Going Green, is only the cost of the green in your wallet.
 

This is something we all should know and it is a perfect example of how we are being manipulated with the so called "go green" crap.


Some of you may not know what Title 24 is.(at the end of this post is a description) Here in California all new construction or major remodel must comply with Title 24. Basically it requires that fluorescent fixtures be used instead of incandescent lamps, in all new construction. With commercial it's watts per sq ft, and with residential it's percentage of hardwired lighting installed in the residence. And as many of you know incandescent lights will not be sold after 2014, so basically everyone will have to replace their light fixtures with fluorescent (with dedicated sockets) once they run out of replacement incandescent lamps as they burn out.

That's where some real big questions arise. Most, if not all, of the fluorescent fixtures are either made in China or not in the USA. Also, the fluorescent lamps are mostly made in China or not in the USA. So, just imagine what swapping out all the fixtures in the state of California, both commercial and residential, will cost our citizens, and all that money will be going out of the country.

But, I must also add that the cost of one fluorescent lamp (not the long tubes, but the globe or compacted style with a dedicated socket) ranges from $5 to $15 each. Even online they land up costing about this when you add in shipping. Now compare that to incandescent which run as cheep as 25 cents each. Another thing I should point out is that our good old incandescent lamps give off a very white light. The fluorescent lamps try to do this, but it costs the customer up to 30% more for that feature. It is called Kalven (k), which is the color of the light given off by the lamp. Fluorescent lamps range between 2,500k to 5,000k, the higher the k the whiter the light and the more you pay.
The CFL (compact fluorescent lamps) with the screw on base are not actual fluorescent lamps, (these were given away free to customers by their electric companies to get people to replace their incandescent lamps). These CFL were put on the market to get the public used to the look of the fluorescent lamps, but actually the light (Lumens=actual amount of light given off) is less per watt than the incandescent and the CFL are actually less efficient, but the public was told they were more efficient. This is a lie, when you compare the Watts (which is the energy used) with the Lumens, which is the actual light given off, the incandescent are more efficient when you compare wattage with lumens. But the public has been lied to and by doing so got the public used to the thought of using fluorescent and that was the goal. One of the obvious manipulations associated with this go green scam.

This is just a taste of what so called "going green" is going to cost each household. You have to wonder if China had a huge hand in forcing this to happen, after all, that's who is prospering the most.

Next time you're at the hardware store or where lighting is sold, look at where the fixtures are manufactured along with the lamps and consider how many will have to be bought in the next few years. Yes, all that money pretty much going to China, and our politicians forced us to do it.

This story below is an example of how our government has wasted tax dollars, just to see them go to China.


Green Jobs Are Not Evergreen Jobs
After receiving at least $43 million in aid from the state of Massachusetts, Evergreen Solar announced last month that it would be closing its manufacturing plant in Devens, Mass., laying off its 800 workers and moving its manufacturing operations to China.
Warning: These are the "green jobs" that President Obama has touted as part of his "winning the future" agenda.
The problem isn't that Obama wants to direct federal dollars toward research for alternative energy. It is in the national interest to have affordable options when oil sources are depleted.
The problem is that Obama thinks that green jobs are the answer to the anemic economy recovery. And he clings to that belief in the face of contrary evidence.
Last May, the president came to solar-panel manufacturer Solyndra in Fremont, Calif., to celebrate a new plant -- creating 3,000 construction jobs and 1,000 permanent workers. President Obama exclaimed, "The true engine of economic growth will always be companies like Solyndra."
Within months, Solyndra, which has yet to turn a profit, announced that it was canceling the expansion. Solyndra, the San Jose Mercury News reported, has shifted more than half of its production to -- you guessed it -- China.
At best, you can describe Obamaland's choice of venue as bad advance work.
Michael El-Hillow, Evergreen Solar's chief executive, explained in a statement the reason for his company's move: "While the United States and other western industrial economies are beneficiaries of rapidly declining installation costs of solar energy, we expect the United States will continue to be at a disadvantage from a manufacturing standpoint."
Evergreen is -- this month anyway -- the third-largest solar panel manufacturer in the United States. The Massachusetts plant opened in 2008 with much fanfare and generous taxpayer assistance. But just one year later, The New York Times reported, company suits were talking to Chinese officials, who could offer cheaper labor -- average monthly wages below $300 as opposed to $5,400 in the Bay State -- sweetheart loans and other incentives.
Harvard economist Edward L. Glaeser saw Evergreen leave Massachusetts and opined in The New York Times that while he believed investing in green technology, "(I)t always was a mistake to think that clean energy was going to be a jobs bonanza."
And: "We shouldn't pretend that cheaper solar energy will end up employing millions of our less-skilled citizens."
This leaves American solons with two choices: Keep feeding the meter -- or cut your losses.
The high cost of subsidizing wind and solar power should seal the deal. According to the California Energy Commission, the cost of photovoltaic solar electricity is about 26 cents per kilowatt hour, as opposed to 13 cents for electricity powered by natural gas.
With the unemployment rate at 9 percent, Washington should be looking to create jobs that aren't going to run to China. Or, as Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, told The New York Times, "If the president really were serious about job creation, he would be working with us to develop American oil and gas by American workers for American consumers."
American Enterprise Institute senior fellow Steven F. Hayward likes to ask people which state has the lowest unemployment rate. The answer is North Dakota, with an unemployment rate of 3.8 percent. "The reason is they've had a huge oil and gas boom," Hayward explained. They've tripled their oil output.
As the price of oil spills over the $100-per-barrel mark, Washington ought to reconsider the "green jobs" approach. As Hayward noted, "Brown energy creates jobs and prosperity."



CCR, Title 24
California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24, also known as the California Building Standards Code, is a compilation of three types of building standards from three different origins:
• Building standards that have been adopted by state agencies without change from building standards contained in national model codes
• Building standards that have been adopted and adapted from the national model code standards to meet California conditions
• Building standards, authorized by the California legislature, that constitute extensive additions not covered by the model codes that have been adopted to address particular California concerns
Notwithstanding, the national model code standards adopted into Title 24 apply to all occupancies in California except for modifications adopted by state agencies and local governing bodies. To learn more go to: About Title 24, a document intended to provide information and training on the application and use of Title 24.
Starting in 1989, the BSC has published triennial editions of Title 24 in their entirety every three years. Title 24 is available for purchase or available to the public at no cost through depository libraries. The following triennial editions have been published in their entirety:

Administration Declines to Cite China for Currency Manipulation
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration on Friday declined to cite China for manipulating its currency to gain trade advantages against the United States.
The Treasury Department noted that China last June said it would begin allowing its currency to rise against the dollar. The agency said the pace of revaluation has been too slow since and more rapid appreciation is needed.
Treasury's finding came in a report it must submit to Congress every six months determining whether other countries are manipulating their currencies. American manufacturers have been pushing for China to be cited. That could result in penalty tariffs being imposed on Chinese imports.
In refusing to cite China, Treasury said Chinese President Hu Jintao had assured President Obama during a visit to Washington last month that China would intensify its efforts to "further enhance exchange rate stability."
Treasury said that the pace of revaluation had accelerated in recent months and the movement was being aided by different rates of inflation in the two countries. The report said that the Chinese currency, the renminbi, had risen in value by 3.7 percent against the dollar since China announced in June that it would resume allowing the currency to appreciate.
But because inflation in China is much higher currently than it is in the United States, the Chinese currency has risen on an inflation-adjusted basis at an annual rate of about 10 percent, Treasury said in its new report.
But Treasury still said that China's currency movement "thus far is insufficient and that more rapid progress is needed. Treasury will continue to closely monitor the pace of appreciation."
Lawmakers on Capitol Hill have been critical of China's currency policies. Last September, the House passed legislation that would give the administration more power to impose economic sanctions on countries deemed to be manipulating their currencies to gain trade advantages.
The Senate did not take up the legislation. But lawmakers critical of China's trade practices have vowed to renew their efforts this year.
"It's plain as the nose on your face that China manipulates its currency," Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said Friday in criticizing the administration's failure to cite China. "It's just as plain that the only way to address this problem is for Congress to act."
Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, said the administration's inaction underscored the need for a tougher approach that would be embodied in bipartisan currency legislation he is sponsoring with Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine.
"American manufacturers and workers struggling to compete against unfairly subsidized imports can't afford to wait any longer for action," Brown said. "Congress must act this year to pass legislation addressing currency manipulation to level the playing field and help get our economy back on track."
American manufacturers contend that China's currency is undervalued by as much as 40 percent against the dollar. That makes Chinese goods cheaper for U.S. consumers and American products more expensive in China.
Critics blame China's currency policies and other trade practices they see as unfair for the loss of millions of U.S. manufacturing jobs.
The U.S. deficit with China, the largest with any country, is on track to set an all-time annual high for 2010. Through November, the deficit with China was running at an annual rate of $275.3 billion, which would exceed the previous record of $268 billion set in 2008.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...#ixzz1D9Ob5Iw8

