Should the government force citizens to purchase something more expensive in the short-run but more cost-saving in the long run? As the nation seeks methods to lower its energy usage, a 2007 legislation passed to eliminate the manufacturing and sale of traditional incandescent light bulbs, starting with the 100-watt bulb in 2012. Natural Resources Defense Council claims that by 2020, the country would save $12.5 billion annually, translating to consumers saving about $85 on their power bills.
It's noteworthy to note that the legislation was signed into law by former President George W. Bush, and now Texas Republicans are at the forefront of opposition against the measure. This year, Governor Rick Perry signed a law that exempted Texas from the new energy standards. Representative Michael Burgess further claims that “the federal government has no right to tell me or any other citizen what type of light bulb to use at home.” Indeed, the traditional light bulb has become "a pear-shaped symbol of personal freedom" to those against government's federal overreach.
It is about the personal choice. Presently, hybrid cars offer more fuel-efficiency, but at a greater initial cost. Consumers weigh the benefits and costs of the vehicle before making a choice on their own. Opposition claims that consumers should have the same right to decide and buy the cheapest option on the market. It's not about the money saved in the long-run; in Texas alone, efficient bulbs are proposed to save $1.1 billion. Rather, it's about the fear of the precedent this may create. Recently, the House voted to save the 100-watt bulb for another year. The debate is far from over. Few would disagree that the nation needs an effective method to save energy usage. But how that is done becomes and remains an intricate debate.
Sources:
