When they came for the 100-watt incandescent light bulbs, I remained silent because I didn't use them. Then they came for the 75-watt bulbs, and again I remained silent because I didn't use them. But next year, they'll come for the 60 and 40-watt bulbs and I won't be able to use them any more.
If nothing else the federal government's banning of incandescent light bulbs is yet another case of Big Brother making decisions best left to consumers. The enviroweenie do-gooders figure we aren't smart enough to make these decisions for ourselves, so they have to make them for us. Unfortunately they have fallen prey to the ever unforgiving Law of Unintended Consequences.
In their drive to make us start using more energy efficient lighting, they have instead created all kinds of nightmares, including environmental issues (mercury in CFLs which create major disposal and cleanup problems), inaccurate life-time estimates (some CFLs don't last any longer than incandescent lamps), quality problems, high costs, and a poor return on investment (the amount you save in lowered energy usage doesn’t pay off for years, if at all).
As Senator Rand Paul has mentioned, the government is making us pay for things we don't want, that don't work nearly as well as the older technology, don't last nearly as long, and cost more. Why would anyone do that voluntarily? No one would, which is why the government has been forcing us to do so under the guise of saving energy/water/Gaia when in fact doing so will do no such thing. The net energy, water, and materials used over a 20 year period may be well above that used by the 'less' efficient but more robust older technology.
