The House is scheduled to vote this week on a daft and destructive measure that—in the name of individual freedom—would repeal national energy efficiency standards for light bulbs enacted by Congress in 2007.Though utterly without merit,the bill stands a fighting chance in a legislative body where ideology now routinely trumps common sense.
The standards,approved with bipartisan support as part of a broader energy bill signed by President George W.Bush,require new bulbs to use 25 to 30 percent less energy than traditional incandescent bulbs starting next year,and 65 percent less energy by 2020.Though the standards are likely to encourage wider use of compact fluorescent bulbs and newer high-efficiency light-emitting diode bulbs(LEDs),they do not ban incandescents,as some politicians have claimed;they simply require them to be more efficient.
The long-term benefits,according to the Natural Resources Defense Council,could be huge:national energy savings equivalent to 30 large power plants;household savings of up to$200 a year;and 100 million fewer tons of carbon dioxide pollution yearly,roughly the amount from 17 million cars.So far,not a single manufacturer has complained—G.E.,Philips and Sylvania already sell bulbs that meet the 2012 standards.
This has not stopped House Republicans like Joe Barton,who says his Better Use of Light Bulbs Act(BULB)is an antidote to"Washington mandated"infringement on consumer choice.Rand Paul,sponsoring a similar bill in the Senate,has been even more colorful,telling a startled Energy Department official at a Senate committee hearing,"you favor a woman's right to an abortion,but you don't favor a woman or a man's right to choose what kind of light bulb."What appears to have escaped these freedom-fighters is that the 2007 law actually expanded consumer choice,which has largely been limited to a technology essentially unchanged since Thomas Edison.
