Congress voted years ago to ban incandescent light bulbs. The reason? To save Americans as much as—hold onto your hats here—$85 a year! Also to save energy, and of course, the savings were exaggerated. It’s that global warming state of mind. Facts? Facts are for suckers.
Another issue: The fact that they will most likely be replaced with CFL bulbs, all of which contain mercurcy, and few of which will be recycled properly (do you recycle your batteries properly? Do your neighbors?), doesn’t seem to concern the EPA overmuch, because, hey, we’re going to cut down on energy use! And the nanny-staters don’t want us to waste any of our own money, because, well, it’s OUR money to waste, not theirs, right? So we can’t waste it if they don’t want us to.
Well, the second attempt to repeal the ban is underway, and it seems likely to win. (The first one failed.) And I think I can proudly tell you why this is going to happen: Last weekend, I went to Home Depot and bought dozens of incandescent light bulbs. I stocked up. Screw the nanny staters. I like incandescent bulbs. I can afford the $85 a year (which is apparently a really high estimate). So of course, the minute I finally decided to stock up, the need for stocking up disappears.
Update: It passed.
So there. It’s all my fault.
You’re welcome.
Thank you for your selfless contribution to bringing a slight increase in good sense on the part of our lunatic government.
rock on, Meryl !
reading under those fluorescent bulbs causes – for me, at least – significant eye strain. i see it as the latter day equivalent of the Victorian window tax.