When toys were recalled because the paint used to decorate them was found to contain lead, I don't recall many people being outraged that these items were taken off the market. They were hazardous and could cause lead poisoning ' that seems like a pretty good reason to remove them from store shelves.
So when the government decides on energy standards that aim to help our environmental situation, why does everyone suddenly gather 'round the incandescent light bulb as if it's not emitting carbon into the air and adding to emissions?
According to the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which is humongous, light bulbs must have a certain energy efficiency level between 2012 and 2014, depending on the size of the bulb. Edison's 125-year-old incandescent light bulb won't be making the cut, so its production will cease in the coming years.
I got a little ticked off when I saw that one writer went so far as to call it the new Prohibition. Now this just may be semantics, but words hold very specific connotations, and these connotations can bring about the wrong conclusion on a first glance; the fact that people are crying out about this as if the government has turned from a representative democracy into a scene out of 1984 (complete with a Ministry of Light Bulbs) is ridiculous to say the least.
The government isn't halting the production of all light bulbs directly, as it did when it outlawed alcohol. They clearly didn't want booze being produced; in this case, the government isn't outlawing light bulbs of all kinds, or light in general for that matter. Calling this measure the new Prohibition is comparing apples to oranges.
What the government is saying is that a certain level of energy efficiency is required for light bulbs to pass government standards ' this isn't a new concept. This happens with cars, food, medication and all kinds of consumer goods. These standards are put in place to benefit the consumer; lead paint is dangerous, and so is an ever-growing amount of carbon emissions.
While this might seem like an action that won't yield gigantic results to end global climate change, it's still a step to reduce the problem. Incandescent light bulbs operate by creating light energy when heated ' this heat gets into the atmosphere and results adds to overall carbon emissions ' enemy number one ' and any reduction in these emissions is a good reduction in my book.
The problem is that just like many other technologies and innovations, the incandescent light bulb doesn't fit into today's lifestyle like it has for the last 125 years. Fluorescent light bulbs use 75 percent less energy and have a lifespan of up to 10 times as long as the incandescent does, which makes up for the extra $1.50 in price.
Fluorescents aren't perfect, as we need to figure out how to dispose of them properly once they cannot be used anymore, but we've got five years to figure out a plan. Using fluorescents will save everyone money on their energy bills (if they don't supplement the better energy with more use) and will reduce carbon emissions by millions of tons. If there is a way to reduce energy, why not utilize it?
Personally, I see it as incandescent light bulbs just not making the cut anymore. The same thing is going to happen if mileage standards go up. Are you banned from keeping your SUV? No, not at all. Are you going to be able to find the latest model of it if it doesn't meet mileage standards? No, you won't, and that's not a bad thing ' it's environmental progress.
I don't like to use the word ban to describe it because of its connotation ' it seems negative, when in effect this policy should have positive results if we can successfully utilize fluorescent light bulbs without increasing the amount we use them. It's more like phasing out old technology to me, but, again, that's just semantics, I suppose. You probably won't be angry if lead paint doesn't meet safety standards because, well, there's a poisonous substance in it. You'll still get paint, but maybe it's worth it not to use the cheap stuff because it will negatively affect you. So if incandescent light bulbs are essentially going to be dangerous for the environment and you live in this environment, what's the uproar about using a different light bulb?
Cathy Wilson is a junior journalism major. Send her an e-mail at cw224805@ohiou.edu.
17 Archives
Cathy Wilson
200801116689midsize.jpeg
