<img src="http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-b9iqXwljufs2-.gif" style="display: none" border="0" height="1" width="1" alt="Quantcast"/></a>

Poll: 72 Percent of Americans Oppose CFL Mandates

By Chris Baskind in News

A Compact Florescent Lightbulb (CFL)Americans may be willing to buy energy-saving Compact Florescent Blubs (CFLs), but they overwhelmingly oppose laws mandating their use.

That’s according to a new Rasmussen Reports national survey, which found that a whopping 72 percent of those polled don’t think it’s the government’s place to tell them what kind of light bulbs to use. A federal energy bill passed last year will effectively ban the sale of traditional bulbs by 2014, saving consumers an estimated $40 billion over the following fifteen years. CFLs currently account for about 21 percent of all light bulb sales.

But only 18 percent of those responding to the survey think CFL legislation is a good idea. Another 10 percent say they’re not sure.

Billions of bulbs

The sale of compact florescents slowed in 2008, perhaps due to lower energy prices and a shrinking economy.  Roughly 2.4 billion CFLs are sold annually. China is the top producer of compact florescents, accounting for 85 percent of worldwide production. Modern CFLs consume a fraction of the electricity utilized by their conventional counterparts. A 23 watt CFL produces as much light as a 100 watt incandescent.

These energy savings add up quickly. While CFLs will always be more expensive than incandescent bulbs, their long service life and miserly power consumption means that most bulbs will pay for themselves many times over in reduced energy bills.

Other nations move against incandescents

Australia was the first nation to announce energy efficiency standards eliminating most incandescent bulbs by 2010. Other countries have since followed suit. Last autumn, the European Union agreed to standards prohibiting filament-type bulbs in 27 member states by next year.

Want to know more about CFLs? Check out Lighter Footstep’s How to Live With CFLs. Remember that CFLs require special handling when you’re through with them. Read Five Ways to Dispose of Old CFLs or take the CFL Recycling Challenge!

Originally posted 25. Jul, 2009 | Tags: , , ,

  • What a shame, that other Americans have been convinced by endless, mindless Republican recitations of the so-called evils of government and the value of "freedom", which is supposedly in opposition to government action. The harm those zealots and greedy individuals have done is incalculable, and is quite dangerous for our country and the world.
  • calvin
    amen
  • Hardly surprising about the light bulb poll...

    Americans choose to buy ordinary light bulbs around 9 times out of 10.
    Banning what Americans want gives the supposed savings - no point in banning an impopular product!

    If new LED lights -or improved CFLs- are good,
    people will buy them - no need to ban ordinary light bulbs (little point).
    If they are not good, people will not buy them - no need to ban ordinary light bulbs (no point).
    The arrival of the transistor didn't mean that more energy using radio tubes had to be banned... they were bought less anyway.

    All lights have their advantages
    The ordinary simple light bulb has for many people a pleasing appearance, it responds quickly with bright broad spectrum light, is easy to use with dimmers and other equipment, can come in small sizes, and has safely been used for over 100 years.

    100 W+ equivalent brightness is a particular issue - difficult and expensive with both fluorescents and LEDS - yet such incandescent bulbs are first in line for banning 2012!

    Energy?
    Since when does America need to save on electricity?
    There is no energy shortage, there are plenty of local energy sources, Middle East oil is not used for electricity generation.
    Consumers - not politicians - pay for the energy used.
    Certainly it is good to let people know how they can save energy and money - but why force them to do it?


    Emissions?
    OK: Does a light bulb give out any gases?
    Power stations might not either:
    In Washington state practically all electricity is emission-free, while around half of it is in states like New York and California.
    Why should emission-free Seattle, New York and Los Angeles households be denied the use of lighting they obviously want to use?
    Low emission households will increase everywhere, since emissions will be reduced anyway through the planned use of coal/gas processing technology or energy substitution.

    Also, the savings amounts can be questioned for many reasons:
    For a referenced list of reasons against light bulb bans, see
    http://www.ceolas.net/#li1x onwards
  • Beth
    I agree with ecochick, I think people are tired of being forced to do things by our government.
  • Raquel
    The question was deceptive. Of course no American wants the government telling them what to use, but that's not what they're doing. They are merely enforcing a new standard of efficiency on lightbulbs in general. If companies can innovate new incandescent bulbs that meet the levels (and some are posed to do so), we may very well continue to have incandescent bulbs. It's misrepresentations like this that create confusion about the issues.
blog comments powered by Disqus