The beginning of 2011 marked the start of the phaseout of 100-watt incandescent light bulbs in California. But unlike for the nationwide long-term phaseout of incandescent bulbs, don't expect a lot of talk about black markets or stockpiling.
The new requirements do not ban traditional incandescents, but require that they use 72 watts or less. The new halogen bulbs emit the same amount of light, but use less energy at a comparable price.
Although the California law has not created a ton of controversy, the 2007 federal law mandating the gradual switch to energy effecient bulbs is being challenged by the Republican majority. Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann is pushing the "Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act," arguing that the mandate is another example of the US "nanny state" limiting consumer liberty.
The bill demands that the GAO (Government Accountability Office) prove that the new bulbs save money, prevent carbon emmissions, and are safe.
So the question remains, do bulb bans - and consumer restrictions in general - represent an important step forward for the greening of America? Or is big government restricting what should be a personal choice? Email your thoughts to firstname.lastname@example.org or comment below
Commenting on Dr. Green P's Blog
I'd love to hear your questions or comments about any my posts or environmental issues. To respond, click on comments at the bottom of the desired article you wish to declare an opinion on, and begin writing up your say. A gmail account isn't necessary to comment. Signing in as "Anonymous" or presenting a "Name/ID" works just as well. If you have any other questions or suggestions, please email me at email@example.com