June 22, 2011 11:52 pm

      Well said! And I would like to add, Republican and Conservative are rarely the same nowadays.


      • June 23, 2011 1:46 am



      • June 23, 2011 6:22 am

        Very true, I get in the bad habit of mixing the terms “Republicans” and “conservatives” and more and more these two terms are not interchangable.


    • June 23, 2011 6:21 am

      Which would explain why he decided to call himself a “compassionate conservative” thereby insinuating that we normal conservatives are not compassionate.


  3. June 23, 2011 12:14 am

    First bright idea they’ve had in ages. Why not just let the marketplace decide?


  4. Old Marine permalink
    June 23, 2011 4:06 am

    Darn, that was going to be my retirement. I stocked up on 500,000 incandescent bulbs and was going to sell themfor $2 each.


    • June 23, 2011 6:25 am

      Looks like you are going to have to come up with a new plan. Don’t worry though, even if this ban gets overturned I am sure they will come up with something else to ban.


  5. Old Marine permalink
    June 23, 2011 4:10 am

    Don’t worry when Obama gets done shutting down all the power plants power will be so expensive we will all be using candles.


  6. mamapajamas permalink
    June 24, 2011 8:36 pm

    Hoo, boy… am I glad to see this in the process of getting overturned! Seriously, I’m an artist (among other things) and have never liked the light color coming from florescent lights. I didn’t really KNOW what my problem was with it until I started looking at photographs I’d taken under different lighting conditions.

    Photos taken in incandescent light show up as a warm orangish color, which is complimentary to most skin tones. The people you’re talking to in the room look better under incandescent.

    Florescent light is GREEN. The cheaper the light fixture, the greener the light is. This is why, when you look in the mirror in a public rest room with cheap light fixtures, you look like Night of the Living Dead. I never fully realized what the problem was until I saw some photos of some red-haired friends whose hair showed traces of OLIVE GREEN when I zoomed in at the pixel level. Green pixels do not belong in red hair. In abstract paintings, yes. In photographs, NO. I realized that if the green in florescent light was pervasive enough to show up as green in RED hair, it was a horrendous invasion of the spectrum.

    There are other problems with curly lights… the problem with cleanup if you break one, for instance… but the color was already enough for me to despise them.


    • June 24, 2011 8:45 pm

      Let us hope this gains enough momentum to see the ban repealed. I am sire Obama will veto it, but maybe we can finally overturn this ban next year with a new president.


  7. mamapajamas permalink
    June 24, 2011 8:40 pm

    PS: My problem with the COLOR of curly lights is completely aside from the fact that I hated that the government was forcing them on us.

    We have enough mercury of our own without importing it from China!



  1. Mass Tea Party - Massachusetts Tea Party | Blog | The Future of the Light Bulb Ban

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: