David Nebenzahl wrote:

And avoiding the histrionics of those screech about mercury with the
preamble "Thy Doom is Nigh!"

I don't begrudge the nay-sayers; such crusades give their otherwise
meaningless lives a purpose. I just wish they'd dial back the
decibel level and quit pestering normal folk.

Since you're so obviously of the "don't worry about that stuff--it
won't hurt you! It's just a bunch of namby-pamby enviros agitatin'
folks!" persuasion, why do you even bother to argue that CFL usage is
good because it reduces overall mercury emission by reducing coal
burning? Why would you even care about this? By your lights, we might
just as well go on using inefficient incandescents.

Where did I say that CFL usage is good?

I don't CARE whether CFL usage is good, bad, or smokes a cigar.

I was merely trying to illustrate the silliness of the hand-wringing and
chin-quivering crowd by pointing out we've been using florescenet lights for
over a century with nary a peep out of those who are now hopping up and
down.

As for using "inefficient incandescents," I don't care whether someone uses
legacy bulbs either. If pressed, I'd say let the market decide. If anything,
I'm opposed to the government mandating things that should be a market
decision: such as CFLs or CAFE standards.

I also feel the same way about child-proof caps; I want my children to have
all the same opportunities I had.