The Dimmest Bulbs

Remember when America was going to usher in a new age of environmental awareness and action? Well, now you can forget it.  For the time being, anyway, or maybe longer . . .  

I'm not talking about the non-agreement over the non-action on climate change in Durban, South Africa. I'm talking about Congress's passage of a rider to a budget bill designed to avoid a government shutdown that delays by nine months (until someone can delay it for longer) a provision from an energy bill passed in 2007 to require light bulb companies to produce 100-watt halogen light bulbs that produce the same light as a 100-watt incandescent bulb but uses 28 percent less power. The law now goes into effect in October 2012 rather than in January 2012, and it makes the same requirements for 75-watt bulbs in 213 and 60-watt bulbs in 2014.

Texas congressman Joe Barton, a Republican who's opposed to any energy-saving idea that makes sense, hailed the passage of the rider that he says gives Americans the freedom to choose the less expensive incandescent bulbs (the design for which dates back to the first light bulb perfected by Thomas Edison in 1879) over halogen bulbs. Left out of what passes for Barton's reasoning is the fact that halogen bulbs cost less in the long run because they last longer and so need replacement less often. Also left out of the equation is the amount of money that light bulb companies spent to prepare for the law to take effect in January. If Barton gets his way, this law could just as easily be repealed altogether.  I imagine that he's working on a plan for its repeal right now.

There are lot of dim bulbs that need to be replaced in Congress. Too bad they keep getting re-elected.