Yeah, Incandescent Light Bulbs Have Pretty Much Been Banned

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


In non-immigration news today, House Republicans voted yet again to repeal a Bush-era law that mandates more efficient light bulbs. This has been a tea party hobbyhorse for years now, symbolizing their resistance to nanny state socialism and overbearing tyrannical government. Or something. In any case, they hold this vote every few months or so, but like all of these symbolic votes, it will go nowhere in the Senate. So it’s meaningless.

But it got me curious: did the federal government really ban incandescent light bulbs, as conservatives keep saying? In the past, I’ve been a little confused about this. The law clearly doesn’t explicitly outlaw incandescent bulbs, but it’s surprisingly hard to find a straight answer about whether, in practice, the new standards will force incandescent bulbs off the market. I went looking again tonight, and it’s still surprisingly hard to get a straight answer about this.

So I decided to perform some empirical research: I went to the store to see if I could buy an incandescent bulb. Both 75-watt and 100-watt bulbs are currently required to meet the new efficiency standards, so that’s what I looked for (60-watt bulbs, ominously, aren’t required to meet the new standards until Black Wednesday, the day Obamacare goes into effect). Did I find any?

No, I did not. Not at my local Ace hardware, not at my local Rite-Aid drug store, and not at my local Lowe’s. What’s more, the light bulb section at Lowe’s featured a big sign that said “DID YOU KNOW: Incandescent bulbs are being phased out.” You basically have a choice of LED, CFL, or halogen bulbs. 100-watt incandescents are a thing of the past.

Now, the halogens are pretty affordable. They go for a buck or two apiece depending on how many you buy. The others are more expensive but save a lot of money in the long run. So consumers are in fine shape and energy is being saved. It’s all good. Nonetheless, on the question of whether incandescent bulbs have been banned, I have to award this decision to the tea partiers on points. The law doesn’t say that incandescents are banned, but its practical effect has indeed been to make them unavailable. Colloquially speaking, it’s not a stretch to say they’ve been banned.

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 can’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 won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—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 can’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 won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—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