On Tuesday, November 15, 2011 5:21:44 AM UTC-5, HeyBub wrote:
It's the silliness of government trying to solve the wrong problem, which,
if they stayed completely out of it, wouldn't be a problem at all.

In the instant case, the difficulty is not too many incandescent bulbs; the
problem is too few power plants.

Fair enough—I'm willing to bet our tech sucks up more electricity than our light bulbs.

But let's be clear: the problem is our inability/unwillingness to create the least environmentally detrimental power system. Oil and coal plants generate mega-tons of pollutants and toxic metal by-products (with no "half-life, by the way: mercury is still toxic millennia later); nuclear plants' fuel is dangerous, as is the general construction of them in, oh, I don't know, earthquake- and tsunami-prone areas; hydroelectric dams interfere with the natural flow of fish and other water life; solar requires too many acres/miles^2 to generate too little wattage; and wind farms fluctuate too much (not to mention they're going to attack us someday: http://xkcd.com/556/)

There are two ways to tackle the issue, kinda like a home budget - increase revenue/generation or decrease spending/consumption. At least light bulbs are a step in one direction.