Light bulb manufacturers can make $2 to $3 on a light bulb that sells for $10 to $15. They can't make that kind of money on 50-cent incandescent lights.
And the windfall would be in the first two years of the ban. Huge. And promoted by General Electric, which, by the way, paid no federal taxes last year (2010).
But popular backlash may change things.
The lighting industry largely backed a 2007 move to phase out incandescent light bulbs. But amid a consumer and political backlash, that support seems far more tepid now.
The House planned to vote Tuesday on a bill by Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, to repeal parts of the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act. Those sections didn't ban incandescents explicitly, but set efficiency standards that they can't meet. The 100-watt bulb phases out Jan. 1.
But Myron Ebell, president of the libertarian Freedom Action, replied, "The whole point was to twist government rules so light bulb makers will be guaranteed a much bigger profit. They can't make much money selling bulbs at 25 or 50 cents a pop. They can make money on bulbs that cost $2, $3 or even $25."
Compact fluorescent lamps and light emitting diodes cost considerably more than standard incandescents. LEDs aren't quite ready for prime time. Meanwhile, concerns over CFLs — they contain mercury, many people hate the light they give off and doubts as to whether they are really money savers long-term — have mounted.
Another annoyance with CFL's is they interfere with radio reception as they are warming up.
ReplyDeleteI did not know that. As with anything new, we will find out "problems" as more and more folks use them. I get a kick out of the mercury that it is in them.
ReplyDelete