Ronald Gibbons
President
Illuminating Engineering Society (Submitted Prior To Nov. 4, 2008)
I believe this election will impact the lighting industry through the differing energy policies. The differences are manifest in two important areas in energy, which will drive how the lighting industry moves forward: energy legislation and research funding.
There is an important equation to consider in the evaluation of energy usage. The first is the consumption of energy, and the second is the production of energy. The impact on the lighting industry is formed through the management of this relationship. If we were provided with an infinite energy source that was clean and renewable, consumption would not be an issue. If we had lighting products that consumed no energy, the nature of the source would be less of an issue. The problems we have today are a result of our products not being energy efficient enough and our production methods, which are antiquated and highly polluting. In the 2008 U.S. presidential election both candidates supported energy-efficiency improvements and a reduction in greenhouse gases. Both set goals and made significant effort to deal with both energy sources and U.S. energy consumption, however, between the two candidates the scope and the speed with which we can realize the established goals and the investment level is different. Obama requires 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050, and McCain requires 66 percent reduction; Obama will invest $150 billion in the development of clean energy sources, McCain will invest $2 billion with a 10 percent research and development tax break. As a result, the speed of development and the availability of research funding will be higher with Obama’s platform than McCain’s. It is these differences that will have an effect on the lighting industry. In one case, the faster goals and the availability of funding via the Obama plan will create a greater number of legislative efforts that will be backed by the availability of research funds to drive the industry faster than it is today. McCain’s plan calls for a slower development cycle with less available research funding. We, as a lighting industry, must choose the energy policy that is best for proper growth of the industry.
The primary realization that must be made is that the future of lighting is not determined by the industry itself, but rather by the researchers and the research funding efforts. If all of the available development money is invested in one technology, the future of the lighting industry will follow that technology. Legislators act on what they believe to be important to their constituents. The allocation of government research funding and the implementation of legislation is based on what our legislators think we want. If the legislators do not know and are not told what is important, the lighting industry cannot blame them for the decisions that are made. As an industry, we must inform our legislators about the pertinent lighting and energy-related issues. A senator or a house member can act on only what we tell them is important to us. So, even after the election, it is critical that communication with our government be maintained and that the issues we face every day in the lighting industry are reflected in our government. We need to care as much on Nov. 5 as we do on Election Day.