That is exactly why the government tried to get the public used to the screw in fluorescent, because the light itself if not as white as the incandescent and will take some getting used to. If the lamp you bought or buy today has a screw in base it is not a true fluorescent, but instead it is that half way crap that the government is using to get us used to fluorescent lamp with their ugly color and less actual light. Those screw in are the ones that are not as efficient as the incandescent that we are used to. The true fluorescent lamps have a dedicated socket, and are hard to find when trying to match them up to the fixtures due to all the different fixtures from all those different countries and the lamps themselves being from so many different countries. But this is the nightmare just down the road.

All those new fluorescent lamps (bulbs) are very, very expensive and the light is really crappy. Remember to look for the Kalvin (K) and try to get something between 3,500K and 5,000K, the higher the better because they are white, but the more they will cost. It's hard to find the 5,000K, also known as hospital white, but 4,500k are not too hard to find and they're somewhat like an incandescent.

But also remember, unlike an incandescent which give off just about the same amount of lumens through the life of the lamp, fluorescent lamps don't give of an equal amount through the life of the lamp. If the fluorescent lamp says it will last 10,000 hours, after about 7,000 hours the lumens (actual light given off) will start to diminish. So you actually aren't really getting the hours the package may say. After about 2/3 of the fluorescent lamps life it starts to degrade. Most people have experienced this with the long tube fluorescent lamps, but didn't pay much attention because the lamps were fairly inexpensive. The new styles are not inexpensive, so do your homework before buying, because replacing a whole house or business can cost hundreds of dollars.

The incandescent was invented here in the USA and now the government wants us to get rid of it. Does that surprise anyone?

I've been green before the term was ever used. In my family we called it being thrifty. Taking care of what we had and saving energy and money for things that we would love to have. This green thing makes me see blue.

Rimo, LEDs are Light Emitting Diodes and are extremely energy efficient. Where most people have seen LEDs used for quite some time now is in commercial buildings. They are the EXIT signs at the end of hallways that are used as path finders. They use almost no energy and can last for many years. They've started using LEDs for many other items where a low light can be used. There are so many different types of lighting now available but few give off the white light that the incandescent does, and incandescent lamps aren't hazardous waste that contains mercury like the fluorescent.

Light Bulb Repeal Bill Stalls in Congress
A bill to repeal the banning of ordinary incandescent light bulbs is bottled up in a congressional committee despite Americans’ apparent distaste for the more expensive bulbs that would replace them.
The 100-watt incandescent bulb is scheduled to be outlawed in January 2012, the 75-watt bulb will disappear in January 2013, and the 60-watt and 40-watt bulbs in January 2014.
The bill banning the bulbs — which use more energy than newer bulbs — was introduced in 2007 by then Rep. Jane Harman, a California Democrat, and Rep. Fred Upton, a Michigan Republican, and signed by President George W. Bush in December 2007.
Upton is now chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and while lobbying Republicans for the post he vowed to repeal the section of the 2007 bill that bans incandescent bulbs.
“We have heard the grass roots loud and clear, and will have a hearing early next Congress,” he said in December. “The last thing we wanted to do was infringe upon personal liberties, and this has been a good lesson that Congress does not always know best.”
In January, Texas Republican Rep. Joe Barton proposed the Better Use of Light Bulb (BULB) act, which would cancel the phase-out of incandescent bulbs. The bill has 62 co-sponsors, 61 of them Republicans, and a companion bill in the Senate has 28 co-sponsors.
But Upton’s committee has not yet held a hearing on the bill, and “House Republican leadership has evinced no interest in bringing the Barton bill to the floor,” Diana Furchtgott-Roth, an adjunct fellow at the Manhattan Institute, writes in RealClearMarkets. “Calls to repeal the incandescent light bulb ban are coming from consumers, who prefer incandescent lamps."
“Chairman Upton,” she adds, “how about voting Mr. Barton’s bill out of committee and sending it to the House floor?”
Once incandescent bulbs vanish, Americans will have to purchase either compact fluorescent bulbs — known as CFLs — halogens, or light-emitting diodes (LEDs).
All three cost significantly more than incandescent bulbs, although they last longer. Many people don’t like the light cast by CFLs — the cheapest of the three — and they must be disposed of at special recycling centers because they contain mercury. They also pose a danger if broken in the home.
Another factor to consider: Incandescent bulbs are made in the United States, while almost all CFLs are made in China, according to Furchtgott-Roth.
She concludes: “Consumers should be free, in my opinion, to choose the light bulbs they prefer. If Congress believes that consumers should conserve energy, it can impose a tax on the model bulbs whose use it would discourage, or on electricity in general.”

I believe that most of the "green energy" stuff is one sort of scam or another.

Want "green energy"?

Twenty five years ago wind farms were largely a rich man's write off where the consumers pay the highest avoided cost of building conventional power plants, I don't know how efficient they are now but one thing's sure in my mind; we're paying at least twice as much for electricity as we should otherwise.

A former head of DWP informed the city that the DWP could afford to have either "green power" or to own their offices, but that they couldn't afford to do both.

I understand that European countries who heavily invested in wind farms now view the venture as something like having a week dead chicken wired around the neck.

Wind farms and Solar farms are opposed by "environmental" groups because it takes so much of "nature" to create the farm.

"Environmentalists" also object to transmission power lines being built to channel "green energy" to the metropolis from wherever "green power" is generated. I believe the proposed DWP transmission line Green Path North was scuttled by "environmentalists". Currently it seems like "environmentalists" are making a concerted effort to make SDG&E's Sunrise Powerlink so expensive and so difficult to complete that it will discourage any other like project in the future.

Meanwhile, rooftop generation is so costly for efficiency ratio and comes with so many strings attached that actual payback is far off in the future. The tax breaks are subsidization of high energy costs - redistribution of other's means to support it.

"Environmentalists" may mean well, but they are the sort of people who will bitch about cell phone towers to their congressman via a cell phone. I don't see a one of them calling the power company to remove the electrical service to their own dwellings.

Guys,
Lets just get to the bottom line. Yet again this is government getting involved in areas of our lives in a way that is unacceptable. I stocked up on incandescent bulbs years ago when I first heard about this and have enough to last the rest of my life. No way will I every use one of those hazmat bulbs that have mercury. Dangerous, poor lighting and just plain stupid if you will. But that is what the green movement is all about.

Yes. it used to be called being conservative and not wasting things. Stay out of my home government!

Remember when glass soda bottles were returned to the store? They were washed by the soda company and refilled. That was green!!!

Remember when you put your laundry out to dry? That was green.

Remember the milk bottles that were picked up by the milkman and reused? That was green.

There were many more things that people did that were green before the tree huggers came up with the "going green" crap.

Right on, Jean. Remember also when people recycled paper?

Recycling plastic is where things are the worse. Here in CA, you can only recycle plastic that is subsidized by the state. You should be able to recycle all plastic. Plastic is a petroleum product and as much as we worry about oil, we should worry about wasting plastic too.

I remember it all.

Texas Tells Feds: Shove Your Light Bulb Ban
State lawmakers have passed a bill that allows Texans to skirt federal efforts to promote more efficient light bulbs, which ultimately pushes the swirled, compact fluorescent bulbs over the 100-watt incandescent bulbs many grew up with.
The measure, sent to Gov. Rick Perry for consideration, lets any incandescent light bulb manufactured in Texas - and sold in that state - avoid the authority of the federal government or the repeal of the 2007 energy independence act that starts phasing out some incandescent light bulbs next year.
"Let there be light," state Rep. George Lavender, R-Texarkana, wrote on Facebook after the bill passed. "It will allow the continued manufacture and sale of incandescent light bulbs in Texas, even after the federal ban goes into effect. ... It's a good day for Texas."
The Natural Resources Defense Council, a New York-based environmental group, is calling on Perry to veto the bill.
"The Texas legislation is designed to showcase the state's independence," said Bob Keefe, senior press secretary with the council. "But what it really shows off is how some politicians in the Lone Star State will do anything to score political points - even if it means echoing misinformation and wasting time and money passing legislation that can't practically be implemented and isn't in the best interest of constituents."
Perry has until Sunday to veto bills, sign them into law or let them become law without his signature.
Lavender has described his House Bill 2510 as a common-sense bill.
"The 'new and improved' compact fluorescent light bulbs don't work as promised, are significantly more expensive as are the LEDs and have environmental and disposal problems due to the mercury they contain," according to a statement from his office.
The goal of the bill is to make incandescent light bulbs manufactured in Texas - that are sold in Texas and don't leave the state - not subject to federal law or federal rules. Such a bulb would have to have "Made in Texas" clearly imprinted somewhere on it. There are no estimates of how many incandescent light bulbs are manufactured in Texas.
If the bill becomes law, it would go into effect Jan. 1 and would apply to light bulbs made from that day forward.
U.S. Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, is trying to repeal the 2007 energy independence act passed by Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush.
The federal act doesn't ban incandescent light bulbs, but it creates new standards for them, such as requiring 100-watt bulbs to be 25 percent more efficient. After that, similar changes will go into effect for 75-, 60- and 40-watt bulbs. The goal is to make the bulbs more energy efficient because much of the traditional bulbs' energy leaves the bulb as heat rather than as light.
The act requires the changes or essentially removes incandescent light bulbs from the market by 2014, leaving consumers to mostly use fluorescent bulbs, which some say are more energy efficient and others say are just more expensive.
"People don't want the government dictating the lighting they can use," Barton said. "Traditional incandescent bulbs have been brightening the night since Thomas Edison created the first one in 1879. They are safe, cheap and reliable."
The U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee may soon hold a hearing on energy efficiency and could include Barton's BULB act.
"I am happy that the state Legislature voted to keep incandescent lights on in Texas, but the state wouldn't have to get involved if the federal government would just butt out," Barton said.
For some, the Texas bill represents this state's efforts to claim sovereignty from the federal government, proving that Texas has the right to regulate some commercial activities conducted only in this state.
"Telling Texans what types of light bulbs they can manufacture, sell, purchase and use is not the proper role of the federal government," said Janise Cookston, a spokeswoman for the Wharton-based nonprofit group "We Texans," which works to protect "private property, personal and economic liberty" as well as constitutional government.
"This bill sends the message to Washington that Texas will no longer sit idly by and take unconstitutional intrusion into our lives."
Some say they worry about fluorescent bulbs because they contain mercury, a toxic metal linked to birth defects and behavioral disorders. Estimates show the average bulb has 4 to 5 milligrams of mercury, enough to cover the tip of a ballpoint pin. No mercury is emitted while the bulbs are in use, but vapors can escape if a bulb breaks.
Supporters also say fluorescent bulbs can cost more than $3 each; incandescent bulbs can cost as little as 35 cents each.
Opponents say the health risks of the mercury are minimal. And they say the bill violates the constitutional clause that states the federal law is the "supreme law of the land."
They say the state can't prevent a light bulb from being taken across a state line, which would make it subject to interstate commerce rules and federal regulation. They also say incandescent bulbs are archaic and have been replaced by fluorescent bulbs that last longer, are more environmentally friendly and don't create the same fire hazards incandescent bulbs do.
"Nobody is forcing anybody to use only compact florescent bulbs," said Keefe, of the NRDC. "Several manufacturers are already making incandescent bulbs that have the same lighting quality as old-school incandescents that we all know and use. It's just that newer, more efficient versions use 25-30 percent less energy - saving the average Texas household an estimated $100 per year and reducing overall Texas energy bills by more than $900 million."
Officials with Osram Sylvania, a popular producer of incandescent light bulbs, declined to comment on Texas' bill. But the company noted that it has developed a more efficient incandescent bulb called the Sylvania SuperSaver that will meet the new federal requirements.
GE, meanwhile, is moving forward to fill the demand for fluorescent bulbs.
Officials there say demand for traditional incandescent bulbs has declined and consumers have switched to more efficient lighting.
"As policymakers consider changes to current legislation, we hope they keep in mind that repeal of national standards would result in states establishing their own standards," said Kim Freeman, a spokeswoman for GE Appliances & Lighting. "That could create a patchwork of inconsistent standards across the nation that would mean increased manufacturing and distribution costs, higher prices for consumers and lost sales for retailers."
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-...t-federal.html

