California to Ban Conventional Lightbulbs

Published on January 31st, 2007

Alas, poor Edison. If he were only here.

California to Ban Conventional Lightbulbs? – News and Analysis by PC Magazine — This is ludicrous, of course, since LED’s will already be replacing everything by 2012. This is another example of unnecessary legislation done by a crackpot from California.

A California lawmaker wants to make his state the first to ban incandescent lightbulbs as part of Californias groundbreaking initiatives to reduce energy use and greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.

The “How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb Act” would ban incandescent lightbulbs by 2012 in favor of energy-saving compact fluorescent lightbulbs.

“Incandescent lightbulbs were first developed almost 125 years ago, and since that time they have undergone no major modifications,” California Assemblyman Lloyd Levine said on Tuesday.

45 users responded in " California to Ban Conventional Lightbulbs "

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url

# 1 Miguel said, on January 31st, 2007 at 12:01 pm

2012?!?!?! HAHAHAHAAHA!!!!!

Here in the Third World (Portugal ), we don’t have that sort of crackpot legislation, but there have been campaigns where some counties would trade your incandescents (working, I suppose) to fluorescents…

Room for fraud, of course, as the fluos are at least 5 times as expensive… But hey…

Anyway, we’re bound to imitate you guys. After all ‘We’re all living in Amerika…’

# 2 igor said, on January 31st, 2007 at 12:09 pm

[quote] and since that time they have undergone no major modifications [/quote]
neither did toilet paper, lets ban it too
if u wonna make lightbulbs dissapear come up with a tax or give ppl who choose something else some kind of reward

# 3 Gig said, on January 31st, 2007 at 12:10 pm

Keep it up California. Will the last one out please turn off the fluorescent lights.

# 4 Awake said, on January 31st, 2007 at 12:11 pm

Yeah, other crackpot legislation that was forced on us because we are too stupid / lazy / ignorant / selfish to take our own initiative:
a) Banning lead based paint.
b) Banning lead in automobile gas
c) Imposing emissions standards
d) Banning asbestos in new construction.
e) Smoking free zones
… I could go on and on…

It’s about time that someone has the cojones to stand up and say we need to forcefully start leaving behind old and inefficient technologies like the incandescent bulb. People that will fight this are the same ignorant small thinking yet self aggrandizing people that drive Hummers and don’t see the irony in calling themselves patriotic Americans at the same time.

# 5 gquaglia said, on January 31st, 2007 at 12:20 pm

This is another example of unnecessary legislation done by a crackpot from California.

Sorry John, I don’t agree. While LEDs will probably be more prevalent, there will still be some cheapo that will try to get away with using cheap incandescent. bulbs. Its a step in the right direction. Maybe we need more lawmakers willing to ban very wasteful products.

# 6 Joe said, on January 31st, 2007 at 12:38 pm

This will place an undue burden on cartoonists who draw those “I just got an idea” lightbulb thought bubbles in their comics – those squiggly-shaped CFL bulbs are much harder to draw.

# 7 Mark said, on January 31st, 2007 at 12:41 pm

4. Agreed. At least theyre trying SOMETHING. Sheesh.

# 8 hwo said, on January 31st, 2007 at 12:41 pm

Here in Queretaro, Mexico (pop. 800,000) I know first hand that the local government is aware of LED technology, but recommends to use Compact Fluorescent Lightbulbs instead: .

The local electric power company helps people buy fluorescent lamps at a good price and deducting them from their monthly fee.

I do think that LED’s will eventually replace a lot of things in the future, in different areas (the new ASUS laptop with LED screen), but the CFL market has to grow and mature first, taking over the bulbs. Maybe in 3 or 4 years?

Legislation or not, I think its the right path towards conserving energy. I already have 45-50 working CFLs at home, and I don’t regret the price I paid for the bulbs when I receive my energy bill. Also, I haven’t changed a single bulb in almost 3 years.

# 9 Carl said, on January 31st, 2007 at 12:44 pm

I don’t know how much bulbs cost down there, but over here, it’s cheaper to use compact fluorescent bulbs. Harder on the wallet up-front, but they last LOT longer.
When I moved in my house I changed everything I could to compact fluorescent, but there were some floodlights that are simply not available in compact fluorescent in local stores. I haven’t had to change a compact fluorescent bulb in more than two years, yet every other bulb has been changed at least once, and the more heavily used ones have been changed 2 or 3 times.
Energy savings haven’t been counted (but energy is probably cheaper here).

