Perry to Keep the Lights Burning in Texas
By Steven Osborne | Monday, June 20th, 2011 | PoliticsThe incandescent light bulb is scheduled to be phased out in 2012 as decreed by the federal government. However, Texas Governor Rick Perry is saying not so fast.
Due to environmental concerns, all incandescent light bulbs on the store shelves are eventually to be phased out and replaced with fluorescent bulbs by a set date. It is a perfect example of federal overreach into areas of authority that do not belong to them.
Governor Perry recently signed a law which would exempt Texas from the federal regulation; essentially, all incandescent light bulbs that are sold and purchased within the state would be exempt from the federal regulation. While the debate over the regulations of the types of light bulbs we use is not exactly a life or death issue; it serves as a reminder of the effects that onerous federal regulation has had upon our lives.
Like our own Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, Rick Perry has been at the forefront of a revival of federalism.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Steven Osborne is a grassroots conservative activist from Central Virginia. He is currently furthering his education at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. In addition to writing for Bearing Drift he is also a columnist for the Christian Law Journal.
Comments
19 Responses to "Perry to Keep the Lights Burning in Texas"
Where are the Congressional Repubs and dear old Fred on this? Or are they still out golfing? Or do they agree with Romney that climategate notwithstanding man made global warming is going to fry us by 2013 unless we use the light bulbs made by the Dems’ cronies?
The left and Al Gore must be laughing themselves silly over the spineless Repubs and the sheeplike public.
Good for Perry! I think that Bob McDonnell should join him and sign a VA version! This was passed some time ago, before the GOP was back in control of the House, but they haven’t revisited it, and they should.
Yeah!
Flourescent light is the most unhealthy that there is.
Ask anyone working in corporate America. (AMGP)
Now you know why everybody wants to work remote–at home. We don’t have red eyes and headaches by 3:00pm.
I transitioned to fluorescents years ago, before any Federal involvement and without any health issues. I just did it to save money and I have little concern over the mercury. I may stock up on incandescents and use a few continuously, as a matter of principle, since the government should not be involved in our light bulb choices.
My biggest complaints about the new bulbs is their lack of reliability. One of the advantages to them was supposed to be that, although they cost more, they would last longer and this with the electricity saved would more then pay the additional cost over their lifetime. My personal experience has been that on average they do not last as long as an incandescent bulb.
Other complaints?
I have some variable intensity touch lamps that are incompatible with the new bulbs. I guess I can stock up on enough incandescent bulbs to last me the rest of my life for them though.
I also have some decorative bulbs in my bathrooms (big round globes) that I have yet to see comparable fluorescent versions available for purchase. I would imagine it is only a matter of time before we see these as I do not see anything that should prevent them from being produced other then manufacturers have just not yet got around to them yet.
Double post:
How can we deal with the problems of unreliability of the new bulbs? Through market forces.
I’ll explain. My old truck had old fashioned sealed beam headlights. I noted that I was able to find a source for these bulbs manufactured by General Electric at half the cost of their competitors. Problem was they were extremely low quality and failed after just a few months instead of the more then a year I could expect from their competitors. I quickly took to the CB airwaves to and could even answer where the problem was with GE’s product.
It did not take but a few months for GE to come out with a better product. They even changed their packaging to allow the consumer to identify they were getting the “new and improved” product. Market forces, supply and demand.
So let us put these market forces to work. Which of the suppliers of the new bulbs provide quality products and which of them are providing junk? If we demand quality, we will end up getting it as long as the junk ends up sitting on the shelves.
Yes, I was in Texas last week, just as the press was abuzz with Perry’s veto of legislation approved by their Legislature outlawing texting while driving. So now, in Texas, law abiding motorists have the right to be killed by an inattentive adult who is texting while driving. Do I think this reveals a man with the competence to be a candidate for President? Certainly not.
Thank you Mr Barrett for picking who I will support. Anyone who believes the carbon scam lacks the competence to be a candidate for President. Wonder who the democrats will nominate? Al Gore?
Wrong!
Your post is incorrect, not all incandescent light bulbs are to be phased out. Only inefficient incandescent bulbs are being phased out. Additionally, the legislation does not include specialty bulbs.
Mike, why don’t you stay in Texas and text back to us your views on the competence of Rick Perry?
I just want to expand on my post a bit. Your post is not only misleading, but also very incorrect.
The “decree:” well it was a bill overwhelmingly approved by both the House of Representatives and the Senate and signed into law by President Bush.
What environmental concerns are you talking about, other than the green in my wallet? The newer bulbs save consumers money by cutting their electricity bills. I’m guessing you’re against fuel efficiency standards in vehicles too.
This is the exact area in which the Federal Government and all governments should be operating: encouraging innovation, reducing costs for consumers, and increasing efficiency.
And lastly, the bill that Rick Perry signed, doesn’t do anything. It’s a bunch of hot air, just like most of the current Republican ideas. I’m guessing that there are few to none bulb manufacturing plants Texas and since the bulb companies will going for the largest market (the whole United States) and will be manufacturing and shipping across state lines and international borders the bulbs will have to meet Federal standards. South Carolina passed a similar bill that enables any bulb manufactured in South Carolina and sold in South Carolina to not meet Federal standards. How many manufacturers are jumping at that offer?
