The New York Times, guardians of “respectable” opinion, has taken note of people who stockpile incandescent lightbulbs. At best, so the tone of the article suggests, they’re quirky; at worst, they’re thought-deprived idiots who are doing the bidding of other idiots such as Glenn Beck.
The Times article mentions several people (a designer, a restaurant owner, a home owner) who prefer Thomas Edison’s ubiquitous invention. An interior designer, for example, “is as green as anybody, she added, but she can’t abide the sickly hue of a twisty compact fluorescent bulb.” But we also get the idea that people concerned about which light bulb they use are a bit odd: “It should be noted that, like most decorators, Ms. Williams is extremely precise about light.”
The Times says that the incandescent bulb is not banned, which is … well, not in command of the facts. It’s true that federal law does not say “There shalt be no production or sale of 100-watt incandescent bulbs.” But in the words of one commentator, most incandescent models“are being forced to meet efficiency requirements which traditional bulbs cannot meet.” In other words, they will be banned in fact if not in name. The article is correct, though, in observing that some bulbs (e.g., those in refrigerators) will still be allowed. But that’s small comfort to the person who wants a decent light for reading and illuminating the living room.
Companies that make and sell bulbs are unfazed by the ban; in fact, the industry trade group supports it. And why shouldn’t that be the case? Businesses are in business to make money, not resist stupid government rules, and if they can make money regardless, they’ll be happy to do so.
First published by the Detroit News: http://apps.detnews.com/apps/blogs/watercooler/index.php?blogid=2374