Say watt? New light bulb rules are ridiculous

Say watt? New light bulb rules are ridiculous

Amy Ridenour
McClatchy-Tribune
August 19, 2011

When General Electric blamed "a variety of energy regulations that establish lighting efficiency standards" for the closing of bulb factories in Virginia, Ohio and Kentucky, it ignored a critical detail: GE and fellow light bulb manufacturers Phillips and Osram Sylvania had lobbied for those restrictions.

Ignore claims about global warming. The motive behind the bulb ban was money: Incandescents have a low profit margin.

Let's shatter a few myths about today's flickering light bulb controversy.

Myth 1: "There is no light bulb ban." The most effective lie is one with a kernel of truth, and this example is based on the fact that not all incandescent light bulbs are banned. Just the ones Americans buy most.

• In 2012: Goodbye, standard 100 watt incandescents.
  
• In 2013: Goodbye, standard 75-watt incandescents.
  
• 2014: Goodbye, standard 60- and 40-watt incandescents.
  
• By 2020: Say goodbye to, among others, Halogen incandescents, such as Phillips' EcoVantage.
  

These bulbs have been cited as proof there is no light bulb ban because the public will be able to buy them after Jan. 1, 2012 -- but only temporarily.

Myth 2: "Alternative bulbs are better." Alternative bulbs are different. Whether they are better depends on the consumer's needs.

Most of the alternatives use less energy -- some a lot less. However, the flickering of CFLs can cause seizures in people prone to them.

And seniors often find it difficult to read under fluorescents, while people with Lupus and other auto-immune disorders can get a severe rash from fluorescents.

LED lighting tends to have a narrow beam, requiring more lamps to light a room. LED and CFL lighting is cooler than incandescent and renders colors differently.

When Europe banned incandescents, art galleries and restaurants complained. The art didn't look right, and CFL and LED lighting isn't romantic.

Myth 3: "Alternatives to incandescents are just as safe." No. CFLs contain sufficient mercury for the EPA to recommend a tedious 11-step process for cleanup of those that are broken.

Consumers also are supposed to take discarded bulbs to a special disposal center rather than the household trash, but it is unlikely that most people are bothering. This places dangerous mercury in the air when the bulbs inevitably break in trash cans or garbage trucks.

LED bulbs contain lead, mercury and nickel, exposure to which increases your long-term chances of getting cancer, kidney disease and other illnesses.

Myth 4: "You'll save money." Most alternatives use less energy, some substantially less, although the bulbs cost more up front and don't last as long as consumers may expect.

A CFL wears out sooner if it is turned on frequently, is used in freezing weather or with a dimmer. LEDs have particularly expensive up-front costs now, although manufacturers say the price will come down after their main rivals have been banned for a while.

They say that's because more will be sold; others say that's not how supply-and-demand works.

Myth 5: "The bulb ban creates jobs." In China, sure, where 75 percent of CFLs are made. No major CFL brand is made in America. When the last remaining U.S. plant making ordinary incandescents closed in 2010, the Washington Post blamed the bulb ban.

Ban-backers say research into LED lighting made possible by the ban creates jobs, but many of these jobs came from research grants paid for by taxpayers, not from the ban.

Defenders of the light bulb ban claim people are better off with alternatives to incandescents. But if the public agreed, Congress wouldn't need a ban to get us to switch.

Defenders of the light bulb ban claim people are better off with alternatives to incandescents. But if the public agreed, Congress wouldn't need a ban to get us to switch.

I don't really care for any of the arguments. My main and only argument is that congress has no right to "decide" what I can buy on the market as long as the item is legal of course.

This is nothing but nanny state bullshit.

TexasBlue wrote:My main and only argument is that congress has no right to "decide" what I can buy on the market as long as the item is legal of course.

Which is determined by Congress. So yes, they do have that right.

How do you figure that? Seriously. Convince me why they are now federally required? I guess politicians have all these great ideas. But the people? Well hell, they're too ignorant to accept them voluntarily. So we have to go to the Congress and various State Houses to force them to do what is "right."

Gov't is supposed to serve the people, not the other way around. There is no provision in the Constitution (which these people are sworn to protect and uphold) that allows for the gov't to tell us to buy anything. Not light bulbs, not health insurance, none of it.

Now convince me.

Well, never mind. I'm not saying the law is good (or bad). I'm just disagreeing with your analysis of what Congress can't do. If you really want to know what I meant:

You said Congress can't tell you what to buy, as long as the item is legal.

But that's just the thing. Congress has the power to make the item illegal. Heroin is an example of this. Maggot-infested hamburger meat is another.

So your statement translates to 'congress has no right to "decide" what I can buy on the market as long as they haven't decided I can't buy it on the market' (i.e. illegalized it). If you don't have the right to do something until you do it, you have the right to do it.

If you accept that Congress has the power to declare certain products ineligible for the market, you accept that Congress can "tell you what to buy," or more accurately, dictate what you can and can't buy. However, I don't know whether you accept that axiom.

No, I don't accept it. But that's just the libertarian in me.

That said, I understand the reasoning behind the bulbs in the long term outlook of things. But it was rushed thru and ill-thought out to start with.

Again, I believe that congress has no right to say that we (or I) can't buy the type of bulb that I want to buy.

Of course, illegal products are another thing. But congress just made this illegal in the long term by proxy... even though it's not killing 10,000 people a year.

kronos wrote:Well, never mind. I'm not saying the law is good (or bad). I'm just disagreeing with your analysis of what Congress can't do. If you really want to know what I meant:

You said Congress can't tell you what to buy, as long as the item is legal.

But that's just the thing. Congress has the power to make the item illegal. Heroin is an example of this. Maggot-infested hamburger meat is another.

So your statement translates to 'congress has no right to "decide" what I can buy on the market as long as they haven't decided I can't buy it on the market' (i.e. illegalized it). If you don't have the right to do something until you do it, you have the right to do it.

If you accept that Congress has the power to declare certain products ineligible for the market, you accept that Congress can "tell you what to buy," or more accurately, dictate what you can and can't buy. However, I don't know whether you accept that axiom.

I know this was not directed to me, but in Tex's defense he is right that this is not a constitutionally enumerated power of the federal government.

Article 1, Section 8, clearly lays out what powers are granted to Congress. None of these enumerated powers could even be remotely stretched to cover this light bulb ban.

However, Congress long ago abandoned any constitutional justification for the laws they pass. And as long as they remain unchallenged, we can expect this trend to continue.

TexasBlue wrote:No, I don't accept it.

So you don't accept that Congress can illegalize things...

TexasBlue wrote:Of course, illegal products are another thing.

...except for things that they have made illegal.

That's a contradiction. If you really don't accept the axiom, then "illegal products" are a bullshit concept to you. There can be no such things as "illegal products" if Congress does not have the power to make products illegal. On the other hand, if "illegal products" is a valid concept to you, then you accept Congress' power to make products illegal.

I'll just ask: do you think Congress has the power to illegalize any product?

dblboggie wrote:I know this was not directed to me, but in Tex's defense he is right that this is not a constitutionally enumerated power of the federal government.

If he is right about that, than his caveat about illegal products doesn't make sense, as there could be no such thing if he is right; the very concept of "illegal products" would have no legitimacy.

His position seems internally inconsistent to me. That's all.

dblboggie wrote:Article 1, Section 8, clearly lays out what powers are granted to Congress. None of these enumerated powers could even be remotely stretched to cover this light bulb ban.

I guess it depends on how you interpret the Commerce Clause:

"[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes."

kronos wrote:

dblboggie wrote:I know this was not directed to me, but in Tex's defense he is right that this is not a constitutionally enumerated power of the federal government.

If he is right about that, than his caveat about illegal products doesn't make sense, as there could be no such thing if he is right; the very concept of "illegal products" would have no legitimacy.

His position seems internally inconsistent to me. That's all.

I understand. I think he just unintentionally misspoke. But I'll let him explain that. The point remains, such a ban is not an enumerated power of Congress and is, thus, unconstitutional.

kronos wrote:

dblboggie wrote:Article 1, Section 8, clearly lays out what powers are granted to Congress. None of these enumerated powers could even be remotely stretched to cover this light bulb ban.

I guess it depends on how you interpret the Commerce Clause:

"[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes."

Ah yes... the ever elastic "commerce clause." This is the most abused clause in the entire constitution and has been used for the last century (at least) to justify all manner of extra-constitutional infringements on our liberty.

kronos wrote:
So you don't accept that Congress can illegalize things...

We're talking light bulbs here. How can congress make incandescent bulbs illegal when they're not a health risk?

kronos wrote:...except for things that they have made illegal.

That's a contradiction. If you really don't accept the axiom, then "illegal products" are a bullshit concept to you. There can be no such things as "illegal products" if Congress does not have the power to make products illegal. On the other hand, if "illegal products" is a valid concept to you, then you accept Congress' power to make products illegal.

I'll just ask: do you think Congress has the power to illegalize any product?

If it's a health risk, yeah. Heroin is a health risk. But then, where in the constitution does it say they can or can't?

Follow my drift? If we allow congress to decide for us what's illegal, what else are they going to decide upon? It's all good until it's something someone likes. Example: some liberals want Rush Limbaugh banned from radio. It's all good until Keith Olbermann gets banned.

TexasBlue wrote:If it's a health risk, yeah. Heroin is a health risk. But then, where in the constitution does it say they can or can't?

That's just the thing, federal laws against things like heroin, cars without seat belts, shower heads that use "too much" water, and any number of similar laws are not, in fact, constitutionally mandated powers of Congress. This is a very Libertarian view, of course, but strictly speaking it hews most closely with a strict constructionist interpretation of the constitution.

dblboggie wrote:Ah yes... the ever elastic "commerce clause." This is the most abused clause in the entire constitution and has been used for the last century (at least) to justify all manner of extra-constitutional infringements on our liberty.

It does seem to be pretty elastic in its wording. The power to regulate international and interstate commerce is a very general grant of power. As long as the light bulbs cross a state or national border from the factory to the store, it would seem to fall within the reach of that power. But I could be convinced otherwise.

dblboggie wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:If it's a health risk, yeah. Heroin is a health risk. But then, where in the constitution does it say they can or can't?

That's just the thing, federal laws against things like heroin, cars without seat belts, shower heads that use "too much" water, and any number of similar laws are not, in fact, constitutionally mandated powers of Congress. This is a very Libertarian view, of course, but strictly speaking it hews most closely with a strict constructionist interpretation of the constitution.

How would you argue that the Commerce Clause excludes the power to ban products?

TexasBlue wrote:If it's a health risk, yeah. Heroin is a health risk. But then, where in the constitution does it say they can or can't?

Follow my drift? If we allow congress to decide for us what's illegal, what else are they going to decide upon? It's all good until it's something someone likes. Example: some liberals want Rush Limbaugh banned from radio. It's all good until Keith Olbermann gets banned.

Alright, that's at least consistent. But I don't think there's a Constitutional basis for this view. Banning products is either within the scope of the Commerce Clause, or it isn't. There's nothing in the Commerce Clause about "health risks," and there's no justification for the view that they Congress can't ban anything except health risks.

This is the problem. The wording the the CC is really vague. So, congress takes that as a license to do as it wishes.

Light bulbs aren't a threat nor a health risk.... unless one considers getting burned by grabbing a lit bulb that's been burning for a few hours.

TexasBlue wrote:This is the problem. The wording the the CC is really vague.

Not really vague, just a bit. Much of the Constitution is (intentionally) like that. But that's why we have a SCOTUS--to interpret the law.

TexasBlue wrote:

Exactly! This emoticon perfectly illustrates just how dangerous light bulbs can really be.

TexasBlue wrote:Example: some liberals want Rush Limbaugh banned from radio. It's all good until Keith Olbermann gets banned.

I meant to reply to this part earlier:

I always opposed the Fairness Doctrine.

My comment about Rush and Keith was an extreme one. I've actually read comments by libs that want Rush banned from radio. All good till it's someone they like.

Yeah, the FD wasa dumb thing but probably good back in it's day (1930's).

kronos wrote:

dblboggie wrote:Ah yes... the ever elastic "commerce clause." This is the most abused clause in the entire constitution and has been used for the last century (at least) to justify all manner of extra-constitutional infringements on our liberty.

It does seem to be pretty elastic in its wording. The power to regulate international and interstate commerce is a very general grant of power. As long as the light bulbs cross a state or national border from the factory to the store, it would seem to fall within the reach of that power. But I could be convinced otherwise.

dblboggie wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:If it's a health risk, yeah. Heroin is a health risk. But then, where in the constitution does it say they can or can't?

That's just the thing, federal laws against things like heroin, cars without seat belts, shower heads that use "too much" water, and any number of similar laws are not, in fact, constitutionally mandated powers of Congress. This is a very Libertarian view, of course, but strictly speaking it hews most closely with a strict constructionist interpretation of the constitution.

How would you argue that the Commerce Clause excludes the power to ban products?

In the original debates over adoption of the Constitution, “regulation of commerce” was used, almost exclusively, in reference to specific mercantilist proposals related to deep-water shipping and foreign trade.

Remember, the Constitution was written before Adam Smith, laissez faire and free trade came to dominate economic thinking and the Commerce Clause draws its original meaning from the preceding mercantilist tradition.

All of the programs intended to be forwarded by giving Congress the power to regulate commerce were restrictions on international trade giving subsidy or protection to favored domestic merchants or punishing imports or foreign producers.

Much of the proof of this intent can be found in Federalist 6 & 7 from the Federalist Papers.

The commerce clause, as originally intended, had nothing to do with banning anything and everything to do with securing income through imposts on imports and to prevent protectionist economic policies among the states and to establish a common market with free trade across state borders.

In other words, the original intent overrides the words written on the page?

The clause as it is written does not limit the commerce-regulation power in the way you say it was intended to. In other words, if you are right about their intent, then they worded the clause much too broadly. The plain meaning of the words "regulate commerce" is not so restrictive. If you think it's been abused, frankly the wording lends itself to such abuse (if that's what it is).

What's your take on the Second Amendment? Does the right to keep and bear arms only apply to muskets and flintlock pistols?

(I'll give Federalist 6 & 7 a read).

kronos wrote:In other words, the original intent overrides the words written on the page?

The clause as it is written does not limit the commerce-regulation power in the way you say it was intended to. In other words, if you are right about their intent, then they worded the clause much too broadly. The plain meaning of the words "regulate commerce" is not so restrictive. If you think it's been abused, frankly the wording lends itself to such abuse (if that's what it is).

What's your take on the Second Amendment? Does the right to keep and bear arms only apply to muskets and flintlock pistols?

(I'll give Federalist 6 & 7 a read).

The clause, as written, has been misinterpreted. The meanings of words change over time. Commerce is one of those. If one wishes to know the actual intent of the commerce clause, one should do the homework which would reveal that it was not even remotely intended for the uses for which it is put to in modern times.

As for the 2nd Amendment, the word "arms" means the same now as it did then (unlike commerce). Arms could be edged weapons or firearms (such as we possess to this very day).

It you will recall, the 2nd Amendment does not mention "muskets" or "flintlock pistols" but "arms." So this is not in the same ballpark as the commerce clause. The intent of the 2nd Amendment is extremely clear, particularly if one reads the Federalist Papers, the Ratification Debates and the writings of our founders.

Likewise, the original intent of the commerce clause (which was originally thought to be of minor importance or impact in the greater scope of the constitution) becomes clear if one studies these writings and is familiar with the history of the times. For instance, New York confounded earlier attempts of the Continental Congress to impose a confederated (under the articles of confederation) 5% impost on imports in New York's deep water harbors. New York wanted to keep those revenues for themselves - and since much of those imports went to states without deep water harbors, those states wound up paying money to New York for the privilege of importing goods from Europe.

Any way, I digress. The fact is, the more one knows about the history of the times and the writings of the framers, the clearer it becomes that the commerce clause is being abused.

dblboggie wrote:

kronos wrote:In other words, the original intent overrides the words written on the page?

The clause as it is written does not limit the commerce-regulation power in the way you say it was intended to. In other words, if you are right about their intent, then they worded the clause much too broadly. The plain meaning of the words "regulate commerce" is not so restrictive. If you think it's been abused, frankly the wording lends itself to such abuse (if that's what it is).

What's your take on the Second Amendment? Does the right to keep and bear arms only apply to muskets and flintlock pistols?

(I'll give Federalist 6 & 7 a read).

The clause, as written, has been misinterpreted. The meanings of words change over time. Commerce is one of those. If one wishes to know the actual intent of the commerce clause, one should do the homework which would reveal that it was not even remotely intended for the uses for which it is put to in modern times.

The meaning of "commerce" has not changed since the writing of the Constitution. From a 1792 dictionary::

Exchange of one thing for another; trade; traffick.

dblboggie wrote:As for the 2nd Amendment, the word "arms" means the same now as it did then (unlike commerce). Arms could be edged weapons or firearms (such as we possess to this very day).

It you will recall, the 2nd Amendment does not mention "muskets" or "flintlock pistols" but "arms." So this is not in the same ballpark as the commerce clause. The intent of the 2nd Amendment is extremely clear, particularly if one reads the Federalist Papers, the Ratification Debates and the writings of our founders.

Yes, but their original intent could not have foreseen machine guns, let alone nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. I mentioned muskets and flintlock pistols because those are examples of the kinds of weapons the founders would have had in mind when they used the word "arms."

The Federalist Papers, the Ratification Debates and the writings of our founders are not part of the Constitution.

dblboggie wrote:Likewise, the original intent of the commerce clause (which was originally thought to be of minor importance or impact in the greater scope of the constitution) becomes clear if one studies these writings and is familiar with the history of the times. For instance, New York confounded earlier attempts of the Continental Congress to impose a confederated (under the articles of confederation) 5% impost on imports in New York's deep water harbors. New York wanted to keep those revenues for themselves - and since much of those imports went to states without deep water harbors, those states wound up paying money to New York for the privilege of importing goods from Europe.

Any way, I digress. The fact is, the more one knows about the history of the times and the writings of the framers, the clearer it becomes that the commerce clause is being abused.

I just don't know that I buy that we are bound by their intent so much as the actual words written on the page. IMO, if they meant X and wrote Y, then Y is what we're bound by.

dblboggie wrote:All of the programs intended to be forwarded by giving Congress the power to regulate commerce were restrictions on international trade giving subsidy or protection to favored domestic merchants or punishing imports or foreign producers.

This power is explicitly given elsewhere in the Constitution. It is the first of the enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8:

"The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

Why would they need to grant the same power twice--the second time, using language that (under the plain meaning of the words) is far more sweeping and general?

dblboggie wrote:Much of the proof of this intent can be found in Federalist 6 & 7 from the Federalist Papers.

I just read them. Nowhere in either paper is the Commerce Clause mentioned, let alone explained.

The point of those two papers is to discredit the idea that the states would enjoy peaceful, harmonious relations if they were not unified under a strong central government. Hamilton is saying no, the states would probably go to war for any number of reasons, one of which is commercial rivalry. And his use of the words "commerce" and "commercial" seems consistent with the definition I gave above, showing that there's been little to no semantic drift with that word.

The fact that Hamilton mentioned "commerce" in a certain context in two particular writings does not mean that the Commerce Clause (which is not the subject of those papers!) was intended to be limited to that context.