apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

out goes the incadescent, in goes more petrolium prodcution for make-up! Have you ever put make-up on under fluorescents? I walk outside and look like a prostitute.

I think the quality of light produced by CFLs is actually better. You get your choice of Kelvin color temperatures. Personally I like the "bright white" which is whiter than incandesent but not as blue toned as the brightest "sun like" fluorescent tubes.

Yes, I think the government has the right to produce legislation to help wean us off energy-wasting products, to produce legislation that is for the longer term greater good...

i might not agree with what some people do, but they have the right to do it if it doesn't harm me. call me crazy, but i don't think using more electricity than me is harming me.

i'm in the camp that thinks more government in our life is usually a bad thing.

Don't the new bulbs have mercury in them? If one breaks, it is my understanding that you have to be careful with the clean up. You're also not supposed to just throw the bulbs away, are you?

If those are the rules, how many people do you think are going to break them? How will all that mercury affect our land? Are they really even the better option?

Our Founding Fathers are spinning in their graves right now. Despite what Obama might think, it is not the government's proper role to tell us what type of lightbulbs way may or may not buy. This is a scandal, truly.

Yeah, and bring back high flow toilets! The government shouldn't have any say over the volume of my flush, either! /snark

I want to say no, sometimes legislation has to be made for the greater good. But...

I HATE CFLs. I've tried so many times, researched which brands are best, etc, etc. But I can still only have them in the hallways because the quality of the light is so awful. I'm stockpiling incandescents before January.

I am all for the phaseout of incandescent light bulbs. CFLs are great, they come in a variety of different K for different color tones, and they use so much less energy.

As for the whole mercury thing, its not a huge deal, really. I do not know why people get so worked up over that. Just be careful when you clean it up is all. Plus, those who will argue, well mercury is dangerous, making the electricity for you power hungry incandescent light bulbs not only uses more mercury put puts toms more of it in the air.

And yes lab director, someone using more energy is in fact harming you, and your children, the above mercury issue being one of many.

I can not stand when people value their convenience over the health and well being of others. It just as bad as complaining about texting and driving.

Interesting that incandescents, like the Edison bulb, were made to last 100 yrs, yet now they last a couple months at best. Now fluorescents are the new winners but are toxic to dispose of and give a ghastly light. So, how about a stop to planned obsolescence and phasing cute bulbs into a rare, lasting luxury by taxing them to fund and quickly develop safe, cheap, green, and pleasant lighting for everyone?

Happy to report that I still have a high-flow toilet and it's great!

@Sam, do you have any idea how much mercury is put into the environment from the coal plants that give most of the country our electricity? It's the number one source. Coal also releases more radiation into the environment than a nuclear power plant.

Most of the power production in this country is incredibly toxic and all of it has it's issues, even renewables. Yet, our power needs grow each and every year requiring vast upgrades in infrastructure, more power plants, more coal mining, more natural gas to burn. More coal means huge piles of radioactive fly ash, mercury poured into the atmosphere, that sort of thing.

I think a switch in bulbs is a small price to pay. And besides, I buy the warm white CFLs and the color of the light is comparable to that of an incandecent. Yes, you do need to be careful if one breaks but seriously? How often do you break lightbulbs? Especially if you don't have to touch them for 5 years or more (I have some that have been traveling around with me from house to house since college, more than 5 years ago). As for not throwing them away, Ikea takes them, so does Home Depot, I think. As they become more common, so will places to dispose of them safely.

CFLs suck. This sort of nitpicking legislation pisses me off.

I want my clove cigarettes back too, goddamnit!

Jose- i'm being harmed by my neighbor's light bulb? sorry, not too concerned by it.

second hand smoke, yeah, that annoys me and has clear negative effects. but light bulbs, i think you're drunk on kool aid.

the thing i cannot stand about people like you is when someone disagrees you pull the 'i'm for the greater good and your a selfish moron' card. great way to end any discussion i guess.

CFLs can't be used with dimmers right? What am I going to do with my Kartell lights that work with dimmers? Just throw them away, or is there a solution..? This is a real problem I'm preoccupied with, if anyons can reassure me they'll make CFLs for dimmers.

you're not your...

