![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
On Light Bulbs and Liberty
Jul. 20th, 2011 03:43 pmIn the news of late are various rumblings that the Republican Party, great champions of freedom, are trying to repeal the so-called "light bulb ban." I find this whole discussion pretty dim-witted (pun intended). Allow me to shed some light on the situation.
The first problem with this discussion is that Americans, at least, have gotten into the habit of buying light bulbs based on wattage. The problem is that wattage is not a measure of light output, lumens are. You could take a 60-watt bulb, paint the outside black, turn it on and get zero light but still suck down 60 watts of electricity.
The corollary to this problem is that there's no standard as to how many lumens you should get for a bulb of a certain wattage. Going by this page, one can get bulbs that consume 60 watts but put out between 520 and 825 lumens - a 36% spread. One will also note that the lower-priced bulbs produce the least amount of light.
So, what Congress did in 2007 when they passed the "ban" was two-fold. First, they set a standard - a general-use bulb of X watts needs to produce Y amount of light. This seems to me a simple matter of enforcing an easy-to-understand standard, which is a both a clear benefit to the consumer and well within the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Second, they set this standard to be about 25% above the "typical" incandescent bulb of the time. That means you, the consumer, get more light for your dollar. Since they phased in the rule, all sorts of manufacturers came up with energy-efficient incandescent bulbs.
In short, Congress did exactly what we pay them to do - saw a problem and fixed it in a way that's beneficial to the American public. But apparently there's a sacred right in the Constitution to be duped by light bulb manufacturers.
The first problem with this discussion is that Americans, at least, have gotten into the habit of buying light bulbs based on wattage. The problem is that wattage is not a measure of light output, lumens are. You could take a 60-watt bulb, paint the outside black, turn it on and get zero light but still suck down 60 watts of electricity.
The corollary to this problem is that there's no standard as to how many lumens you should get for a bulb of a certain wattage. Going by this page, one can get bulbs that consume 60 watts but put out between 520 and 825 lumens - a 36% spread. One will also note that the lower-priced bulbs produce the least amount of light.
So, what Congress did in 2007 when they passed the "ban" was two-fold. First, they set a standard - a general-use bulb of X watts needs to produce Y amount of light. This seems to me a simple matter of enforcing an easy-to-understand standard, which is a both a clear benefit to the consumer and well within the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Second, they set this standard to be about 25% above the "typical" incandescent bulb of the time. That means you, the consumer, get more light for your dollar. Since they phased in the rule, all sorts of manufacturers came up with energy-efficient incandescent bulbs.
In short, Congress did exactly what we pay them to do - saw a problem and fixed it in a way that's beneficial to the American public. But apparently there's a sacred right in the Constitution to be duped by light bulb manufacturers.
