I think we have come to a classic conflict here. Some of us think that mitigating the damage we do to the environment is a high priority. Some of us think it is less so.

To the second group, it is easy to ignore the tons of CO2 dumped into the atmosphere by using the less efficient alternative.

To the second group, they can't be bothered to make a once a year trip to their local recycling facility so they can't imagine it as a responsibility of citizenship (or adulthood).

To the second group, the inability to use a cheap dimmer on a CFL is too great a sacrifice for us to ask. (Dimmers are now available for CFLs, but you will have to replace the one you have now.)

To people who know in their hearts that we should treat our environment better, but find it too inconvenient or the moralizing wuzes (their phrase, not mine) too annoying, they have their excuses. Human beings are very clever, especially when searching for a way of justifying a lesser effort.

I am fascinated with the potential for using LEDs for lighting. They will be more long lasting and less fragile than CFLs, once the price comes down. But let's get real for a moment.

LED lamps are not just expensive. They are $1000.00 a room expensive. We may well be using solar panels to power our homes and hydrogen cars before the price of LEDs come down to the $100 for 1600 lumen (equivalent to a 100 watt incandescent) LED array.

The other excuses have been addressed in other posts. Stop telling me that no one will bring their compact fluorescents to their local recycling center. Start making yourself a good example.

Maybe some people want to choose the manner in which they mitigate damage to the environment. In today's world, it really is all about balancing. For some people, having a large car is important. Others don't need a large car but feel the need to use aesthetically pleasing light. I don't think most people are all-or-nothing, like you seem to think.

Also, it's not that "no one" will bring CFLs to special recycling facilities. It's that some won't. Especially people who haven't chosen to use these difficult-to-dispose of bulbs.

Another point: if something needs to be thrown away less often, it's more of a pain to dispose of it properly. It's one thing to be in a habit of recycling. It's another thing to remember where I put that dang CFL that burnt out three months ago because I'm making a trip to Ikea. Again, those who choose CFLs are probably willing to deal with this. But someone who goes to the store one day to discover all the regular light bulbs are gone--perhaps this person is less likely to spend the extra time and effort, especially if there isn't more widespead education on the issue.

In case you're wondering where I come out on all of this, we're switching over to CFLs in lights that are on frequently. Haven't had one burn out yet. But, I don't appreciate Congress telling me that I can't have the warm glow of incandescents in my dining room. And I don't appreciate your lumping me into a class of people who don't care because I may prefer to keep a few incandescent bulbs.

I have some incandescent bulbs in my house too. As for the point about Congress, the time may have come for them to make some decisions based on the perceived best interest of the country.

I look at it this way. Along with our strengths, we have some important strategic weaknesses, among them our dependence on foreign sources of energy. So what are the possible ways to reduce this dependence?

There is simply not enough untapped oil in the US to make an important difference in our importation of oil. Coal is plentiful but an environmental disaster to mine or burn. Nuclear is great, except for the 20000 year waste problem and the implications for nuclear proliferation.

The only scenario that I can think of that works is a switch to renewable sources and a reduced expectation as to how much energy we use.