Congress this week took up an issue that’s symbolic of the ideological battle over the size and scope of the federal government. It’s also an issue in which the facts often have taken a backseat to misinformation.
The controversy concerns the ordinary household light bulb. As you may know – especially if you follow conservative talk shows and websites – a federal law is scheduled to take effect next year that toughens energy-efficiency requirements for incandescent light bulbs, the familiar pear-shaped ones that almost all of us use in our homes.
Here’s the practical effect on consumers: Conventional 100 watt incandescent bulbs no longer will be manufactured after January 1, 2012, while 75, 60, and 40 watt incandescents will be phased out over the following two years.
Instead, you’ll have to choose among several kinds of more energy-efficient bulbs, including a new type of incandescent that uses less electricity, but looks and functions virtually the same as the bulbs it replaces.
The light bulb law wasn’t especially controversial when President Bush signed it in 2007, but has since become a divisive political issue. The Tea Party movement and many conservative opinion leaders cast it as an “idiotic, costly, and unwarranted strip-mining of consumer choice.” One Republican politician called it “a big Washington solution to a non-existent problem,” and he led an unsuccessful effort in the House of Representatives this week to repeal the law before it could go into effect.
Meanwhile, some media reports erroneously stated the effect of the law, promulgating a widespread misperception that it will ban incandescent light bulbs entirely and force people to use fluorescent lighting. And according to news stories, some consumers even have taken to hoarding bulbs.
“A lot of people have struggled to understand that this is not a ban on incandescents,” said Joseph Higbee of National Electrical Manufacturers Association, an industry trade group. “Either some people don’t understand or they don’t want to understand.”
Symbol of a “nanny state”?
Higbee’s group – whose member companies manufacture 95 percent of the light bulbs sold in the U.S. – supports the new law and lobbied against the current repeal efforts. The association says the measure is part of the electrical manufacturing industry’s broader efforts to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and achieve a cleaner environment.
Indeed, when the light bulb law passed in 2007 as part of a larger energy bill, it was backed by a wide coalition of industry and consumer groups. It also garnered support from both parties in Congress, passing the House 264-163 and the Senate 65-27. President Bush signed it and noted soon afterward that his wife Laura had switched to energy-efficient bulbs at the White House.
But even as the First Lady was ditching her old incandescents, a backlash was developing. Conservatives such as blogger Michelle Malkin and WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah began to criticize it. (“While it is perfectly legal to kill unborn babies for any reason or no reason at all, soon it will be strictly against federal law to buy, sell or traffic in incandescent light bulbs,” Farah wrote in 2008.) Glenn Beck began speaking out against the law on Fox News, breaking a compact fluorescent bulb on his show to demonstrate that it contained potentially hazardous mercury.
Minnesota Republican Congresswoman Michelle Bachman launched the first effort to repeal the energy efficiency standards in 2008, and Texas Republican Joe Barton renewed the effort this year. Both Bachman and Barton are Tea Party favorites who portray the repeal as a mission to protect personal freedom. (Read the recent articles by Republican environmentalist David Jenkins and the National Journal’s Coral Davenport for more insight on the internal Tea Party politics behind the current repeal drive.)
“They’re really trying to make it about what they call ‘the nanny state,’” said writer and blogger Brian Clark Howard, author of the book “Green Lighting.” “It’s a really good symbol because the light bulb is such an iconic item. It’s something that we’re all used to buying.”
In that respect, the critics raise a legitimate question about the government’s role in regulating private commerce. There’s an honest discussion to be had about whether Congress should continue to set efficiency standards for light bulbs, appliances, cars, and other products, or whether the marketplace should be allowed to function more freely.
Unfortunately, much of the bulb debate is fraught with misinformation. Many partisans overstated the effects of the new standards, falsely claiming it will be illegal even to possess older bulbs after the law takes effect. (In reality, while the law bans manufacturers from making less efficient bulbs, it allows you to keep using old bulbs until they burn out.) Some writers even suggested that police will show up at people’s homes and take away their bulbs.
Not surprisingly, given the political overtones of the debate, some opponents also attacked President Obama for the passage of the law. While the Obama Administration backs the measure, it was signed by President Bush.
But the most pervasive misconception is that the new standards will force consumers to give up incandescent lights entirely and force everybody to use compact fluorescent bulbs – the curly white ones that some people find harsh and cold. Much of the commentary about the law – and some of the mainstream media coverage — has focused on the perceived drawbacks of fluorescents.
These reports tend to overlook the fact that nobody has to use fluorescent bulbs. At least three manufacturers have introduced new energy-efficient incandescents to replace the ones that are being phased out. I recently bought some of the new 72 watt halogen incandescents at a local home improvement store, and I found their light to be indistinguishable from the conventional 100 watt incandescents they replaced.
While the new halogen incandescent bulbs are more expensive to buy – about $1.75 apiece as opposed to about 40 cents — the Department of Energy says each bulb saves about $1.30 per year in electricity. (Compact fluorescents and LED bulbs are even cheaper to operate, though the LEDs have a much higher upfront price.)
“Consumers still have options to choose from,” said Higbee, the industry spokesman, “and they’ll still have incandescents available to them.”
Some media coverage clarifies; some promotes misconceptions
In response to the misinformation and confusion, Higbee’s trade organization began an educational campaign that emphasizes “The 5 L’s of Lighting,” while Consumers Union – the publisher of Consumer Reports – addressed the misconceptions head-on with an advertisement that declares, “Incandescent bulbs are not banned. They’re just getting better.”
Some blogs and newspaper stories also tried to set the record straight, including a PolitiFact analysis that gave a “Pants on Fire” rating to some of the opponents’ claims about the light bulb regulations.
Yet as Congress debated the issue anew this week, many of the misconceptions again worked their way into media coverage. A number of stories bought into critics’ assertion that incandescent bulbs will no longer be available or failed to challenge Rep. Barton’s claim that energy-efficient bulbs cost $10 apiece.
“The language that’s been used by the politicians finds its way into the coverage, because people don’t go back and actually look at what the law does,” said Ken Paulman of Midwest Energy News, who writes about policy issues.
Paulman, a veteran journalist, said in a phone interview that the light bulb rhetoric has become so overheated that it’s essential for journalists and bloggers to actually read the law and understand what is — and isn’t — in it.
“There’s no language in there that says you can’t buy an incandescent bulb,” Paulman said. “A narrative emerged that simply wasn’t true.”
We have made it easy to comment on posts, however we require civility and encourage full names to that end (first initial, last name is OK). Please read our guidelines here before commenting.