How Many Legislators Does it Take to Outlaw a Lightbulb?

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


In the quest to stave off cataclysmic climate change, the compact fluorescent light bulb (CFL) seems to be garnering messianic status. (Wal-Mart, for one, hopes to green its image by selling 100 million of the energy efficient, cost saving bulbs by the end of next year). Politicians are behind them too, and no state is doing more than California to encourage consumers to give up their old incandescent bulbs.

California utility giant PG&E already heavily subsidizes CFLs, making them almost as cheap as incandescent, despite the fact they nip at the company’s bottom line, using 2/3 less electricity. And last week, CFLs got some additional buzz as California Assemblyman, Lloyd Levine, promised legislation dubbed the “How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change A Light Bulb Act.” If passed, it would ban the sale of conventional light bulbs in the state by 2012.

Despite the prospect that the law would spur a booming black market in incandescent bulbs smuggled from neighboring, loose-lawed Nevada, it should help California meet its goal of cutting 25% of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 (the typical CFL saves 640 pounds of CO2 emissions over its life cycle; California emits more than 380 million metric tons of carbon annually).

But truth be told, CFLs are not all sunshine for the environment, especially in the hands of the wasteful. CFLs contain mercury, and, to date, there is no way to make them without using at least a small amount of the toxic substance. “If you are going to make a massive switch over to compact fluorescents, which would be good for energy conservation, it makes sense to accompany it with the appropriate take-back and recycling provisions,” notes Elizabeth Grossman, author of High Tech Trash.

Without a real commitment to recycling, mercury filled CFLs will end up with household garbage, land-filled and incinerated en mass. Which is a shame because assuming proper disposal, CFLs actually reduce the amount of mercury escaping into the environment. According to the EPA Energy Star program, “coal-fired power plants emit 13.6 milligrams of mercury to produce the electricity required to use an incandescent light bulb, compared to 3.3 milligrams for a CFL.”

Now that’s a lightbulb worth changing.

—Koshlan Mayer-Blackwell

 lightbulb130x140.jpg

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate