How many congressmen does it take to change a light bulb? We know the answer to this one: On Dec. 17, 2007, by 314 to 100 (with 19 abstentions), the U.S. Congress passed the Energy Independence and Security Act, which, among other things, bans incandescent light bulbs after the year 2011.
Of course, no sooner had the Americans done this than Canadians, as represented by the Harper Tories in Ottawa and the McGuinty Liberals in Toronto, leapt aboard the bandwagon by agreeing to ban conventional light bulbs here too.
When I saw this, I did what every reader should do -- I went to my local hardware store and stocked up on conventional bulbs. I worried that I might be too late. Not so. I had the incandescent aisle all to myself and found all wattages to choose from. By contrast, the fluorescent aisle, at least on the day I was there, was crowded with sheep, only too willing to be told by Dalton McGuinty how to light their homes.
How anyone can read by the sickly white light that the curlicues give off baffles me. But then, since practically no one reads anymore, and the way our schools are going soon no one will be able to read, the twisty bulbs may be just what Canadians want. If so, the darkness about to descend will not be illuminated by light bulbs of any variety.
Now just as I might have been tempted to despair (a sin I find hard to resist), along comes a fetchingly attractive junior Republican congresswoman from Minnesota, Michelle Bachman by name; last month, Ms. Bachman introduced the Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act. While admitting that her choice of date may have been imprudent, Congressman Bachman stoutly defended her bill: "I wish this was an April Fool's joke, but it's not," she began. "Fundamentally, it is an issue of freedom. It's about whether people will be able to make even the most basic decisions anymore, or whether Big Brother will control every aspect of their lives."
Of course, being a politician, she felt it necessary to justify her legislation on other grounds as well -- the "unknown health effect of fluorescent bulbs," and "at least one report [of] a higher incidence of breast cancer." At some length, she animadverted on the high levels of mercury in fluorescent bulbs and the environmental concerns about their disposal.
Congressman Bachman's bill would forbid the U.S. government from banning conventional light bulbs until the Government Accountability Office (GAO) conducts independent tests to prove that fluorescent bulbs: (1) will reduce homeowners's energy bills; (2) will significantly reduce our "carbon footprint"; and (3) will not increase health risks for "vulnerable populations" in "hospitals, schools, daycare centers and nursing homes."
In Canada, we should wish to add "parliaments and legislatures" to the list, since this is where the weak-willed and vulnerable noticeably congregate.
I do not know whether Ms. Bachman's proposal has any chance of becoming law. The criticism already levelled at her has been pretty withering; one columnist wrote: "There is 200 times more mercury in each of her teeth than there is in a compact fluorescent bulb." Well, maybe so, but I don't read in close proximity to any of Congressman Bachman's teeth.
Ms. Bachman has not been without defenders, particularly those for whom "free market" is not yet a pejorative term, and those reluctant to clamber aboard the public bus for another jaunt down what economist Friedrich Hayek (1899-1992) memorably called "the road to serfdom."
But Ms. Bachman's critics have been more numerous than her defenders; what particularly galls such people is that she challenges received environmental wisdom; this consigns her to a basket containing Holocaust deniers, young Earthers and Darwinian skeptics. Ms. Bachman is a heretic in the Green Church of Pastor Gore and, as such, faces ex-communication.
For my part, I wish her well, and I regret that we do not have politicians in Canada of her spunk and independence of mind. But I rather suspect she will prove to be a Donna Quixote, tilting at windmills. Which is why, on this one, I prefer hoarding to protest.
- Ian Hunter is professor emeritus in the Faculty of Law at Western University.