House to Consider Bill Nixing Light Bulb Restrictions
House Republicans are pushing a bill Monday that would call off the planned phase-out of certain incandescent light bulbs at the beginning of next year.
The Better Use of Light Bulbs Act, sponsored by Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, is up for debate on the House floor Monday afternoon, with a vote expected later in the week. It would prohibit the government from implementing restrictions that limit the use of standard incandescent bulbs -- potentially compelling consumers to buy fluorescent bulbs which some lawmakers claim are not as reliable.
"They don't work. They're subject to blowing out when you get a power surge," Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., told Fox News. "Those new (fluorescent bulbs) are a lot like this Obama administration. They're too expensive to afford."
The restrictions stem from a 2007 bill signed by then-President George W. Bush. The bill aimed for better energy efficiency but Republicans have since claimed it will limit consumer options. Blackburn noted that she voted against the bill the first time.
The Obama administration issued a statement announcing its opposition to the repeal, saying it would "result in negative economic consequences for U.S. consumers and the economy."
The statement of administration policy issued by the Office of Management and budget cited Department of Energy figures that say the law "could collectively save U.S. households nearly $6 billion in 2015 alone."
Democrats also ridiculed Republicans for pushing the measure, considering the restrictions were signed into law by Bush and supported by nearly 100 Republicans at the time. A statement from House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi's office pointed out that while Republicans often claim the legislation amounts to a "ban" on incandescent bulbs, it instead sets stricter energy-efficiency standards.
"This legislation is bad for families, bad for our economy, and bad for our environment," the statement said of the repeal bill.
Republicans face a heavy lift in passing it. The rules the House is operating under would require a two-thirds majority for the proposal to move to the Senate.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...#ixzz1RpNVwJil

That's good news. Energy efficiency should include the energy of production and I think we can reliably guess that the cost of producing the old incadescent bulbs is easily one third that of these plastic and circuit incrusted pieces of junk.

If you want increased efficiency and energy saving, go with the good old flourescent tubes. They give more light per watt than the incadescent filament bulbs and less heat and they are produced just about everywhere in factories that have been around for decades. You can put them in your house, it's as easy as pie.

House Vote to Lift Light Bulb Restrictions!
Jul 11, 2011
Rep. Burgess on energy debate

http://video.foxnews.com/#/v/1047814...ylist_id=87485

"Thanks jean!"

Well here is the final vote, it looks like we're stuck with big gov lighting and no more good old incandescent lamps. This was started by the Republicans, so all the blame isn't with the Dems.

House Turns Out the Lights on Bulb Ban
The House of Representatives voted to preserve a scheduled phase out of incandescent light bulbs Monday evening.
The Better Use of Light Bulbs (BULB) Act, would have rescinded efficiency standards for incandescent bulbs included in a 2007 energy bill.
233 members voted yes and 193 cast nay votes. But the House required a supermajority to approve this particular package. In this case, it would have needed 285 yea votes to pass.
Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) voted present.
The measure gained support after the 2010 elections, as tea party Republicans seized on the prohibition as an example of government overreach.
The bill's sponsor, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, says that the increased efficiency standards have the government picking winners and losers in the lighting market.
"To take off the market something that's cheap, effective, and average use costs two or three cents a week to use seems to me to be overkill by the federal government," Barton said of the move away from incandescent bulbs. Supporters of the bill also claim that the compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs designed to replace incandescent bulbs are too expensive and don't work as well as their 19th century competitor."Here's the bottom line, those of us at a certain age, under a compact florescent bulb, we don't look as good as an incandescent bulb," said Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas, "The American people should be able to choose what type of light bulb they use in their home. They should not be constrained to all the romance of a Soviet stairwell when they go home in the evening."
Democrats were quick to point out that the bulb ban wasn't their idea. "Our current (Energy and Commerce) Chairman Mr. (Fred) Upton (R-Mich.) introduced the bill to set the standards. our former Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) supported it along with many other republicans, and finally President George W. Bush signed these standards into law," noted Rep. Mike Doyle, D-Penn.
The energy efficiency law Doyle cites passed the House with more than 300 votes in the House and over 80 in the Senate.
Upton co-wrote the light bulb language in that energy bill with former Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif. Action on the BULB Act was seen by some as a concession to the loser of the Energy and Commerce Chairmanship, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, who highlighted Upton's light legislation during their leadership contest last year. Barton has since thanked Upton for taking action on the proposal.
The Obama administration issued a statement announcing its opposition to the repeal, saying it would "result in negative economic consequences for U.S. consumers and the economy."
The statement of administration policy issued by the Office of Management and Budget cited Department of Energy figures that say the law "could collectively save U.S. households nearly $6 billion in 2015 alone." That's because even though CFL bulbs cost more off the shelf, they last longer and use less energy than incandescent bulbs, and could ultimately save the consumer money over the light's lifetime.
The legislation, considered under an expedited rules procedure, required a two-thirds majority for passage.
Despite its failure in the House, a way forward in the Democratically-controlled Senate is uncertain. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., supports the current efficiency standards and is unlikely to support action on a similar measure in committee.

Read more: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/20...#ixzz1RxHm3RT1