Re: “Walker: Lightbulbs on the White House chopping block,” (Aug. 19, 2023)

I am writing to express my strong disagreement with the article’s counterarguments to the Department of Energy’s decision to finally make the incandescent lightbulb obsolete. It is clear that climate change is an urgent public issue; small efforts to make a difference should not be belittled.

The incandescent light bulb has been on its way out since 2007 and the Energy Independence Act of 2007 had declared that they had to meet certain energy-saving standards by 2014. Recent studies have shown that climate change-related disasters, such as flooding and intense storms, will bring damages of $500 billion to $2 trillion per year by the end of this century. It is our responsibility to our environment and our planet to try to prevent such catastrophic destruction from occurring. We must invest in more sustainable, energy-efficient bulbs like LED light bulbs that will help reduce our overall carbon footprint and lessen the effects of climate change.

Scientists now agree that the time to act on reducing greenhouse gas emissions is now. Therefore, banning the incandescent lightbulb in favor of LED bulbs is the right thing to do. As noted in the article, LED bulbs have numerous advantages such as being energy efficient, last much longer, and emit less heat.

Admittedly, LED bulbs have higher upfront costs. According to the Department of Energy, LEDs use up to 75% less energy than incandescent bulbs and last 25 times longer. Making the switch from traditional incandescent bulbs to LEDs will provide tangible energy savings and environmental benefits; it would save consumers $3 billion, cut carbon emissions by 222 million metric tons, and reduce energy consumption significantly. In addition, LEDs do not emit the damaging blue light which can cause macular degeneration, damage photoreceptor cells, and disrupt sleeping patterns. Many more recent models of LED bulbs have been designed with features to reduce and spread out the blue light, thus minimizing its adverse effects.

It cannot be argued that banning the incandescent lightbulb is a drastic move. But when it comes to tackling the climate crisis, drastic moves are necessary. On the other hand, individuals should have the choice to opt for LED lighting or stick with incandescent in order to better tailor the lighting needed for their lifestyle and home. In conclusion, LED bulbs must become the norm in order to make a positive difference in tackling climate change. While there may be certain drawbacks associated with the LED bulbs, the considerable increase in energy savings and the decrease in carbon emission outweigh any of the cons. I urge individuals to make the switch to LED bulbs because we must act now if we are to make substantial progress in the fight against a warming planet.

Laurie Woodward Garcia

Westboro