To justify mandating widespread use of cfls one would need to
establish all the following:

It is only necessary to establish that there is a risk that severe
effects will ensue in order for it to be worth avoiding. The reason
for this is that the effects are likely to be so severe as to make any
costs incurred avoiding them to pale in comparison,

1. climate is changing
2. the change is caused by CO2 emission
3. this change will be seriously destructive

All of these are very well established. In particular CO2 is very
well known to cause global warming and the mechanisms and the size of
the effects are very well understood.

4. The only way to reduce CO2 emission is to reduce energy use

No, any way of reducing CO2 will reduce global warming and all
avenues including energy reduction should be pursued,

5. the 0.1% energy saving that switching to cfls will give us will
make a real difference

A 0.1% energy saving will save 0.1% of energy. The advantage of
changing lightbulbs is there is no downside whatsoever and so
obviously it is a good thing to do.

Yet the only one that has been established with any serious degree of
solidity is point 1. 2,3 and 5 are just speculation, and 4 is flat out
wrong. The climate argument for CFL mandation is simply not valid.

Codswallop.

David