Whoops, didn't realize how long my soapbox lasted. Sorry for that. It's just something I care about.

It is no longer recommended that you eat fish caught in the Mississippi River and many other major water ways. Why? Mercury poisoning. The levels have skyrocketed in just the last few years due to the widespread (mis)use of CFLs. Its showing up in dangerous amounts in local water supplies and is incredibly dangerous to unborn children. I'm all about low power solutions, put banning incandescents is incredibly short sighted. Affordable LED technology is just around the corner, and doesn't involve nearly as many environmental trade-offs.

I'm for choice. If the market determines that CFLs are a better option, incandescents will naturally meet their demise. Same with any new technology/green products. I like CFLs everywhere except in rooms where I need bright light quickly, like the pantry and the stairwell. Can't wait for that warm-up. LEDs will fix that!

FYI, my Lowes has bins for disposing of CFLs safely. Really easy.

http://inspiredroomdesign.com

I'm for limited government intrusion into private choice in relation to mandates. I'm all for education, promotion, and marketing of green choices, healthy choices etc but individuals should have a right to choose what works best for them. Green can be a trade off; for example, if CFL bulbs give me a headache, than I should be able to use incandescent ones while being conscious to conserve energy by say, running my dryer less or setting my A/C warmer etc.

A similar example using health and government over-regulation is the taxing of beverages containing added sugar (sugar-free sodas not being taxed) to supposedly reduce sugar consumption and thus obesity. I'm allergic to artificial sweeteners so I would get to pay more for a regular soda that won't make me sick. Or more for the gatorade that I drink after the long runs that keep me fit.... but no extra tax to chug down 10 diet sodas that studies show encourage overeating... thanks government.

I'm with hortensiei. In fact, let's do even more to limit consumption of destructive goods. It seems smug to me to say (overtly or by purchasing whatever we want), "I want [insert commodity here], and I don't care what effect that has on others."

Not many people, at least in the U.S., decide independently to switch out of this individual-rights mindset. In the meantime, we continue to inflict unintentional harm on others (and ourselves, but I'm less worried about that). Moreover, people's other rights, such as the right to health, well-being, etc. are largely overlooked when individual rights are prioritized. This is in large part why we pass laws and regulations like blood alcohol limits for driving, professional licensing requirements, etc. (and why, IMHO, we need universal health insurance in the U.S., among other things).

I love having an aesthetically pleasing home, but I personally am willing to trade off some of that, if necessary, for other things that are also important to me. And is it even necessary to trade off looks in the case of light bulbs? Aren't there other alternatives to fluorescents?

Now, I'm all for switching CFL bulbs to save electricity (and they last longer), and most of the lights in my house have successfully been switched out with pleasing results (after a few tries). HOWEVER, the bottom line is that for many people, the incentive is cost decrease. But if you take out incandescent, then ALL dimmer lights will need special dimmable CFLs- which are expensive. I would probably spend $200 buying dimmable CFLS for the remaining dimmers in my own home... and THAT I would not be happy about.

I don't have a problem with it, as long as there are more places to take them to recycle. There aren't very many places in my city that take them, and so I think most burnt out CFLs are just tossed in the dumpster.

@ lab director: How do you decide where to draw the line between second-hand smoke and level of energy consumption? I am not following your line of argument.

"It seems smug to me to say (overtly or by purchasing whatever we want), "I want [insert commodity here], and I don't care what effect that has on others." "

So, since fluorescent lights give me a headache, you shouldn't be forcing me to buy them.

Well, I guess the fact that it doesn't harm YOU is not thinking selfishly at all....


And yes they do make dimmable CFLS: http://www.google.com/products?q=dimmable cfl

I like having the option for incandescents, as there are a few spots in my house where i prefer them (one chandelier, and a couple of fixtures which leave the bulb bare, so i use vintage style bulbs) and I am otherwise pretty stingy with my electricity use (no a/c, gas appliances, all of our computers are laptops, we wash our laundry at a laundromat and hang to dry, etc.) so I think I've offset the electricity used by my lights.

I dislike the outright banning of a product that is otherwise safe, but I'd be happy to pay a "luxury" tax on incandescent bulbs; and let the market sort out the problem on its own.

I'm not even a particularly libertarian sort, but this is one case where I think other steps would be more effective in the long term, and wouldn't interfere with commerce.

are the designers who are complaining about the new bulbs the same designers who complained about the advent of electricity ruining perfectly good candlelight?

Most of my household lights are not standard bulbs anyway - I don't have a clue how this will change anything for me personally. I have tried the new bulbs and I'm less than thrilled. But I'll sit in the dark w/ a 40 watt-r and nothing else. How much am I wasting?

How about just reversing the pricing? Make it more expensive to waste energy.

I would actually prefer to buy florescent bulbs, but on a student's budget that isn't always possible, so I would love it if the govt. switched the pricing of incandescent w/ florescent bulbs... I just don't want to be forced to spend more money b/c their is no other option.

Also, I *love* my Reveal light bulbs in my bathroom. They are my one indulgence. I haven't found a florescent that can emulate them & it would suck if they were no longer available. Maybe I should stock up on them?

The "greater good" is a dangerous slippery slope. Who gets to decide what's good and what's fair? These things are largely subjective. If someone wishes to persuade me to buy CFL lightbulbs, fine, but you don't have the right to force me.

@nothinlikeadame, You're fine, but what about your neighbor who forgets and leaves the lights on when he goes to work? Or my old roommate who would turn on every light in the apartment all day long rather than open the shades? One person is a drop in the bucket, but it's like in A Bug's Life. The lead-grasshopper throws a seed at his minion, "Did that hurt?" "Heheheh, no." Throws another one, "how about that?" "Hehe, no." And then he pulls the cork out and buries his minon completely and to his twitching hand says, "How about that?"

It's not about changing a single person's usage, it's about changing everyone's. It's like requiring everyone in drought-ridden LA to use low-flow shower heads. It doesn't change your individual usage much, but the accumulation makes a big difference.

Fluorescents are gross and make me really irritable. As for saving money, it really wouldn't make that much of a difference for me. I prefer natural light and when the sun goes down, I have plenty of light courtesy of the city. Besides, DosChalupas has a really good point. Who wants to go outside looking like a streetwalker?

Talby i think you are right in that this might be doable with a "luxury" tax. It makes sense to encourage people to use cfls would be to make the price of cheaper incandescens up by taxing them. Heck that tax money could be used to subsidize cfls or LEDs for that matter and make them more desirable while still leaving options.

I agree we should be actively pursuing more efficient light sources, but I think CFLs are trading one evil for another. Not only is it hard to find ones that give nice quality light, but they don't last as long as they claim, contain mercury, release gases when broken, can't be dimmed (though you can get some that work with a dimmer by having separate settings - but they HUMMMM!) and aren't really rated for outdoor use or places with changing temperatures.

And did you know that birds actually see fluorescents as we would a strobe (pity the birds in pet stores) and that same effect can be demonstrated on people with epilepsy and seizure disorders. Supposedly the newer lights have a faster flicker rate that can't be "seen" by humans.

Where are you getting the January 2010 date? As far as I know the U.S. changes don't start till 2012. Europe begins next year, but I have not seen anything about the U.S. timeline being moved up.

While I agree with those who point out that regulation is a slippery slope, I don't think that this ruling on energy consumption is all that 1984-esque.

It's kind of like the digital switch for network TV: it caused a little hassle and confusion, but had a beneficial effect -- freeing frequencies for other usage -- and pushed the bottom end of our technological bell curve a little further along.

For years I've read statistics here and there about how much energy would be saved if all incancesdents were replaced with either CFL or LED bulbs; if the staggering numbers in those projections are even half true, the effect that this will have on our energy sector is so much bigger than my quibbling that I like to paint by incandescent light.

The Home Depot just started carrying LED light bulbs by Philips in their stores this spring. They are coming out with 6 new light bulbs for a total of 10 LEDs this fall. They don't contain mercury, they're cool to touch, and are more energy efficient.

Philips also makes more green friendly bulbs - especially in their linear fluorescents (think 4' tubes). While most people think "ewwww I look gross under the light" there are multiple color temperatures available from soft white (which is more yellow like a typical incandescent bulb).

While a lot of people think a light bulb is just a light bulb - paying for a quality light bulb might make you think twice. I wouldn't go with some off-brand where the bulb really does make you look gross and it lasts a few weeks before it magically dies.

Oh, and a tip for the make-up concerned: Put your make-up on in front of a window, it prevents over application better than anything else.

I discovered this when a past roommate would take hour long showers, preventing me from using the bathroom's incandescent-lit mirror to do my make-up. I couldn't believe the difference natural light made! MUCH easier to see smudges, streaks, judge the right amnt of blush, etc.

Of course, if you have to get ready before the sun rises, then this tip won't work for you...

we use so much energy in this country... we need to cut back somehow because we use the most petroleum products on the planet.

I once worked with an interior designer who jacked the a/c up high so he could have a roaring "romantic" fireplace going in the summer time for dinner parties. Those decadent days are over, aren't they? Thanks for the tips on the CFL's that work on dimmers....and, the reminder that CFL's need to be disposed of properly. I didn't know Lowe's had a program to do that.
Katy
http://fengshuibyfishgirl.com

Sounds like I'm about to buy a lifetime supply of the bulbs I prefer. Most of the CFLs make my eyes hurt and give headaches. I'm not switching until they fix the color and flutter.

Should the consumer have the choice to purchase lead-based paint? Or how about asbestos based insulation? Or maybe the consumer should be able to dump oil and antifreeze into the sewer drain in front of their house?

One can argue that the responsibility should be left up to the consumer, which is fine in cases where the consumer is the only person affected. However, there is already good precident for the government regulating our choices when it comes to the "greater good." Sometimes for better, sometimes for worse, but we certainly shouldn't be suprised.

Man, people are getting so worked up over freakin' lightbulbs. I don't think this is an issue to get all "give me liberty or give me death" about. Should we be free to buy leaded gasoline? Or cars that don't have seatbelts or airbags?

I am all for it.

It's similar to how there are gas milage standards for cars or
how government (in many states) makes cars be tested each year to make sure they aren't emiting too much pollutants. Lightbulbs are simply being required to hit a certain standard for efficiency.

Hold on people!

No one is publishing the reports or even linking to the actual report and I read it, at least in part and no, not ALL incadenscents will be phased out. What Obama is saying is the higher energy bulbs will be forced to be more energy efficient and I think eventually phased out, that iis bulbs I think 60W and up are affected and there will come a point when we can't make them any more efficient but smaller wattage bulbs and decorative bulbs will NOT be phased out because as we all know, not one type of bulb will work in ALL situations in more decorative fixtures, you can still use flame tipped clear bulbs in those if you want so no, not all will be phased out, just the super high wattage ones will eventually which is to say, CFL's and later LED and other technologies will come in to replace those super high wattage bulbs.

I say, google this topic and see what you get.

I went into a couple of high-end lighting stores expecting to see lots of innovative and attractive lighting styes that could use CFLs. I was stunned at how very few there were. It's time for lighting designers to step up to the challenge.

I feel we need to be as forward thinking as we can about our energy consumption

Here is a recent article from the New York Times about Philips new LED light bulb (http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/24/is-this-the-lightbulb-of-the-future/).

Today, Philips is the first company to submit an entry to the Department of Energy's contest to win $10 million for the development of a better, more energy efficient, light bulb. "Among the criteria: The lamp can use no more than 10 watts to create the equivalent light of a 60-watt incandescent bulb; the color of the light output must mimic that of today’s incandescents; and the bulbs must last at least 25,000 hours, as much as 25 times as long as today’s standard bulbs."

Sorry, correction about Lowe's! Hubby just informed me that it's Home Depot that takes burned CFLs. I can never keep them straight.

Great Now I have to change all my dimmers... I am going to spend hundreds to save nothing!!! Or you can buy dimable florescents for $36 each. Thanks Govt!!!!

anyone who believes the government should be mandating what sort of LIGHT BULBS we buy should be rounded up and shot

anyone who is so passionate about lightbulbs that they think people "who believe the gov't should be mandating what sort of light bulbs we buy should be rounded up and shot" should probably be rounded up and shot.

