The Dim Bulb Rule
The Dim Bulb Rule
1. Federal congress members resolved to ban the use of incandescent bulbs in the United States of America. This was after a thorough scrutiny comparing the pros and cons of using incandescent bulbs and its effects on the environment and the health of the nation. Over the years, reports on global warming have increased and the government resolved to reducing ways through which reduce its occurrence. The government observes certain procedures before enforcing such a law. However, in every legislated rule, there is always an opposing entity. Hence, the government consulted various stakeholders before enforcing the law.
2. Rising levels of global warming sparked the legislation of the ban of incandescent bulbs. In 2011, the Congress resolved to issue a diktat to phase out incandescent light bulbs from the face of the United States of America. Dealing with issues related to global warming are often dealt with a higher degree of seriousness in order to reduce its occurrence. Environmentalists label incandescent bulbs as harmful not only because of the considerable amounts of carbon dioxide they emanate, but also because of the electrical wastage while producing heat. Furthermore, the heat it emits has a negative impact on the environment because it drives cooling systems such as air conditioners to do more work, especially during summer. Since these systems are coal power plants dependent, emission of more greenhouse gases into the environment increases. Following the negative environmental impact of incandescent bulbs, the congress passed the dim bulb rule.
Despite the fact that the rule only works by helping to solve part of the causes of global warming, it is beneficial to the consumer. The lawmaker’s philosophy is therefore not only dependant on the problem it causes in the environment but also to other factors. For instance, the incandescent bulbs are cheap but costly in the sense that they drive electricity bills up. Due to their short life span, their replacements are more often. Additionally, it is of low efficacy since for it to generate light, it has to produce a substantial amount of heat first resulting to energy wastage. They are also sensitive to vibrations. They have a tendency to perform poorly when on exposure to vibrations and trembling which causes them to burn out quickly.
3. Entities that have an interest in the solution include the American nation, ecologists and environmentalists. They have an interest in acquiring a solution to the global warming problem. The well-being of every individual is partially dependant on the effects of global warming. Moreover, scientists, politicians Non-Governmental Organizations and the government are entities affected by the solution to the problem. Scientists are able to conduct more research on ways to reduce global warming whereas the NGOs save more money that they spend on electricity and direct it to other projects. The government benefits by saving up potential energy in billions. Bringing up the ideology on more ways to save energy and reduce global warming is an easy win for politicians during elections. Therefore, the conflicting interests of these individuals forms the basis of the problem addressed.
4. Facts are important in the dim bulb rule. Determination of the severity of the problem bases on the facts behind the dim bulb rule. The facts that led to the dim bulb rule are:
- Research conducted by various environmentalists and researchers shows that, incandescent bulbs have negative effects on the environment and the health of individuals. The numbers of people suffering from diseases related to global warming are increasing and the environmental status is depreciating with time.
- Scientists claim that the bulbs increase the usage of potential energy.
- The bulbs are costly because they require replacement after a short period.
- Residents across the country report that there the bulbs produce a lot of heat during summer and cause the cooling systems to perform more work. This increases global warming since the systems are coal powered, which emits carbon dioxide.
The assumed facts are that the bulbs release approximately 25 million tones of carbon monoxide annually into the environment, when used. Since malaria carrying, mosquitoes prefer warmer conditions, malaria infection increases to about 20%. According to scientists, global warming is a risk factor for cardiovascular diseases, respiratory problems and heat strokes. Another reason that led to the legislation of this bill is that the congress assumed that the solution to the problem would be employing alternative techniques such as replacing the incandescent bulbs with fluorescent tubes. In case the assumption changes, it would be important to find more reasons and facts that support the legislation of the bill.
5. Differing philosophies on the role of the government have a great impact in solving the problem. This issue presents various perspectives about the involvement of the government. House Republicans would consent that the government should stay away from the issue. This means that the bill on banning of incandescent bulbs need not be legislated. They state that the alternative solutions are costly for the American nation. Furthermore, the financial sector would disagree since its legislation leads to the shutting down of industries producing the bulbs. This will have a negative impact on the overall revenue of the country.
6. Other philosophies also affect the ban on the use of incandescent bulbs. The government has to focus on all sectors involving the law. For instance, it should have established industries that produce alternative bulbs such as fluorescent tubes. This would help by saving on the revenue that it spends on income tax since it imports some of the tubes from China. Hence, consumers would enjoy purchasing the commodity at pocket friendly prices. Opposing philosophies such as the incandescent bulbs are beneficial to the nation’s economy are present in this law. The constant purchase of bulbs would help boost the economy since it promotes more production of the commodity. Additionally, growth of the potential energy industry encourages employment.
7. The alternative solution to the ban of incandescent bulbs is to introduce other bulbs that are not CFLs. The law that bans the use of incandescent bulbs faces opposition from various individuals. They believe that the only alternative to the bulbs is the Carbon Fluoro Lamps (CFL). The halogen lamps are in fact the best solution to this problem. They save up energy by approximately 50% and they last three times more than the incandescent bulbs. Moreover, these energy saving bulbs supply an equal amount of light as the bulbs. In order to integrate this alternative technique into the society, the government has to intervene. It would help in educating the nation on the importance of using the halogen lamps. Furthermore, it would offer more funds in enforcing the law and ensuring that the reduction of consumer price of the commodity.
However, the short-term problem with this solution is that Americans may fail to purchase the halogen bulbs since they are relatively expensive. The Americans also have a tendency of maintaining their old habits and embracing this change would be hard. Finally, most people still have the ideology that alternative lighting systems do not provide similar lighting as the incandescent bulb, hence very few will agree to use the halogen bulbs. In this case, the law is general.