If you think I’m wrong I suggest you call GE, Sylvania, Home Depot, Walmart, Lowes and any other bulb manufacturer or retailer and ask for their opinion on the legislation. Go ahead and call – then post what they tell you.
You need to correct the information in your post.
ToR,
It will set standards that many incandescent light bulbs do not meet and thus has the effect of banning them.
I was technically incorrect about “all” incandescent light bulbs being phased out. However, my general point still stands.
Steven,
There is a great deal of Supreme Court case law regarding the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution, almost all of it favorable to the Federal government. Simply manufacturing incandescent bulbs in a state and restricting their sale to within the borders of that state does not rise to the standard of negating that activity from being interstate commerce. Further, the ability of the States to nullify Federal law that meets the standard of being authorized to the Federal government by the Constitution was settled in 1834, coincidentally by a case involving South Carolina.
I’m not a big fan of Federal laws that dictate CFL bulbs, one-gallon-per-flush toilets, or that restrict hunting of migratory birds. But I am a big fan of the Constitution and neither Texas nor South Carolina is going to prevail here, IMHO, even in the Roberts Court.
ToR,
You stated:
“The newer bulbs save consumers money by cutting their electricity bills.”
My experience is that the promises made are not real. The newer bulbs are crap. I pay more for them and they do not last long enough for me to realize the savings of electrical bills before I have to replace them.
Meanwhile, over in China, they are building new plants to meet the increased need for the new bulbs. This increased industrial demand results in new power demands. The Chinese are meeting these increased power demands by constructing additional coal fired power plants. Over here in America we have plenty of coal, so we export it to them. We could burn the coal here, but nope, somebody thinks it is wiser to burn fossil fuels to transport it over there, manufacture what we need over there, and then burn fossil fuels to transport the finished products back here. Somehow in this equation we’re supposed to see reduced global warming.
I guess I am just not intelligent enough. I am so stupid I think what is happening is stupid.
Flourescent light is not healthy. You don’t have to believe me. Go check it out.
LittleDavid
My experience with the new bulbs is the exact opposite of yours. I bought a bunch at Lowe’s 3 years or so ago and have not lost a single one. Will try to get a name brand for you. Of course now all of mine will burn out in the next 24 hours!
You seem confused about shipping coal to China and such. Its really very easy. CO2 produced in China and in the transport of products back and forth is “good” CO2. That CO2 does not cause global warming. CO2 produced in the US and Europe is “evil” CO2 which causes global warming.
No you are not stupid.
Sometime I will explain CO2 to you more. Represent the earth’s atmosphere with a pile of $10,000 in one dollar bills. How many one dollar bills would you pull out to represent the level of CO2 ??
@Steven
It’s set standards that have let to more innovations in incandescent bulb technology than, well since Edison invented it. The legislation also did not ban any specialty bulbs. If you want an incandescent bulb you’ll still be able to get it. This wasn’t some piece of legislation to go after people, it was a consensus between retailers, manufacturers, consumers, and the Federal Government.
If any of you disagree please call any of the big makers or sellers and ask them what they think. This is a non-issue that the right has adopted without knowing much information on the subject.
@LD,
Just because you’ve had a bad experience with CFL bulbs doesn’t mean that everyone had that experience. You’re more than likely statistically an outlier. I’ve never had a bad bulb – I don’t think one has actually burned out. Not to mention, the retailers who distribute these bulbs wouldn’t put a bad bulb on the market for too long – as you’ve said before – market forces would correct the problem. I.E. – Lowes sells a crappy bulb so Home Depot would sell a good one and advertise the difference. Competition is driving prices lower and quality higher.
But on your CO2 kick. This is why I’m for regulating green house gases. If we as a nation decide to regulate emissions and then charge a tax based on those emissions American products will become much more in demand at home. Right now companies go to Asia because the labor is cheaper and they don’t have the environmental regulations. One option is to loosen our regulations which is what many of the right are in favor of. I’m a fan of tightening our regulations and then taxing products that do not meet current American standards. At least in the short to medium run it will improve American manufacturing and reduce our trade defect.
There’s a lot more to international trade than what you’ve stated – as someone in the trucking business I think you know a lot more than you’re letting on. The least efficient means of transporting goods is by truck – the ships that cross the ocean and trains that cross the continent are much much more efficient than trucks.
If the science is not open to question, then it’s not science but religion.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
ToR,
Perhaps I just ran into a bad batch and quality is improving. I bought a whole bunch of them from WalMart I believe when they had them on sale. I have heard enough testimony to convince me my personal experiences might have been unusual.
As for transportation, yes, I do know more about it then I let on. Thank you for offering me the opportunity to hijack this thread but I decline other then this: If the rail industry was more efficient, they would already be hauling all of the freight. They are not competitive as proven by the fact that they are ripping up old rail lines faster then they lay new ones.
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.