the politics of energy efficient lighting

Submit A Comment | View Comments

No so long ago, swapping inefficient incandescent light bulbs for compact fluorescents looked like a no-brainer, didn't it? Well, it seems that nothing is that simple. The early compact fluorescents were often lousy; even the better ones now available cost enough to give one pause, even considering the promised lower life-cycle cost; and the ones I've bought don't seem to have lasted as long as was promised. And even such mundane, practical matters have political implications. First Congress voted to phase out incandescents; now it's considering undoing the undo. Today's New York Times offers this five-sided debate on the merits of the bulb ban and other energy efficiency mandates. Builders and architects have to make recommendations on lighting matters to their clients. What are you telling yours? --B.D.S.


Comments (1 Total)

  • Posted by: lytestyles | Time: 9:12 AM Thursday, April 07, 2011

    I find it irritating that anyone speaks of "Banning the Bulb". We are NOT "Banning the Bulb" - we are trading up! We are trading up to incandescent bulbs that provide equal light output while consuming less electricity. We are trading up from poor performance fluorescent bulbs to fluorescent bulbs that offer greater Color Rendering and/or even lower energy consuption. In fact, I wish that there were fewer "exemptions" from the list. The BR30 bulb is the worst offender of poor efficacy...and is used the most by residential households. Saving energy no longer has to mean giving up quality of light! Come on America........get with the program! Jacklyn Stanton

    Report this as offensive

Comment on this Post

Post your comment below. If you wish, enter a username and password though they are not required. Please read our Content Guidelines before posting.


Enter the code shown in the image

Username is optional


Enter a password if you want a username