God forbid the gov't decides it's time to progress beyond 19th century technology. while we're at it, lets keep the leaded gas, analog TV signal, and asbestos insulation.

Logic and progress be d@mned.

"anyone who believes the government should be mandating what sort of LIGHT BULBS we buy should be rounded up and shot"

Anyone who thinks their own selfish desires are more important than the future of the planet should be rounded up and shot. As should anyone who think that the CFLs 'flicker' and give their poor precious head a headache (CFLs 'flicker' at a rate of more than 20,000 times per second; a rate well above that detectable by the human brain - so unless you're not human, the "flicker" is psychosomatic). As should anyone who claims they can't buy dimmable CFLs because they cost $36 (talk about pulling numbers out of you ar$e - try around $12 - http://www.energyfederation.org/consumer/default.php/cPath/25_44_169) or that the founding fathers are spinning in their graves because this is an assult on freedom and Americanism.

Sorry, but why on earth in your supreme arrogance you should think that your "freedom" to destroy the planet is more important that everyone else's freedom to live on it is just completely beyond the comprehension of anyone who's not an American (i.e. most people in the world, last time I checked). Sheesh, get a grip.

yes please mammy gubmint please tell me how to run my life for i am too incompetent to, i am a child in a man's body so please tell me what i may purchase to light my home, also please tell me which vehicles i am permitted to buy, what colours i can paint my house, when i may water my lawn and every other little beaurocratic nightmare decision that you can take out of my hands so i neednt worry myself about making "decisions" or "freedom" thank you sir may i have another

"anyone who believes the government should be mandating what sort of LIGHT BULBS we buy should be rounded up and shot"

shot by who? The government?

or a band of concerned patriots seeking to preserve liberty for the "greater good?"

No one should be rounded up and shot.

But Futurovox needs to calm the eff down. I bet s/he is one of those people who gets furious if asked not to water their lawns or wash their cars during a drought. Or to not talk on their cell phones while driving. Or to have car insurance. Or to not go to school/work if sick with the flu.

Technically, all of these things are restrictions of your precious, precious freedom too, but you have to ask yourselves: Is license to do whatever you want the most important thing? I'd say no, since we all have to live together, which entails that we sometimes trade off certain individual 'liberties' for the greater good.

As long as they don't take away my low voltage halogens. Those are sacred. But I will miss tungsten. CFLs make me cry.

The fact that so many people cavalierly just surrender their liberty to politicians and to feel good about themselves is alarming. Think about this... when you wantonly give up YOUR rights... you are giving up the rights of OTHERS as well. The rights and freedoms we share and enjoy are easily dismissed or taken for granted. These were hard fought for, with a lot of bloodshed. This is a very serious matter. I encourage others to travel. A lot. Perspective can be an arresting thing. We have "hate speech" laws in our formerly free country... hate speech! Who determines what is hate? Self-interested politicians. Now we criminally punish feelings and thoughts. According to our Declaration of Independence, our inalienable human rights are granted by God, not legislated by Nancy Pelosi or Barney Frank. Nor by George Bush. The people serve the government? No, the other way around. My father did not take a bullet for this.

"We have decreed that collecting and disbursing of "unuseful" found objects in homes is "wasteful" and objects may contain potentially harmful and toxic compounds and are hereby illegal. "Interior Decorating" falls under the category of "unessential luxury items and services" and is hereby subject to congressional restrictions and excise taxes, such as with cigarettes and sodas and art". "It is decreed that "art" in painting, photography or sculpture that may be construed as having either an erotic or angry image is not allowed to be shown in any private dwelling with children under the age or 16 present." "No art or images excluding anyone of a particular race, age, sex, sexual preference or ideology may be shown in any public place as it may promote inequality." " It has been determined that Child Protective Services shall determine, as per statute, if any private dwelling inhabited by a minor possesses any decorative or artistic object or "theme" that is found to be potentially harmful to the emotional state of said minor. This will be enforced through the family court system in a given municipality, en abstentia and pro temp by the ACLU on behalf of local government".

