Here is a person with their priorities in order. As Rome burns, she worries about the light bulbs… or, metaphorically, what type of strings are being used on the violin…
PATHETIC.

Just took a quiz from my electric company (Connexus) and discovered that incandescent light bulbs ARE NOT being phased out. If the incandescent can become more efficient (as the next generation might) you can still use them:

“It’s not entirely correct to say “incandescents” will be “phased out” because the standards set by the bill
are technology neutral – which means if incandescent bulbs satisfy the 30% increased efficiency bulbs to CFLs and make a huge impact! [Looks like they flubbed up the text a bit here, doesn’t make complete sense. Another source says: by 2012 the next generation of incandescent bulbs could satisfy the 30% increased efficiency.”]

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (the “Energy Bill”), signed by the President on December 18, 2007 requires all light bulbs use 30% less energy than today’s incandescent bulbs by 2012 to 2014. The phase–out will start with 100–watt bulbs in January 2012 and end with 40–watt bulbs in January 2014. By 2020, a Tier 2 would become effective which requires all bulbs to be at least 70%
more efficient (effectively equal to today’s CFLs)."

So, for those who object to using CFLs…in the next few years, there could be more efficient incandescents. (And there are halogen and, soon, LEDs.)

Gee, Michelle, thanks for wasting my tax dollars by introducing an unnecessary bill. (Yes, she is my rep.)

More to read:

http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/economy/2007/12/19/faq-the-end-of-the-light-bulb-as-we-know-it.html

http://turnitgreentoday.com/change-those-light-bulbs/

http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2008/04/27/the-dim-bulb-caucus-in-congress-and-disabilities/

The new energy efficient light bulb is made with mercury. There’s a warning on the package. If one breaks the mercury escapes and the squad must come for clean up. House must be evacuated. This energy efficient stuff is a money making fad. The sheep/people follow fads blindly.
God help America.

The ban is wrong not just because CFLs aren’t popular:
it is wrong in itself,
and the energy and emissions arguments don’t hold up.
http://www.ceolas.net/#li1x onwards

Americans (like Europeans) choose to buy ordinary light bulbs around 8 to 9 times out of 10 (light industry data 2008)
Banning what people want gives the supposed savings – no point in banning an impopular product!

If new LED lights – or improved incandescents, CFLs etc – are good,
people will buy them – no need to ban ordinary light bulbs (little point).
If they are not good, people will not buy them – no need to ban ordinary light bulbs (no point).
The arrival of the transistor didn’t mean that more energy using radio tubes were banned… they were bought less anyway.

(Continued)

The need to save energy?
Advice is good and welcome, but bans are another matter…
ordinary citizens -not politicians – pay for energy, its production, and how they wish to use it.
There is no energy shortage – on the contrary, more and more renewable sources are being developed –
and if there was an energy shortage of the finite oil-coal-gas fuels,
then
1 renewable energy becomes more attractive price-wise
2 the fuel price rise would lead to more demand for efficient products – no need to legislate for it.

Supposed savings don’t hold up anyway,
for many reasons:
http://www.ceolas.net/#li13x onwards
= comparative brightness, lifespans, power factors, lifecycles etc with referenced research

(continued)

About electricity bills:
If electricity use does fall, the power companies have to put up prices to cover their overheads, maintenance costs, wage bills etc (using less fuel doesn’t compensate much in overall costs).
As with other consumption, those who use less tend to pay more per unit used (and heavy users get discounts).

Emissions?
Does a light bulb give out any gases?
Power stations might not either:
Why should emission-free households be denied the use of lighting they obviously want to use?
Low emission households already dominate some regions, and will increase everywhere, since emissions will be reduced anyway through the planned use of coal/gas processing technology and/or energy substitution.

Direct ways to deal with emissions (for all else they contain too, whatever about CO2)
with a focus on transport and electricity:
http://www.ceolas.net/#cc10x

(continued)

The Taxation alternative
A ban on light bulbs is extraordinary, in being on a product safe to use.
We are not talking about banning lead paint here.
This is simply a ban to (supposedly) reduce electricity consumption.

For those who favour bans, taxation to reduce any such consumption would therefore make more sense,
also as governments can use the income to reduce emissions (home insulation schemes, renewable projects etc) more than any remaining product use causes such problems.

A few dollars/euros/pounds tax that reduces the current sales (EU like the USA 2 billion sales per annum, UK 250-300 million pa)
raises future billions, and would retain consumer choice.
It could also be revenue neutral, lowering any sales tax on efficient products.
When sufficent low emission electricity delivery is in place, the ban can be lifted
http://www.ceolas.net/LightBulbTax.html

(continued)

Taxation is itself unjustified for similar reasons to bans, it is simply a compromise alternative to bans:
with advantages as seen to all concerned, compared to the efficiency regulation based bans.

The real deal however,
is simply to supply energy as needed with whatever emisssion criteria is needed,
and let consumers use and pay for what they want, in their own homes.

i think we should be able to choose what we want to use