There Is No Light Bulb Ban

David Frum, who is a conservative, David Jenkins, writing at the conservative Frum Forum (h/t commenter Amy) tells Rep. Joe “I Apologized To BP” Barton and Michele “Crazy Eyes” Bachmann to shut their yaps on the non-existent light bulb ban:

There is no looming ban or phase out of incandescent bulbs. The entire hullabaloo is based on a fictitious claim manufactured by Barton.

All major lighting manufacturers, including Philips, Sylvania and GE, currently produce and sell incandescent light bulbs that meet or exceed the new standards (with no compromise in functionality). In fact, the lighting industry helped craft the 2007 legislation with the full understanding that they could produce incandescent bulbs that meet them.

[…]

In addition to claiming that the incandescent bulb is being banned and that we are all going to be forced to use compact fluorescent lighting (CFL), Barton is also saying that bulbs meeting the new standards are cost prohibitive.

Again, not true. A Philips incandescent bulb that meets the new standards currently sells for $1.49, lasts about 50 percent longer than older incandescent bulbs, and saves consumers more than $3.00 in energy expenditures. For four bucks you can buy an incandescent that lasts 3000 hours and nets you more than $10 in energy savings.

If you want to save even more energy you can buy CFL or LED bulbs. While LEDs cost more, the energy savings are about $150 per bulb and they last so long you might want to bequeath them to your children.

Frum Jenkins goes on to call Barton’s bill “irresponsible and embarrassing,” and “total lunacy.” He then informs us where this whole “light bulb ban” fairy tale came from in the first place: last year’s battle over the chairmanship of the House Energy & Commerce Committee. Barton’s rival Fred Upton had helped craft the lighting standards.

Is it me or does the U.S. Congress resemble junior high? We’ve got some important issues to address, it would be nice if there were some grown-ups around.

[UPDATE]:

Some folks are peddling some nonsense about manufacturers’ inability to meet the new efficiency standards, but that is load of bullshit, because even the manufacturers support the law, something they wouldn’t be doing if they couldn’t meet the new standards:

The hubbub has been deeply irritating to light bulb manufacturers and retailers, which have been explaining the law, over and over again, to whomever will listen. At a Congressional hearing in March, Kyle Pitsor, a representative from the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, a trade group that represents makers of light bulbs, among others, patiently but clearly disputed claims that the law banned incandescent bulbs. He restated the law’s points and averred light bulb makers’ support for the law. As usual, it seemed as if no one was paying attention.

Last week, for example, in the middle of Lightfair, an annual trade show for the lighting industry, Philips unveiled a winged LED bulb with a promised life span of 25,000 hours and a price tag of $40 to $50. The Associated Press reported its cost as $50, and Fox News ran the story with the headline “As Government Bans Regular Light Bulbs, LED Replacements Will Cost $50 Each.” Mr. Beck, Rush Limbaugh and conservative bloggers around the country gleefully pounced on the story, once again urging the stockpiling of light bulbs.

Joseph Higbee, a spokesman for the electrical manufacturers association, offered his take on the situation: “Unfortunately people do not yet understand this lighting transition, and mistakenly think they won’t be able to buy incandescent light bulbs. This misinformation has been promoted by a number of media outlets. Incandescent light bulbs are not being banned, and the new federal energy-efficiency standards for light bulbs do not mandate the use of CFLs. My hope is that the media can help the American people understand the energy-efficient lighting options available, as opposed to furthering misconceptions.”

Once again conservativee are passing an ideologically-motivated law no one affected by it wants or needs. But that’s the conservative way.

[UPDATE}: 2

Barton’s bill failed, spectacularly. Aww.