Sure you want to get this ball rolling? I remember traveling through East Berlin, Prague and Budapest with a music group in 1979. Wasn't a pretty place.

Oh, and "green" curly fry light bulbs. If you break one, you are instructed to vacate the premises immediately because of the.... toxicity of the MERCURY pellet in it. Can't throw it away, either...no, no no! It must be disposed of professionally and properly. Like nuclear waste. This is the problem when you make a planet your God or Jesus. But hay, you feel so darned GOOD about yourself, don't cha!

@Laughing Tiger: I doubt the Revolution was fought over freedom to buy whatever lightbulb you want. Rights are not the same thing as liberties. And the latter concept can encompass various things (which I won't go into, but I'd suggest you read Irving Berlin's "Two Concepts of Liberty" as a start).

And as a person of color, your comparison of lightbulb purchases with hate speech bothers me. We lived in a "formerly free country" before the implementation of hate speech laws? Free for whom? For bigots? And it wasn't free in the sense that you could say anything you wanted about anyone, e.g. libel laws, regulation of pornography, censorship of certain books in public libraries (usually a local initiative), shouting 'fire' in a theater, etc.

Finally, freedoms aren't unlimited. Their natural limits are the freedoms and rights of others. As I noted before, we live in a society, which means as individuals we have to give up certain things, just as others have to give up certain things for us.

Honestly, if you feel so strongly about the issue of lightbulb liberty, then get on the phone with your representative, form an interest group, raise money, collect signatures, etc. Don't just rant about it on an internet DESIGN forum.

The light of CFLs doesn't bother me in the slightest. Even with the mercury, the efficiency results in less mercury emission from power plants. I always hated throwing away light bulbs--I found it so wasteful. So now, I can recycle them, if they ever burn out! Seriously, I've been using them for years and not had to replace one yet.

Just to clarify... Yes, people should have the right to buy a car without airbags. If I want to spend money on my own safety inside my own car that's my business.

i abhore flourescent lights. they take too long to go from "off" to "fully on", the color is NEVER the same as incandescent [no matter what is said to the contrary, it's never the same], and they are ugly. they are also ridiculously expensive when you have to buy a new one. i will grant that you don't need to buy them that often, but still.... and we can't just chuck 'em in the recycling bin either. we have to make a special trip to some god forsaken location which may or may not still take them for recycling because of the mercury in them. they just suck.

i am hoping that led lights might be better, though they are even MORE expensive to buy.

count me in the "banning incandescent is just plain stupid" camp.

Instead of bans, I would like to see us all start to have to pay the true cost of our lifestyles. That would include environmental costs, which, in many cases, can be quantified.

On some level, we have to assume that there is a public commons. We all need air, water, and food in order to live, and those resources can't be portioned out on an individual level. So, it makes sense for the government, which--in a democracy--is partly an expression of our collective wills, to have a role in this arena.

We may disagree on this particular way of protecting the environment, but if we start the discussion based on the flawed notion that our individual environmental impacts don't impact all of us, then we're starting from nowhere.

So, respectfully, I find the premise of this question deeply flawed. This isn't an individual v. collective argument. This is a question of what is the best way for us to balance our desire for pleasant lighting with our need to breathe, drink, and eat.

Slowdown, you are actually going to argue with the fact that my government has no constitutional authority to dictate to me what kind of toilet or light bulb I can use? When you get ripped off by someone, even raped by someone... you should be prosecuted and sued for calling him a name? For real??? And what does blackness have to do with anything? 1/3 of L.A. is unsafe for me to hang out in because of my race, so don't even pull that. I've been around too long.
And no, I prefer reading The Federalist Papers, The Anti-Federalist Papaers, the Minutes of the Constitutional Convention, Common Sense, works by Tocqueville (Democracy in America) and Edmund Burke.

I want to stick to the old fashioned light bulbs...I say "solidarity" with my Polish neighbors....How can you make a Polish joke with a flourescent light bulb? Also the light bulb just went off in my head I think Obama is really an old rich white liberal who wants to dictate to us how we should live....now it all makes sense

It is apparently easier to go off on half-cocked rants about governmental limitations on light bulbs than it is to google about it.

