Problem with the energy bill


Well-Known Member
Nov 5, 2007
One of the lesser-mentioned parts of the energy bill Congress just passed is that the incandescent light bulb will be phased out in 6 years.

Is anyone else not happy about that? Yeah, fluorescent bulbs last longer, but they're way more expensive, and have you ever handled one? Incandescent bulbs don't come with instructions like:

If your state permits you to put used or broken CFLs (Compact Fluorescent Lights) in the garbage, seal the bulb in two plastic bags and put it into the outside trash, or other protected outside location, for the next normal trash collection.
(Energy Star Fact Sheet, emphasis added)

and "what to do if a fluorescent bulb breaks" instructions that include opening windows and leaving the room for at least 15 minutes, using rubber gloves, and double bagging.

That's not because it's glass. That's because fluorescent bulbs contain mercury. Plus, fluorescent bulbs cause migraines and eye strain in some people, one of those people being me.

Besides all the practical reasons I think this is a stupid idea, there's the argument that the government doesn't have the right to impose this. If fluorescent bulbs are really better than incandescent bulbs, let the market decide. For those of us that prefer incandescent bulbs for one reason or another, let us keep that option. It seems like companies that produce light bulbs would like this move because fluorescent bulbs are more expensive and they get more money out of them. This way they don't have to lower prices to sell more.