Save the Planet - Ban the Bulb!

Ethan Strimling, All Towns

A few weeks ago I posted about my efforts in the Maine Senate to ban incandescent light bulbs within the next two years, as a way of promoting energy conservation and technological innovation.

I’ve taken a fair amount of heat for my position from people who feel my bill tries to do too much too fast. But I want to thank both Maine Audubon and the Natural Resources Council of Maine for having the courage to support my bill at the hearing.

I firmly believe that the climate crisis demands immediate action, and that the small step of removing incandescent bulbs from the market will kick-start a new commitment to green technology and energy conservation here in Maine.

Congress shouldn’t be taking the climate crisis lightly, and should be doing more to defend our planet than condoning twelve years of incrementalism. When I get to Washington, I plan to ensure that the US House starts delivering real solutions for our energy crisis, real fast.

Below the fold, I’ve posted my testimony to the Natural Resources Committee from this week. I hope you’ll take a few minutes to read it over and let me know your thoughts on my proposal to ban the bulb, as well as what other steps you’d like to see taken to promote a cleaner, greener nation.

Good afternoon Senator Martin, Representative Koffman and other distinguished members of the Natural Resources Committee. I am Senator Ethan Strimling of Cumberland County – representing part of Portland.

I am here today to present LD 2207, An Act To Diminish Global Warming.

The issue before us today is really one about timing. The incandescent light bulb’s days are over. It is the most inefficient appliance in the house. 98% of the power consumed by an incandescent bulb is emitted as heat, not light.

If the incandescent light bulb were invented today, it would not be allowed on the market because of its inefficiency and wasteful energy use.

Even President Bush has recognized their inefficiency. In December, he signed an energy bill which will, when fully implemented, end the use of today’s incandescent bulbs by 2020. We can do better and we should do better.

The United States is not only the largest user of energy in the world, but also the largest polluter in the world. We should be setting the standard for reducing our use of fossil fuels and addressing the worldwide crisis of global climate change. Instead, other countries are leading, and we are following. Brazil and Argentina started phasing out incandescent bulbs in 2005. Ireland banned them by 2009. Australia, Italy and the Philippines have banned them by 2010. The United Kingdom by 2011.

If these countries can take the bold step of banning these highly inefficient bulbs in two years or less, why should we wait 12? If global warming is as serious an issue as most reputable scientists agree, than why aren’t we taking immediate steps to address this crisis? Why wait? What’s the justification? Inconvenience? Well, the inconvenient truth is, we don’t have time – or energy– to waste.

The technology is here today to significantly reduce our energy consumption.

When President Kennedy announced the goal of putting a person on the moon in 10 years, most of the technology needed to achieve it hadn’t even been invented - not the rockets, not the guidance systems, not even the computers.

In this case, however, the technology is here, right now and, even better, energy saving light bulbs are available today at Wal-Mart and other stores. So what’s stopping us?

What kind of difference can one bulb make? Consider this: If every person in America swapped just ONE bulb for an ENERGY STAR labeled compact fluorescent, it would collectively save more than $8 billion in energy costs, prevent burning 30 billion pounds of coal, and remove 2 million cars’ worth of greenhouse gas emissions from our atmosphere.

Now, just imagine the difference we could make if we replaced ALL of the lights we use with more efficient bulbs. We could reduce our imports of costly foreign oil by millions of barrels and eliminate the need to build thousands of megawatts of new polluting power plants. Such a ban would accelerate technological development of far more energy efficient lighting options, especially the luminous promise of light-emitting diode bulbs.

Want to cut your light bill? Replace just one 75-watt incandescent bulb and you will save more than $50 in electricity costs over the life of the bulb. Change three or four bulbs, and you’ll see your light bill go down even more.

Now, I want to address some myths about compact fluorescents.

First, my bill does not require the use of compact fluorescents. It simply bans the highly inefficient incandescent bulb.

While CFLs are currently the most popular and most efficient bulb on the market, other types of lighting, including LEDs, are coming, and I’m convinced that this bill and others like them will actually spur development of far more energy efficient lighting options, especially the promise of light-emitting diode bulbs (LEDs). In two years, we’ll likely have many more options than CFLs.

In fact, manufacturers have contacted me and told me that there could be an incandescent bulb very shortly that would be as efficient – or nearly as efficient – as CFLs. For that reason, I propose an amendment to my bill that would simply lay out the energy efficiency requirements for light bulbs that would in effect ban current incandescent bulbs but allow for the technology to continue providing it meets the efficiency standards.

Second, you’ve heard, or will hear, a lot about how the compact fluorescent bulbs don’t give off a very appealing light or that they don’t fit every kind of lamp or receptacle. Anyone who says this hasn’t been to a light store recently. While it’s true that the early CFL bulbs were the twisty funny looking things we’ve all seen, today’s CFLs are almost indistinguishable in appearance from traditional light bulbs. They fit all kinds of lamps and receptacles and give off light that is quite similar to traditional bulbs.

So what about the mercury inside the bulbs?

Yes, it’s true that each of these bulbs has a pin drop of mercury, but if you’ve still got an old mercury thermometer in your house, you’ve got 500 times the amount of mercury that’s found inside one of these bulbs.

These bulbs do require special handling and special disposal, which is why my bill carries a 25-cents deposit on each bulb to ensure they are disposed of properly and, yes, if one breaks, special precautions should be taken to clean them up.

As you know, the DEP released a report just this week about the mercury hazards in these bulbs; however, even that report concluded that none of these concerns should in any way deter people from switching to the more efficient bulbs.

The fact is that because half of our nation’s electricity comes from coal-fired generating plants, more mercury pollution will be created from our continued use of incandescent bulbs than the potential pollution from all the compact fluorescents on the market.

While it’s true that Maine does not have any coal fired electrical plants, we still receive the pollution in the air from coal-fired plants in the Midwest, which makes it doubly important that we take this important step toward energy efficiency. How can we expect states in the Midwest to end their pollution that the downwind states receive if we aren’t willing to take equally bold steps to reduce our pollution and conserve energy?

That is why banning incandescent bulbs as soon as possible is so critical.

We can make all kinds of arguments about how the new bulbs are inconvenient, but these arguments will look pretty silly in the years ahead if our major industries – like the ski industry, the fishing industry, and maple syrup and blueberry industries – are devastated due to the effects of global warming - all because we didn’t have the courage to change a light bulb.

Maine has always been an environmental leader, and now is the time for real leadership. If the Philippines can do it, so can Maine. We owe it to ourselves and all generations to come.