This legislation started in 2007 during the Bush administration. So the rants about President Obama have no place here.

My bedroom was yellow, switched over to the fluorescent bulb, now it is green!

Why is the government wasting time on micromanaging our country? Shouldn't they be focused on more important things such as fixing social security, stopping illegal immigration (from all countries), pulling us out of the recession, stopping genocide in Darfur (and elsewhere), etc... In comparison, which lightbulbs we used are insignificant.
And what will be the ramifications of this switch? What will happen to the manufacturers of incandescent bulbs? What about their employees? What about the American citizens who don't have light fixtures that will accommodate the fluorescents? Will they now have to spend money they need for grocercies, medication, or other essentials, on a new light fixture just so they can have light?
Eliminating this popular product is eliminating a fully functioning part of our economy. Why change something that works?
This is like the government saying we should phase out all gasoline powered cars or requiring by law that every able bodied person must donate blood. Sure, these are good things to have and do, but there should not be a government mandate for it.

lkc9702,

You don't just "stop genocide in Darfur", you have to take steps to do it. Just like you can't just "save the environment", you have to take steps to do it... like improving lighting standards in the country.

You don't need to change fixtures to use CFL's, they are already produced to just plug and play into existing fixtures. In fact, I guarantee that switching to CFL in most homes will in fact save people money. Not only in energy costs, but also in the cost of bulbs. Sure it may cost more per bulb, but CFL's last so much longer it will save you money.

Most, if not all, incandescent light bulb manufacturer's are the same companies producing CFL's, and are doing very well because of it. So no worries there.

----------------------------

I'm an electrical designer, which means part of my job, is I specify which types of light fixtures to use and how many to use in commercial spaces. There are already so many regulations and codes the government has put in place, that it makes it virtually impossible to use incandescent fixtures in commercial spaces anyway. Basically, it is specified in the building codes the amount of watts per sq ft that can be used in individual types of spaces (like offices, or corridors, or restrooms, etc). This has been a positive influence in the lighting design and manufacturing fields, because it has pushed lighting manufacturers to produce and design more efficient forms of lighting because the old ones couldn't be used in strict building codes.

The problem is that this lighting code doesn't exist in residential spaces, so you can use as much watts per sq ft you want. This is the issue. So although I agree that lighting limitations should exist, it shouldn't be "lets get rid of incandescent bulbs", they should just extend the lighting codes to residential, and make it more strict which will nudge the market in the right direction. What the code also does is allow the watts/sqft to be somewhat interchangeable. For example: If the designer uses less watts/sq ft that the code calls for, in say, a restroom, then that allows more watts to be used in a decorative corridor or lobby. Which means that the designer and owner still has some choice. So, what I'm saying is if you made some "sacrifices" in other parts of your home, you could still "afford" to use more wattage a more decorative area.

With LED's already being used, its only a matter of time before CFL's will be phased out. Its just how it works. LED's are sooo much better than CFLs in not only energy usage, but also negative effects like mercury. The more we push the market, the more inventive and creative they'll become. Sometimes I feel that you become more creative with less options, because it forces you to think beyond what you're just use to.

BTW - most of these people here need to do a bit of research on CFL's. You can get different colors and tones in CFL's, so there's not only the blue/green starkness you're use to in office buildings. There are so many more options not just in color, but in fixtures as well, than what's available at your local wal-mart, and the more people demand it the more it will be available.

1) your choice to use energy wasting bulbs directly affects me by contributing to green house gas emissions
2) coal power plants produce more mercury to power incandescents in their current form than CFLs contain, so if you're worried about mercury, ditch the incandescents
3) if good design also includes designing without waste, then incandescents are inherently bad design. It doesn't impact me directly, but given that this is a design website, it seems some might actually care about that.

Rather then actually dictating the technology, though, the government should set efficiency minimums, and let those who want incandescents come up with ways to meet those minimums. I feel the same way about SUVs...if you want to drive one, create on that gets 40 mpgs, then I care a lot less.