Party lights

  

Volume 2, Issue 15- April 8-14, 2011

International Tribune

We have another big party rivalry that is about to get out of control at Capitol Hill. Someone is stealing the limelight.  It is already causing a lot of stir on the floor.  And this one can get really bad and dirty.  Amidst the battle over health care and the federal budget deficit, a clique of Republicans decided to get together to repeal a law that was already passed in 2007- over light bulbs. 

In the beginning, there was nothing, and then Thomas Edison invented the electric light bulb.  Let there be lights!  Civilization advanced at a lightning speed.  Believe it or not, the incandescent light bulb that Edison created in 1879 is almost the same model that is being used and sold in the US market today, only more compact and prettier. It functions with similar parts from 130 years ago – mercury, lumen, a filament designed more than a century ago that emits an enormous amount of heat to produce the light.  This is the reason why, when you touch a regular light bulb, it is so hot that you can burn yourself.  And worse, these regular bulbs are not recyclable, and burning or dumping them in landfills releases toxic elements that contaminate the environment.  Did you know that incandescent light bulbs contribute enormously to the greenhouse effect?  

Thanks to lighting wizards today, electric bulbs have evolved.   The new models are more eco-friendly and cost-effective to light up our homes- compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFL), halogens, and LEDs.  They all carry significantly less mercury, recyclable, and safer to dispose.  The first batches sold were not as bright compare to its predecessors but its technology has caught on.  According to General Electric (GE) Lighting, fluorescent bulbs are four to six times more effective than incandescent bulbs because they use a different method to produce light.   In addition, Jim Presswood of the Natural Resources Defense Council stated that the change, once fully implemented, will save the average household $100 to $200 a year in energy costs and cut power-plant pollution by 100 million tons — the equivalent of taking 17 million cars off the road.  Hurrah to innovation and the marvels of science, it seems like this is a win-win situation.  

In 2005, Brazil and Venezuela were the first nations to start the campaign to phase out the use of incandescent light bulb and switch to more energy-efficient options. In the Philippines, former President Arroyo called for a ban of incandescent light bulbs in 2008.  In 2009, Australia and the European Union followed suit, you will not find incandescent light bulbs sold in the two continents' stores any longer.  It is the dawn of a new lighting era.  

The US is not that far behind in this global green movement.  In 2007, former President George W. Bush signed the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act, also known as the CLEAN energy law originally proposed by the Democrats.  The law calls for a phase out of all incandescent light bulbs effective to start in 2012 and will end in 2014. It was a victory for the Democrats and environmentalists.  Go greens!  

Last month, when the Obama administration was very busy trying to save the federal government from shutting down and contemplating whether to start an aerial assault and join its allies to end the conflict in Libya once and for all, a group of Republicans went to the Capitol Hill to repeal the CLEAN energy law of 2007.  They were unhappy and felt they had to do something ahead of time before the incandescent bulb phase out begins next year.  The Republicans brought with them not just one but two new laws that propose to simultaneously counteract the CLEAN amendment:  1) National Consensus Appliance Agreement Act (S.398); and the, 2) Better Use of Light Bulbs Act (S.395).  They believe that it was ‘un-American’ not to have the freedom of choice- to stay with the incandescent or switch to fluorescent.   How illuminating, all of a sudden, the Republicans have become pro-choice in this matter.

Headed by Republican Senator Mike Unzi of Wyoming, a pro-choice incandescent bulb aficionado believes that Americans have the rightful choice to stay with the brighter Thomas Edison invention if they want to.  According to Sen. Unzi, “The manufacturers of the new bulbs say they are the greatest thing since sliced bread. I think it’s fine if someone wants to fill his home or business with the light from the new bulbs.  The question is not whom to believe, the question I ask is why should a select few legislators in 2007 be able to tell hundreds of millions of Americans what light bulbs are best for them?  It’s time the federal government starts worrying less about what light bulbs people buy and more about how it’s going to fix the deficit, but that’s a topic for another time.”   And what a shame, we are about to lose the bulb that “has been turning back the night ever since Thomas Edison ended the era of a world lit only by fire in 1879,” cried out by Representative Joe Barton of Texas.  

America has sparked another enlightening debate- starring the Republicans who have finally seen the light and have become pro-choice.  Apparently, some things do change.  The hysteria whether to go pro-choice or not on incandescent light bulbs is ironically the buzz among lawmakers in Washington DC today.  With the Republicans calling for two new proposals to repeal a law signed in 2007, obviously, the Congress will definitely have more hearings to arrange, reports to produce, and time to spend  talking perhaps endlessly about light bulbs.  Now, that sounds like more wasted energy and tax-payers money to me.  

How many Republicans does it take to screw a light bulb? Let the party lights competition begin.