An article in HCN Monday about Congress’ move to delay enforcement of the 100-watt incandescent bulb phaseout generated several comments, many positive.
Here are some of the responses:
“Finally, a small glimmer of sanity in Washington -- listening to the majority of consumers/voters rather than forcing a political agenda.
“Yes, make the delay permanent. Please let me choose when and where in my home to use new bulb technologies versus the traditional incandescent technologies. As the new bulb technologies continue to evolve and improve, I will eventually switch to 100% usage of the new bulb technologies once I perceive that the value-proposition (including all factors: light quality, energy savings, eco considerations, price, etc.) warrants doing so. But that should be my free-market decision, with the bulb manufacturers working hard to improve bulbs so that product performance and value drive the change, not a government mandate."
"We need to be progressive and get rid of wasteful products."
— Frank Douwes
“What a brave group of legislators we have taking on the light bulb instead of the economy! I wonder how many fancy $25 light bulbs you can sell to the millions of people who are losing their homes because of these idiots in Washington.
“We better fix the economy, the deficit and the out-of-control Washington spending first. Let me buy whatever light bulb I want.”
— Bill Snyder
"[The enforcement delay] should be permanent. Control of the individual to this degree is far beyond the scope of our constitution. I for one don’t want the mercury-filled “non”-light bulbs in my home. And years from now when the health impacts are elucidated, the Feds are immune from liability! If this nation was serious about energy, we wouldn’t be nibbling around the edges, telling consumers what light bulbs they have to buy.”
"The reprieve should