# 10 john said, on January 31st, 2007 at 12:45 pm

I would exchange ever bulb in my house if they made them to fit in enclosed fixtures. Most say not to install in totally in closed fixtures. Plus I use the full spectrum bulbs. My basement is now all CFL’s since my wife refuses to go down there.

# 11 pedro said, on January 31st, 2007 at 12:56 pm

I will give you one chance to guess which nutjob is forcing something like this incandescent-for-neon trade (but his double intention behind).

And he’s doing it about less than 2 months ago. This timing is scary.

# 12 Joe B said, on January 31st, 2007 at 12:56 pm

Isn’t there a fire station in California that has a light bulb that has never burned out and has been on continuously for over a 100 years? Saw it on Mythbusters.

# 13 TheGlobalWarmer said, on January 31st, 2007 at 12:58 pm

#2 is on to something. Just how much energy is used in producing toilet paper? I say we ban it. It’s not necessary. There are rocks, sticks, leaves, sleeves….

# 14 LBalsam said, on January 31st, 2007 at 1:03 pm

I am visually handicapped due to a neural problem. Both compact fluorescents and LCD lights often appear to flicker to me. These lights give me a headache after a short time. Incandescent bulbs do not.

I hope the lawmakers take into account that not everyone can tolerate the new bulbs.

# 15 Steve S said, on January 31st, 2007 at 1:17 pm

California is the ultimate “Nanny State” If the California state legislature had their way, we would all be living like the people in the movie Demolition Man (”Machine on wall: Lenina Huxley, you are fined one-half credit for a violation of the Verbal Morality Statute.”).

I don’t know about other states but California passes about 1000 new laws each year. I can’t imagine how you would possibly need an additional 1000 new laws each year!

Steve

# 16 Chris Evans said, on January 31st, 2007 at 1:23 pm

For people like “Awake” (number 4 above) who seem to think they know what is best for everyone else, I would like to point out that there are people (me included) who are made very, very ill by CF and fluorescent lights. By your own argument (after all, you ludicrously tried to assert that incandescent bulbs are in the same category as asbestos, lead and smoking), CF bulbs should also be banned as potentially detrimental to one’s health.

The “old and inefficient” technology that controlling individuals like yourself would like to make me a criminal for using is what keeps me able to function.

Add to that the fact that CF bulbs are useless in temporary situations, like hallways and closets, since they take time to come up to brightness, and that CF bulbs — even the so-called “full spectrum” ones — are nowhere near being a spread spectrum (let alone a sunlight analog) and are therefore all but useless in many applications.

I pay for the electricity I use. If I chose to pay more for a non-life-threatening-but-happens-to-be-a-hundred-years-old technology, that’s my affair.

I daresay I’d find things in your life that I don’t like, Awake. How would you like if I started outlawing them?

What a sad state the US has come to.

# 17 JT said, on January 31st, 2007 at 1:27 pm

Why not let market forces work? Here in Illinois our state gives rebates when you buy florescent light bulbs. The incentive for savings on your electric bill should be enough to compel people to conserve. We need less legislation, not more. What happened to the Arnold for less government, less taxes, less entitlement programs and less legislation? Has he been totally eviscerated buy the Democratic Liberal Left Wing entrenchment in Sacramento?

# 18 Smith said, on January 31st, 2007 at 1:47 pm

BAN ‘EM!! You betcha! And while we’re at it, let’s ban the single, most useless waste of energy: Home air conditioning! What the hell, AC exists for comfort. Can you think of one damn reason a selfish home owner should be throwing away 500 kWh a month for comfort? Why hell, you could be burning 10 of them useless 75-watt bulbs, 24/7 for the cost of running one air conditioner. Our grandparents didn’t have AC, why should we suffer wusses when OUR WHOLE WORLD IS AT STAKE!!!

Ban AC everywhere in the US and we will instantly be in compliance with the Kyoto Protocol!

# 19 Don said, on January 31st, 2007 at 2:50 pm

I switched over to CFL bulbs years ago, BUT…

They cannot be used with dimmers and some electronically switched devices (Photo switches and touch lights.)

I have several fixtures in my house that no matter how hard I try I cannot find CFL bulbs that will fit, or if one fits, it’s light output is too low to be useful. (I know, I don’t really need adequate lighting on my steps.)

They frequently do not start or are very dim outside if the temp gets below 20 degrees. (It’s 5 here today.)

They do not make CFL in all of the socket sizes that exist. And I don’t know if they will make bulbs that will fit and look nice in your $1000 chandelier hanging over the dinning room tables.

Even though I am a believer in the technology, artificially forcing it on consumers through legislation is NOT the way to go. What they need to do is deregulate the cost of electricity. That way if someone wanted to pay the actual cost to operate the old fashioned light bulbs, so be it.

It is working, albeit painfully, in Detroit as we speak. US automakers kept on building big, heavy, fancy, expensive, SUVs when they should have been building smaller moderate priced fuel efficient vehicles. They are getting a harsh lesson in market forces right now.

Don

# 20 V said, on January 31st, 2007 at 2:53 pm

The higher flicker rate in fluorescent lights gives me headaches and eye irritation. This is not uncommon. Unfortunately, neither are “solutionist” lawmakers who think they can fix all these problems by adding regulation. If they want to help phase out incandescents in favor of LEDs, offer a government rebate to consumers to bring the costs down. Considering the cost might be prohibitive, that may be equally impractical.

# 21 Adam said, on January 31st, 2007 at 2:59 pm

JT – You say let the market forces work. Then you give an example how the state gives rebates. That makes no sense at all.

Well it actually does. Since the state and the market in the entire world work together. They always have.

If we can legislate environmental regulations, then we can do this.

California will have a surplus in savings in energy if they do this which will be good for our economy.

# 22 MuddyBoy said, on January 31st, 2007 at 3:02 pm

Edison did not invent the light bulb. He bought the patent from a couple of dimwits(pun intended).
http://www.cbc.ca/inventions/inventions.html?inventionID=29

The rest of the list is pretty interesting as well.

# 23 ECA said, on January 31st, 2007 at 3:16 pm

Efficentcy SUCKS…

Think about it…
You pay $50 amonth for power..
Then you make better choices and use less power, and hve it cut down to $30…
The power company dont make enough profit, so they RAISE the prices…
You STILL pay $50 per month.

# 24 ECA said, on January 31st, 2007 at 3:17 pm

Efficentcy SUCKS…

# 25 noname said, on January 31st, 2007 at 3:30 pm

Instead of our Government regulating American being sent over seas and sticking a baynett in someone’s gut to protect our oil supply; why not regulate using less oil/energy here.

The Government should also increase raising the CAFE standards to something like 30 mpg. Then see what all those Rag Heads and Oil Corps do.

There seems two types of people in this discussion:
Pro sticking a baynett in someone’s gut to protect our SUV rights
Pro using less Oil/Energy and not sticking a baynett in someone’s gut to protect our SUV rights.

Seems simple to me.

# 26 Smith said, on January 31st, 2007 at 4:35 pm

#24 Noname: “There seems two types of people in this discussion:
Pro sticking a baynett in someone’s gut to protect our SUV rights
Pro using less Oil/Energy and not sticking a baynett in someone’s gut to protect our SUV rights.

Seems simple to me. “

Golly, isn’t there another type of person in this discussion? How about someone who believes we should be drilling in Alaska, not buying from OPEC, and who believes we should be building 20 nuclear plants a year until we no longer need to burn fossil fuels for energy? If you have plenty of cheap power, ALL environmental problems can be solved.

But then, such a simple solution doesn’t empower the environmental wackos. Why are some people not happy until they have inflicted their values upon someone else?

# 27 mxpwr03 said, on January 31st, 2007 at 5:52 pm

#24 – “those Rag Heads” ? That’s a disgusting comment.

# 28 Janky said, on January 31st, 2007 at 6:26 pm

Makes perfect sense. One of the actually useful purposes of government (vs., say, fabricating reasons to go to war) is to promote considered and rational behavior on the part of citizens. One of the most rational things for a populace to do is to conserve and reduce pollution. Same reasoning behind making cars cleaner and, we wish, more efficient by government mandate. Go for it!

# 29 ECA said, on January 31st, 2007 at 6:50 pm

25,

I SAY AGAIN…
US oil does NOT come from the middle east. THEY dont care about the US. OPEC regulates their own oil prices, to about $25 per barrel…
We get more oil from Venisula and brazil, and the rest of south america, then we do from the MIDDLE EAST.
Considering Venisula is also a Major drug country…WOW, we get 2 things from there NOW.

# 30 Mr. Fusion said, on January 31st, 2007 at 7:54 pm

#26, Smith,
But then, such a simple solution doesn’t empower the environmental wackos. Why are some people not happy until they have inflicted their values upon someone else?
Comment by Smith — 1/31/2007 @ 4:35 pm

Why do you hate America?

# 31 ECA said, on January 31st, 2007 at 8:24 pm

Environmental concerns,
ARE/were NOT part of our country, Until ALOT of people started getting sick…
Do NOT think that the country and the corps, even cared what EACH was doing until about the 1950’s and 1960’s….(god thats a strange thing to write)…
When it was brought to court, that Housing was being built, on Toxic dumping grounds, that Toxics were being buried that would destroy aquafers, that we use to drink from.
But even then, the Gov. didnt care, until MOSt of the USA complained and took a side.

# 32 Greg Allen said, on January 31st, 2007 at 8:46 pm

Didn’t somebody do the math on this proposal, right here, about a year ago when I suggested this very thing?

I seem to remember that the savings wasn’t too huge. But, I still support it since there is probably no one silver bullet to break us from foreign oil — it will be a bunch of smaller breakthroughs.

The biggest untapped, most green “alternative energy” source is conservation, right?

Bush has said in every State of the Union speech that he supports alternative energy but then he does jack about it.

If Bush want to be a man of action, rather than hot air, conservation is a great place to start.

Some technologies are already in place — like insulation, solar heating and high efficiency lighting. — but need incentives to get wide adoption and economies of scale.

Other technologies are around the bend but need the government to do R&D.

# 33 Greg Allen said, on January 31st, 2007 at 8:54 pm

#23 The power company dont make enough profit, so they RAISE the prices…You STILL pay $50 per month. duh!!

That’s why the conservative deregulation of utilities is a such horrible idea .
I should say “was a horrible idea” since Enron’s rip off of BILLIONS from consumers has soured everyone expect the most head-in-the-sand ideological conservatives.

# 34 pedro said, on January 31st, 2007 at 11:21 pm

#29 venezuela was the third oil supplier for the US before minime got into power. For various reasons, it has fallen down to 4 and 5 (fluctuates from time to time).

I believe your #1 suppliers are Canada, Saudi Arabia & mexico nowadays

If you depend from venezuela from now on, it’s like depending from castro for oil, because that’s who’s calling the shots (now his brother). Get better informed.

venezuela is a drug supplier as a route, not as a producer. Not that there are is no production there (since columbian guerrillas operate there now), but columbia still gets the nod in production. venezuela just lets it pass thru.

And I know you weren’t trying but you got it, it’s mini me who bought thru cuba 52 million chinese neon bulbs to bu forcefully installed in venezuelan homes

# 35 Hmeyers said, on February 1st, 2007 at 12:31 am

#24: “California will have a surplus in savings in energy if they do this which will be good for our economy.”

California? Savings? *Snicker*

# 36 ECA said, on February 1st, 2007 at 2:17 am

35,
To add to that…
there is NO SUCH THING as a surplus…
they just cut back the supply, and force the price up…
ISNT that what they are doing 90% of the time, they FORCE a -minus trend and make it LOOK like we cant supply a product, ad FORCE the price up??

Thats the problem, its a COMMODITY market…

# 37 TheGlobalWarmer said, on February 1st, 2007 at 6:05 am

1. Driving a truck or SUV is not just a right, it’s an essential to create the base acceptable standard of living.

2. Conservation through efficiency is a good thing. Conservation through sacrifice, reducing standard of living or added cost is unnacceptable.

