LED Lighting in State Buildings

A few days ago, the Senate advanced a bill for a third reading and short debate that would allow LED lighting to be used in State buildings, in addition to the already required Energy Star labeled fluorescent lighting. The bill already passed the House last month with a 106 to 1 vote.

I have personally been talking about the advantages of LED lighting, over compact fluorescent bulbs, for quite some time already; however, it is an idea that has yet to catch on in any widespread way, even amongst my fellow Green Party members, whom I usually expect to be way ahead of the curve on most environmental issues. The DuPage County Green Party, for example, regularly sells, with some success, compact fluorescent bulbs as a fundraiser. (As attractive as it is, I still think they should consider changing their current logo.)

One of the primary advantages of LED lighting is that it is far more energy efficient than fluorescent lighting; but it also lasts much longer, is less fragile, and does not contain the toxic mercury that fluorescent lighting does (That mercury creates a problem when the glass breaks or when not disposal is not handled properly.) Interestingly, Democratic Representative Harry Osterman, one of the co-sponsors of this bill, yesterday also introduced a separate bill that calls upon manufacturers and retailers to voluntarily implement collection and recycling programs for fluorescent lighting.

I think that all of the sponsors of this bill, as well as the representatives who have already voted for it, deserve a serious pat on the back. Of course, there is yet another technology with even better energy efficiency than LED lighting; so just to keep the positive discussion moving, maybe at some point in the future, we can also talk about the use of light pipes in State buildings.