What People Think
 |
 |
22% For, 78% Against
Take Action
| Vote on this Bill | |
  |
For |
  |
Against |
| Speak Out | |
  |
Comment on this Bill |
  |
Alert Your Friends and Colleagues |
  |
Write Your Representative in Congress |
| Save & Share | |
 |
del.icio.us |
 |
Digg |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Yahoo! |
S. 2017, The Energy Efficient Lighting for a Brighter Tomorrow Act of 2007
Revision History 
Below is the revision history of this article.
(Learn how to edit the WashingtonWatch.com wiki.)
(Latest | Earliest)
To look at a past version, click on its date. To compare any two versions, select their radio buttons and click on "Compare Selected Versions." To compare a past version with the current version, click on (cur). To compare a version with the preceding version, click on (last).
Learn More
Trackback URL: http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/trackback/110_SN_2017.html
RSS Feeds for This Bill
Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)
Visitor Comments
Leroy Bartolomei
I am very concerned about the "Energy Efficient Lighting for a Brighter Tomorrow Act of 2007." In general, I support the bill, but am concerned that the bill is not considering a serious drawback to compact fluorescnet lamps (CFLs). CFLs contain 4mg of mercury and whereas the bill encourages, if not requires, consumers to purchase CFLs it does nothing to address the serious and potentially huge safety and hazardous waste disposal problems associated with CFLs. The safety problem relates to toxicity and cleanup problems associated with lamps that get broken during use. The hazardous waste disposal problem has to do with how the consumer disposes of CFLs that fail and the environmental issues associated with disposal. In my opinion, encouraging people to substitue CFLs for incandescent trades one problem (energy inefficiency) for another (public safety and hazardous waste.