skip to nav skip to content

FPO

Charlie Sykes: Sykes Writes

THURSDAY HOT READ: DIM BULBS

  • (29) | COMMENTS
  • Print

In case you missed this yesterday,here is the Washington Post article I read about the false promise of green light bulbs. Instead of new "green jobs," we have factories closing, jobs lost, and work shipped overseas.

WINCHESTER, VA. - The last major GE factory making ordinary incandescent light bulbs in the United States is closing this month, marking a small, sad exit for a product and company that can trace their roots to Thomas Alva Edison's innovations in the 1870s.

The remaining 200 workers at the plant here will lose their jobs.

"Now what're we going to do?" said Toby Savolainen, 49, who like many others worked for decades at the factory, making bulbs now deemed wasteful.

During the recession, political and business leaders have held out the promise that American advances, particularly in green technology, might stem the decades-long decline in U.S. manufacturing jobs. But as the lighting industry shows, even when the government pushes companies toward environmental innovations and Americans come up with them, the manufacture of the next generation technology can still end up overseas.

What made the plant here vulnerable is, in part, a 2007 energy conservation measure passed by Congress that set standards essentially banning ordinary incandescents by 2014. The law will force millions of American households to switch to more efficient bulbs.

The resulting savings in energy and greenhouse-gas emissions are expected to be immense. But the move also had unintended consequences.

Rather than setting off a boom in the U.S. manufacture of replacement lights, the leading replacement lights are compact fluorescents, or CFLs, which are made almost entirely overseas, mostly in China.

29 COMMENTS

ADD A COMMENT

  1. These geniuses and their inability to discover that there are a whole host of unintended consequences involved in any of their great "social engineering" schemes.

    And I hate the flourescents, besides.
  2. These geniuses and their inability to discover that there are a whole host of unintended consequences involved in any of their great "social engineering" schemes.

    And I hate the flourescents, besides.
  3. I'm not sure what the conservative arguments are. Is it the switch to more efficient bulbs; or GE's decision not to make them? Nothing is stopping GE from investing in new plant and equipment except GE; something any company should/has to do to compete in the market. The energy efficient bulb is not new, and it was clear that they would become a new generation of lighting. GE decided to exit from the light bulb business; probably because it didn't contribute enough to the bottom line. It became secondary to their long-term plans. I wouldn't be surprised GE is involved in producing these bulbs in China through a subsidiary or investment in a Chinese venture. Europe is switching to the more efficient bulbs as well. As a result, two major markets are switching, making the incand bulb obsolete. I use the efficient bulbs and have no problem; other than the disposal. Maybe we should still be using Edison's first bulb design today? Making a light bulb design a political issue is typical of our dysfunctional political environment. WOW, 2000 characters!
  4. The point here, Independentone, is that a US factory making a product for which there was still a demand closed in large part because the demand for their product was artificially curtailed by legislative fiat, and alternative "green jobs" didn't magically appear to take their place. Not so hard to understand, now is it? True, the demand for that product is in natural decline and the plant would have likely have closed eventually, but that's no more relevant than justifying killing because all are destined to die eventually.

    Fluorescents do have problems beyond manufacturing cost and disposal. Their color spectrum, though improving, is dramatically inferior to that of incandescents. In most situations this doesn't matter, but where it does, it does a lot.

    I much prefer having such things decided by buyers in the free market over mandates from legislators too incompetent to manage even economic basics like "don't spend more than your income". It's a political issue because government micromanagement is a political issue.

Storm Team 4

    advertisement

    620 WTMJ