All Brooklyn news
Neighborhood Map
Bay Ridge
  • Bensonhurst, Dyker Heights
Brooklyn Heights
  • Downtown, DUMBO
Carroll Gardens
  • Cobble Hill, Red Hook, Boerum Hill
Fort Greene
  • Clinton Hill, Crown Heights
North Brooklyn
  • Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Bushwick
Park Slope
  • Prospect Heights, Windsor Terrace, Greenwood Heights
GO Brooklyn
Dining Guide
Where to GO
Events calendar
Classifieds
The Brooklyn Wire
Not Just Nets
Police Blotter
Perspective
Parenting
Politics
Transit
Podcasts
Brooklyn Cyclones
Special sections
About The Paper
Mobile site
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds

Rep. Mike is a Grimm bulb!

The Brooklyn Paper

Freshman Rep. Michael Grimm has environmentalists burning mad over his sneaky work to gut a federal law that would improve the energy efficiency of household light bulbs.

Grimm (R–Bay Ridge) backed a GOP-led effort to repeal a 2007 bill backed by then-President Bush that would have effectively banned the standard 100-watt incandescent light bulb by 2014 — an effort to improve the energy efficiency of America’s wasteful lighting.

When Grimm and his GOP colleagues failed in their attempt to outright repeal the 2007 law on July 12, the GOP inserted language into an Energy Department appropriations bill that prohibited federal dollars from being used to enforce or promote the so-called Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.

Grimm defended the defunding because “Americans don’t need a nanny telling them what to put in their lamps.”

“The government has grown way too big, but when it starts limiting our choice in light bulbs, you’ve got to be kidding me!” he added.

Environmentalists are certainly not laughing. Incandescent bulbs are a century-old technology that has been the standard light since Thomas Edison invented them. Each bulb wastes 90 percent of the energy it takes in as heat, not light.

By comparison, compact fluorescent bulbs use 20 to 33 percent less energy. Lighting accounts for nearly 10 percent of America’s energy use, and government estimates suggest that consumers would save $6 billion in energy costs by 2015 if they convert to efficient bulbs.

But there’s more to the issue than dollars and sense, environmentalists say.

“This is a public-health issue,” said Elena Craft, a scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund. “These [energy-efficiency mandates] are in the best interest of public health, just like seat belt laws and other laws designed to protect the public. Most of the energy used to power the country come from coal-fired power plants which can be very harmful to our environment, so if this nation adopts policies that require more energy-efficient light bulbs to be used, it’s doing it in the public’s interest.”

Not all Republicans are siding with Grimm, either.

President Bush signed the bill into law, an echo of an effort begun under President Reagan, who created the first appliance efficiency standards in the 1980s.

“This whole notion that efficiency standards are an assault on personal freedom just doesn’t hold water,” said Jim DiPeso, policy director for Republicans for Environmental Protection. “They’re grasping at straws.”

Yet it’s in lockstep with Grimm’s feeling about government oversight on free enterprise. He says that the law would force Americans to spend more for an everyday necessity: the average energy-efficient bulbs costs about $3 while incandescent ones cost about 35 cents apiece.

“In this economy, mandating that consumers buy expensive light bulbs is absurd,” he said. “We all want to move towards energy efficient options, but it shouldn’t be through a mandate that breaks the backs of America’s hard-working taxpayers.”

It depends on one’s definition of back-breaking. Fluorescent bulbs are three to 10 times more expensive than standard bulbs, but their lifespan is far longer. U.S. News and World Report once reported that investing $90 in to replace 30 incandescent bulbs with fluorescent ones would save $440 to $1,500 over the five-year life of the bulbs — a 12-percent savings.

“I don’t get Grimm’s position,” said Brian Wennersten, a green building consultant. “Even the descendants of Thomas Edison are behind [energy-efficient bulbs]. I don’t understand why Grimm wouldn’t be, too.”

— with Thomas Tracy

Reader Feedback

Dave from Park Slope says:
Geniuses like Grimm are the reason we're about to default on the federal debt, which will send the global economy into a tailspin and evaporate trillions in personal investment assets. Thanks, Republicans!
July 27, 2011, 3:51 am
Forrest says:
Good to see Congressman Grimm is tackling the real tough issues.... light bulbs.

You have got to be kidding me. Get this guy out of office. Please!
July 27, 2011, 8:24 am
Or from Yellow Hook says:
Congressman Grimm is thinking of your children - break a CFL, and you have heavy metal mercury - put enough CFL's in your land fill and you have contaminated ground water. Contaminated ground water will contaminate your rivers and your grand children will never eat tuna fish.

Those little green bulbs - aren't!
July 27, 2011, 8:29 am
Jerry says:
So basically Congressman Grimm is making sure my grand-kids can have a tuna on rye? OK, I like him now.
July 27, 2011, 8:46 am
Joey Bots from Botville says:
Those CFLs are manufactured overseas where the the current lightbulbs are made in the USA. And we wonder why there are / will be no jobs to be had in the US. People who read this publication should educate themselve on the issues before they make knee jerk comments about things they don't know about. (e.g If an idea is put forward by a Republican it must be bad) Americans should have the choice to buy the products they want. Central government planning is so yesterday (USSR)

Break out of your liberal mindset every now and then!!!
July 27, 2011, 9:14 am
manhatposeur from manhat says:
this congressman is delusional.
July 27, 2011, 9:32 am
Or from Yellow Hook says:
Jerry, tuna will be the least of it.

Look up heavy metal poisoning - you'll be Mad as a Hatter!
July 27, 2011, 9:33 am
Ace from New Utrecht says:
I can't stand the dim light those CFLs deliver and I have no intention of using them. I can help conserve energy in other ways; from now on I promise to take the subway to and from work every day!
July 27, 2011, 10:10 am
Bob from Bath beach says:
This tea party guy is out of control!
July 27, 2011, Noon
Mike from Bay Ridge says:
This is another reason the Federal government should not be involved in micromanaging our lives: the utter waste of time Congress spends on these half-ass issues when it should be tackling major ones.

Why are congressmen, senators, mayors, assemblymen, state sentors, aldermen, councilmembers, et al. wasting all this time trying to hand hold adults? Aren't we able to live our lives without the government picking our light bulbs, the size of our toilet tanks, the calories in our fast food, the ingredients in our restaurant meals, the tobacco smoke wafting through bars, the sounds from the nearest nightclub, etc., etc.?

It's bad enough when they shove options in our face; when we reject them they take them away altogther and just force us to accept what they wanted us to choose in the first place. That is not the purpose of a government in a free society.

As if New York City becoming a police state isn't bad enough, now the rest of the country gets to enjoy our nanny-with-a-night-stick approach to "self-government." And sadly, most people say thanks for saving me from myself instead of get off my back I'm old enough to take care of myself.
July 27, 2011, 12:03 pm
Joey Bots from Botsville says:
Go Mike from Bay Ridge!! Wake up you liberal sheep!!! Freedom from the Nanny State!!
July 27, 2011, 12:13 pm
Joe Blow from Bay Ridge says:
LED blubs are made by Sylvania right here in the USA. I personally think Bush had a good idea when he signed this legislation.
July 27, 2011, 12:59 pm
eliot from brooklyn heights says:
It's actually dumber than Gersh lets on. Here's what happened:

- Congress passed a law mandating that all light bulbs should be more efficient
- Companies who make regular incandescent bulbs started making more efficient light bulbs

No one is banning anything.
July 27, 2011, 1:44 pm
K. from ArKady says:
Gersh, your numbers are more than a little low. All of my cheapo 100 watt incandescent replacements are rated 23 watts. That's a 77% reduction in energy usage, not the 20-30% you claim. The change in your utility bill is immediate and substantial. The bulbs pay for themselves in a few cycles, and the rest ( for years, if you take care of them ) is free money. Does Congress need to _pass a law_ to get you to make money for free? Are you people really that stupid?

Oh yeah, and mercury? Why is this now a problem? We've been lighting with FL for decades. With bulbs ~20 times larger than CFL.

For early adopters turned off by the old blue rich bulbs; try the newer yellow/green ones. The light quality is better than IC, and you can really light something up if you want to splash out without all the associated waste heat.

I relish the thoughts of supporters of this nonsense paying the power company through the nose for the right to swelter in an apartment lit with IL's in summer. Where do you think all that waste heat goes? So rarely in life does stupid behavior get punished so badly.
July 27, 2011, 3:10 pm
bb from brooklyn says:
if the case for the new bulbs is so sound, it wouldn't require a government edict to get people to use them.

fact is, while they may be more energy/heat efficient, they also have a dark side (excuse the pun) that includes disposal danger and a high failure rate.

the sudden downplaying of the mercury hazard is disingenuous. just as the government told us we couldn't do any asbestos mitigation without spending dearly on protections (entire school systems have been closed because of asbestos mitigation!) — yet when the World Trade Centers came down, all of a sudden it wasn't not so toxic after all.
July 27, 2011, 5:54 pm
XI says:
How embarrassing

http://thehill.com/capital-living/173451-50-most-beautiful-people-2011-washington-congress-capitol?start=16
July 27, 2011, 9:45 pm
K. from ArKady says:
But it is sound. Do the math. Then buy some bulbs. You're paying insane rates for your residential electricity (.13 per KWh). Using lightbulbs to heat your house is good bank for the utility company and the bulb manufacturer, but just sucks beans for you. That's what, in my opinion, makes the law so insane.

It's just a matter of time before LED based lighting obviates any concern over mercury, but at ~4mg mercury per tube I think the commercial fluorescent lighting tubes would dominate the waste stream, don't you?
July 27, 2011, 10:16 pm
Proud Libertarian Republican from Brooklyn says:
Clearly, the supporters of the contemporary florescent bulb fear that it can't compete in a free market with other bulbs.

Starting with railroads at the end of the Nineteenth Century, and winding up with residential real estate and banking in the first decade of the Twenty-first Century, wherever one looks, government oversight, mandates and control have always meant the same thing --- business necrosis, and failed and bankrupt industries.

