A fire station in Livermore, Calif., has an incandescent bulb hanging from the ceiling, about 15 feet from the ground, that has been burning for more than 100 years.
I know this because people have been referring me to it in recent days, trying to shed light (pun intended) on what has become the latest rallying cry for freedom in this country. The Founders united behind, "Don't tread on me." Today's patriots would rally to, "Keep your fingers out of our light sockets," or something like that.
It's not the most inspiring issue, but just like a 100-watt filament bulb, it is generating a lot of heat. And despite the House being unable to muster a two-thirds vote last week to repeal new energy standards for bulbs, the issue isn't going away.
Texas passed a law that says any incandescent bulb manufactured within that state is exempt from the federal law. Other states are considering similar laws (never mind that few of them actually house such manufacturers).
These people seem to be saying Washington has neither the right nor the ability to improve on Edison. There are even conspiracy theories floating around that Edison created eternal bulbs, but that big business forced the production of inferior models to keep people buying new bulbs.
That isn't true. The light shining in Livermore's fire station isn't bright enough to keep you from tripping over your slippers on the way to the bathroom in the middle of the night. It shines about as brightly as three candles. A dim incandescent bulb connected to a dedicated electrical source and left on continuously will last a long, long time. It won't, however, serve much of a useful purpose — kind of like a lot of today's political discourse.
Is the federal government's new energy standard really the latest sign of a slide toward socialism? Does Congress even have the right to impose such a thing? Those are questions courts may decide. But really, would we be at all concerned about this if those new squiggly things worked better than the ones built according to Edison's model?
When I was on the basketball team in high school, I used to joke that I was so quick I could hit the light switch at night and be in bed before the room got dark. The new squiggly bulbs turn off quickly, but I'm pretty sure, even as a much older guy, that I could flip the switch on and get into bed before the room is completely illuminated. My biggest problem would be finding the bed.
Some of the squiggly things don't last as long as advertised, and they pose environmental problems when it's time to throw them away.
A few years ago, Americans were squawking over a mandated switch from analog to digital television. That was a bigger inconvenience than this one. It even required a government subsidy of converter boxes. But the issue gained little traction as a threat to the Constitution, most likely because digital television is a huge improvement over what we used to have.
The light bulb mandate feels more like we're being forced into watching sets that flicker in black and white.
But let's be clear about what the new law says. It doesn't outlaw incandescent bulbs. It requires all bulbs to be 25 to 30 percent more energy efficient than a traditional bulb next year, increasing to 65 percent more efficient by 2020.
Already, manufacturers have succeeded in making incandescent bulbs that use halogen gas to meet the new standards. I'm told they look and act like the old bulbs. Edison's model isn't going away.
We live in a culture that seems intent on sucking as much electricity out of electric sockets as possible. Just count the number of cell phones, iPads, laptops and electric toothbrushes that need to refuel regularly in your home. There is nothing wrong with being more energy efficient.
But Congress would be wise to revisit this issue and at least force those squiggly things to act more like their ancestors before qualifying under the new standards.
Jay Evensen is associate editorial page editor of the Deseret News. Email: even@desnews.com. For more content visit his web site: www.jayevensen.com.