The true beauty of CFL’s is not the energy they save by itself, it’s the fact that because of the energy they save you don’t need to turn them off, just leave them on 24×7 everyhwere.

For all the libs who worship legislation, can we at least throw a bone to those who are unfortunate to suffer from CFL flicker, by adding a rider outlawing headaches to the bills? I mean, legislation solves all problems so that should take care of it, no?

# 38 TheGlobalWarmer said, on February 1st, 2007 at 6:12 am

Smith, are you bi-polar?

First you talk about banning A/C, which is patently ridiculous, then you turn around and mention building nuke plants as fast as we can which I couldn’t agree with more. You’re absolutely right. If we could get to the point where power was so cheap and plentiful that it could practically be given away, 99.24% of all the World’s problems could be solved.

# 39 Greg Allen said, on February 1st, 2007 at 8:24 am

#37 >> For all the libs who worship legislation,

snicker.

Thank goodness, most Americans are finally able to discern the difference between what conservatives PREACH and what they DO — which often are polar opposites.

You PREACH less government but then gave us a bloated government which reached far into our private lives.

# 40 James said, on February 1st, 2007 at 9:12 am

36) I tend to think of the diamond market, controlled mostly by De Beers (although less so now) where the slack off of the mining end and jacked up the consumer end, which ensures they will be in damn good shape for years to come.

37) Leaving lights on 24×7 completely gets rid of the purpose of energy saving. Turning on and off a light uses far less energy than leaving it on, even an extra second on uses more electricity than turning it off and on.

38) The A/C ban post was satire, look it up.

39) There are no true conservatives left in the government. Also, the biggest problem in the government is that inaction is the best policy for those who want to be elected. If they really fix social security, what will they bitch about come election year? If they solved the energy problems, who would they blame for rising prices? It’s all a game to them.

# 41 ECA said, on February 1st, 2007 at 11:12 am

They can fix Social sec, by paying ALL the money back from the general fund. Which on the LOW interest average is around 80 trillon dollars… Which would help ALOT. Also take out those that have pensions Over $10,000 per year. Then get the Congree and reps, to start PAYING in..

If our upper gov was run as a business, HOW many would still have a job?? remember YOU are the Owner of the company.

# 42 pedro said, on February 1st, 2007 at 11:42 am

#41 said: “If our upper gov was run as a business,”…it would be a third world country. Then you wouldn’t see that many Mexicans run thru the borders. Which is a good thing. I guess.

“remember YOU are the Owner of the company.”…yeah, riiiiight.

# 43 John F. said, on February 26th, 2007 at 10:07 am

GE just announced a breakthrough in incandescent efficiency that exposes a glaring flaw in this bill that should have been obvious:

http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20070223005120

I just read California bill AB 722, and was disappointed to see that instead of sensibly setting efficiency targets (lumens/watt) it specifically singles out a technology (incandescent) and bans it. The assumption is that innovation doesn’t happen. Oops. GE just proved that assumption wrong.

If such a law had been in place years ago, do you think GE would have have funded the research that led to this breakthrough? Thankfully, such laws didn’t exist, and it looks like we’ll have the best of both worlds — high energy efficiency without the slow start, depressing spectrum, and mercury hazard of fluorescents.

I agree with the complaints here about light quality of fluorescents. Although I don’t personal suffer any ill effect from fluorescent bulbs, I know several people who do, including two family members.

# 44 Dave V said, on April 8th, 2007 at 2:38 pm

Spend your money on these overpriced bulbs.
Up here in Ontario Canada, the government put on a big push for us to use them. We, like sheep, did.
Local utilities, several months later say energy demand is down that good, but because it is, We need to raise electricity rates now.

If that doesn’t suck.

# 45 ECA said, on April 8th, 2007 at 4:40 pm

This is what I said on #24…

Leave Your Reply Below...

Comment Moderation is Active, so if your comment doesn't
show up immediately, please don't submit it again.

Special Deals 4U

25% off eHarmony subscription with code EHTECH
12-percent discount forever with code TECH
10-percent discount and free month using TECH10
10-percent or 30 dollars off weekly car rental!
Get 10-percent discount on car rental!
Get 10% off rental cars!
Get 10% off Dollar rentals!
Discounts on domain names!