Mark wrote:
The issue with this is the same as with more gas efficient cars, and
anything else where there the current technology remains less
expensive to produce. There is no incentive for manufactures to
develop improvements or for consumers to buy the more expensive
alternatives that are available. We have to continue investing in
the future and since we won't do it on our own, legislative moves are
about the only alternatives.

So, then, in a nutshell, the government forces me to transfer some of my
money to someone else and that someone else is a person or company that I
would not have otherwise chosen.

I think that's called a tax, although it IS more efficient without the
government being in the middle.

Further, the money I am forced to transfer is money I can't use for
something more to my liking, such as food for my malnourished child. Or more
beer.

As for the claim that there's no incentive for manufacturers to provide
alternatives, florescent lights have been around for a really long time.
Fuel-efficient cars have likewise been available.*

No, the arguments you put forth are simply not valid and the results of this
forced conversion are immoral. Especially the less beer part.

--------
* My 1957 VW bug got better gas milage than today's Pious.