Congressman Grimm knows, and has voted based upon his knowledge, that paying for more environmental oversight of more government environmental mandates is a loss-leader we can no longer afford.

btw, "Dave from Park Slope", not raising the debt ceiling does not mean an immediate or automatic "defaulting" on the debt. In the near term, Social Security payroll taxes exceed Social Security pay-outs -- segregate those revenues, dedicate them to immediate Social Security obligations and pay all Social Security recipients immediately and without interruption. Next, pay service on all of the outstanding debt and honor any demands to liquidate. Next, start a triage for the shut down all of the federal bureaucracy and don't stop shutting government down until you've reached the level of current federal revenue.

Putting government in a good tight corset will lessen all manner of profligacy, and greatly improve the posture and appearance of government.
July 28, 2011, 12:54 am
eliot from brooklyn heights says:
Listen. There is no ban. Go to the store right now -- you can buy incandescent light bulbs.

No one is forcing you do do anything. Like CFLs? Buy them. Like incandescent bulbs? Buy them. Like candlelight? Buy freaking candles.

No one is punishing business. The VP of Phillips says:

“When this bill was passed, it was passed by people who knew how to make light bulbs. Everyone supported it. And since then, it’s created more choice for consumers – we have two incandescent bulbs on the market that weren’t there before.”

There is no ban.

This is a fake issue. Grimm is an idiot -- as is anyone else who spends time on this fake issue.

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/07/08/263535/light-bulb-efficiency-standard-will-lower-energy-bills%E2%80%9D/
July 28, 2011, 9:38 am
ADRIAN from HOME says:
KAREN HARDY LLM PHD STUDENT CALVIN KEIZ

HAVE YOU BEEN THEIR?

DONT LIE!
July 28, 2011, 3:07 pm
Lawrence from Park Slope says:
It is obvious this is a big RIGHT-WING ISSUE.

Of course, the JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY web page has numerous articles and videos on the subject.

This is a non-issue, pumped-up by our domestic right-wing nutters.

Expect to see more non-issues from Rep. Grimm. He seems to be in the loop when it comes to THE RIGHT-WING.
July 28, 2011, 4:34 pm
"Not Dave" from Not Park Slope says:
"Dave from Park Slope",

If the congressional Republicans hold fast, the seventy-five year Democratic Big Government Ponzi scheme crashes like the Hindenberg at Lakehurst.

You probably blamed law enforcement for all the losses suffered by Bernie Madoff's customers, too.
July 29, 2011, 12:04 am
"Not Lawrence" from Not Park Slope says:
Lawrence,

You need to get out more.

There are so many "RIGHT WING ISSUES" that are far more important than light bulbs – here are just a few, worth mentioning:

– The active non-enforcement of several U.S. immigration laws by our only half-American, very foreign-raised, very alien-thinking, uncritically vetted (actually, wildly non-vetted) and clearly ineligible
"POTUS BHO".

– The AG Holder approved ATF program that supplied guns to Mexican and other Pan American drug dealers --- just a very clever plan and brilliant law enforcement too.

– And my personal local favorite -- where exactly (like an address or even specific cross streets) did the young, pre-state senator, pre-U.S. senator, pre-POTUS BHO live in BROOKLYN ? -- a few years ago, while visiting, he couldn’t remember that bit of his own personal history any better than the rest; and probably BHO can’t remember those details for the same reasons so much of the rest of his factual “legend” is not generally available.
July 29, 2011, 12:36 am
Fred from Bushwick says:
God bless this man. He's the anti-Bush.
Aug. 1, 2011, 5:05 pm
Not Fred from Not from Bushwick says:
Fred,

How do you KNOW he's the anti-Bush?

You really KNOW very little about him.
Aug. 6, 2011, 1:37 am
Lawrence from Park Slope says:
"The Tea Party S P Credit Down-Grade" is another RIGHT-WING surprise just waiting for your deep analysis, "Mr. NOT Lawrence." LOL.

"Proud Libertarian Republican" lives in an extremist, "true believer" bubble, with the unpopular, one term Congressman.
Aug. 8, 2011, 11:40 am

Enter your comment below

By submitting this comment, you agree to the following terms:

You agree that you, and not BrooklynPaper.com or its affiliates, are fully responsible for the content that you post. You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening or sexually-oriented material or any material that may violate applicable law; doing so may lead to the removal of your post and to your being permanently banned from posting to the site. You grant to BrooklynPaper.com the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual and fully sublicensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part world-wide and to incorporate it in other works in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

First name
Last name
Your neighborhood
Email address
Daytime phone

Your letter must be signed and include all of the information requested above. (Only your name and neighborhood are published with the letter.) Letters should be as brief as possible; while they may discuss any topic of interest to our readers, priority will be given to letters that relate to stories covered by The Brooklyn Paper.

Letters will be edited at the sole discretion of the editor, may be published in whole or part in any media, and upon publication become the property of The Brooklyn Paper. The earlier in the week you send your letter, the better.

Links