I am in the anti cfl camp, firmly. The light definitely sucks. Everyone looks terrible in that cool, white light. Our house looks more like a sanatorium than the warm, old cottage it is. I use them in closets or work bench areas, but they shall never be in my living areas. I'll turn off the lights more diligently or make it up somewhere else. Let's ban SUVs first and then let's ban the suburbs and then let's create nationwide public transportation before we get rid of our lights. It's moronic thinking. I have a small house and I want some nice lighting, yet someone else can have a 4,000 sq. ft McMansion and not pay any consequence. Our "footprint" is determined by many, many things, and going after incandescent light bulbs is a distraction. I'm reacting to legislating them away. Yes, make an alternative available, and I'll use them where I don't care about the quality of the light. But don't force me to transform my home into a place I don't want to be at night.

Try the "soft white" CFLs. They give off the same warm light as soft white incandescent bulbs.

No, I've tried them, they all suck. Even the brandy new ones. Even the ones that are so warm they're practically orange. It's the quality of the light, not the color.

The "color temperature" of a lightbulb is its "quality."

If you just don't want to do the right thing and switch to CFLs, just be honest about. Stop inventing reasons not to use them.

People like you are why we need a law that phases incandescent "global warming bulbs" out.

Click the link in the article to the popular mechanics article about incandescent vs. CFL light quality.

Light temperature is only part of the quality. Another part is the flicker. Yes, for some of us, the flicker is still there, even in the ultra-modern $12/bulb CFLs. I have been using CFLs for roughly 9 years, and they give me headaches. How do I know the new bulbs, while better, still aren't good enough? Because CFLs never last anywhere near as long as advertised. I get, at most, a couple of years out of them, so I've replaced all the CFLs in my house a couple of times over (and some more than 1/2 dozen) since I started using them. There are no savings to be had from buying them.

Anyone else get annoyed at the delay when you flick the switch? Maybe I should heat my house more so they will be happier? That's real green.

Plus, even while compact, they don't work in lots of lamps.

Yes, that's it...we just don't want to do the right thing. We are terrible people.

Doing the "right" thing takes many forms and has many gradients. If you want to do the truly right thing commit suicide and rid the earth of one more human consumer. It is impossible, without going to a completely pre-electrical life, to lower one's footprint to zero. So, what if someone has a renewable, non-polluting source of electricity.....must they be forced to use only CFLs as if their electricity came from a coal-fired plant? If I install a solar system on my roof, why can't I burn 1,000 watt bulbs of any kind should I choose? If I have a 100 watt bulb which I turn on for about half an hour a day and you burn a CFL for 10 hours a day, who is the more "right" person? Life is not so simple, is it?

OK, go ahead and install a $20,000 solar panel system in your house and then you can use any lightbulb you like without guilt. Also, if you can figure out how to live with just one 100 W incandesent bulb for 30 minutes a day, then I'll cut you some slack. However, you aren't going to do either of those things are you?

Meanwhile, the rest of us who live in the real world will "pick the low hanging fruit" and switch to CFLs because they are a real and significant way to save energy right now. There are plenty of other ways to save energy, but just because you do those things doesn't mean you couldn't save even more energy by switching to CFLs.

Let's hope they pass that law soon. Regulations will save us from our inherently selfish selves.

mike_in_nm:

Regulations will save us from our inherently selfish selves.

As well they should. I want to have more, more, more--it's human hard-wiring. I can't be counted on to do the right thing myself because I'm selfish. I can't be counted on to make a reasonable balancing decision. I'm too selfish. Please, government, save me from me. Take from each of us according to our abilities. Give to each of us according to our needs.

(pardon the reductio ad marxism)

The point is, of course, that we can make balanced decisions. The point is, of course, that Congress can't pass any truly meaningful energy conservation or energy source legislation so they distract themselves with light bulbs and say, Look, we did something! Why not outlaw air conditioners since they consume enormous amounts of power, and mandate air fans? Why not outlaw central heating and mandate space heaters? Why not outlaw electricity! Let me use my lights judiciously and my heating and my airconditioner and everything else that uses power, cutting down waste while we search for mass renewable energy? Besides, people will rebel at this proposed law. They will horde bulbs. They will call their representatives. Etc, etc. Imagine your favorite restaurant lit entirely with fluorescents. Imagine your local theater with no fresnels. Imagine bars and lounges, etc etc. Let's focus on finding a way to beautifully light our world with sustainable and non-polluting energy.

>Congress can't pass any truly meaningful energy conservation or energy source legislation

That doesn't make CFLs a bad idea.

>Why not outlaw air conditioners since they consume enormous amounts of power, and mandate air fans?

Because, without A/C some people will die and there is no easy alternative.

>Why not outlaw central heating and mandate space heaters?

Since when do space heaters use less power?

>Why not outlaw electricity!

That's just dumb.

>Let me use my lights judiciously and my heating and my airconditioner and everything else that uses power, cutting down waste while we search for mass renewable energy?

Even if you actually do all of that, switching to CFLs will save even more energy. The vast majority of residents of the USA will not do one single thing to combat global warming voluntarily.

>Besides, people will rebel at this proposed law. They will horde bulbs. They will call their representatives. Etc, etc.

Too bad. Compare this to seat belt and helmet laws. Not everyone obeys, but many do. As a result, fatalities in accidents are down.

>Imagine your favorite restaurant lit entirely with fluorescents. Imagine your local theater with no fresnels. Imagine bars and lounges, etc etc.

To me that's all desirable goal to work for. Let's get rid of every one of those damn "global warming bulbs" tomorrow.

>Let's focus on finding a way to beautifully light our world with sustainable and non-polluting energy.

Let's! While we figure that out, let's save some real energy right now by switching to CFLs.

OK, you're right. People can always be counted on to do the right thing. So, let's get rid of all of the following regulations: CAFE standards, seat belts, drinking age, drug laws, clean air and clean water acts, endangered species act, mining laws, mandatory education, "sunshine" laws, pharmaceutical testing, food safety, restaurant health codes, child labor laws, etc. I'm sure the USA will be a much better place to live.

There's already a mechanism to regulate energy consumption in homes: the building energy codes. This big public micromanagement of what to allow and what to ban is just Congress showboating.

The problem is that there currently is no way to legally regulate CO2 emissions. As a result, no one pays the real cost of emitting CO2 and technologies that are just a little bit more expensive than coal (like solar) don't get developed and or deployed. If we taxed CO2 emissions, our electric bills would go up and then power companies would start using solar, wind, and CO2 capture technology.

So, either CO2 emissions need to be regulated as a pollutant or taxed in some way or we need to figure out other ways to limit CO2 emissions, such as by raising CAFE standards (also hated) and mandating CFL usage.

Banning CFLs is clearly not enough to combat global warming. No one thinks that is true. Much more is needed and quickly! The only real solution to global warming is to invest in cleaner sources of power.

However, banning CFLs will make a real dent in CO2 emissions immediately. Should we really not take small easy step to partially fix a problem while we wait for the perfect all-encompassing solution? I don't think so.