[...]we had trouble with massive spamy links on our website. now we use stop spam plugin. once again our website is clean[...]……

As seen from my earlier comments, I agree that the targeting of ordinary incandescent light bulbs is not justified
(and not warranted as “promoting innovation”, fot the reasons just given, above)

But OK:
Let’s say politicians remain determined about this and other efficiency based bans.
Is there a better way for all concerned?
Sure there is – taxation on products based on efficiency.

Now, noone likes taxes.
But these are taxes that people would accept.
Firstly, since they know – and would be reminded – that bans are the alternative,
Secondly, since politicians can give them less sales tax on efficient alternatives.

Taxation is better than bans because:

– Bans are normally applied to products unsafe to use.
But we are not talking about lead paint here.
The object is simply to reduce energy consumption, like the use of electricity.
Throughout all markets,
taxes, levies, duties are more common and more acceptable than bans to reduce consumption.

– Taxation allows continued purchase of products or product versions which offer other advantages to
consumers. Energy efficiency isn’t all they want in a product!

– Like bans, taxation lowers sales.
Unlike bans, taxation gives direct government income with the lowered sales.

– Government income can be massive,
since these are often cheap popular products that can absorb a large taxation.

Take ordinary incandescent light bulbs:
Much cheaper than the opposition,
high sales (2 billion in USA),
high turnover (relatively short 1000 hour lifespan),
so sales reduction from a 1-2 dollar tax raises future government billions of dollars
- and that is just from light bulbs.

– Government income can be used to lower energy use and emissions (home energy and insulation
schemes, renewable energy projects etc) more than remaining product use (like light bulbs) raises them.

– Sales taxes on efficient products can be lowered, making them cheaper

– Taxation is easier than bans to apply without having to worry about product variety and availability,
easier to adjust, and to adapt to new market conditions with new products,
and can be lifted when no longer required (such as when electricity emissions are judged to be low enough)

So, while taxation is still wrong for the rerasons given,
if bans are the alternative, a tax is better all round.
For more see http://www.ceolas.net/#gg5x

While Steve Heising makes some interesting points,
CFL right-or-wrong doesn’t justify banning the alternatives

(and re mercury,
http://www.ceolas.net/#li198x
deals in depth with why the “coal power emissions are worse” argument doesn’t hold up – including that EPA enforcements and recent new technology implementation means USA is well on track with 90% mercury emission reduction target by 2018 anyway )

Put another way:
Americans (like Europeans) choose to buy ordinary light bulbs around 8 to 9 times out of 10 (depending on light industry data used, 2008-9)
Banning what people want gives the supposed savings – no point in banning an impopular product = little savings!

If new LED lights – or sufficiently efficient incandescents, CFLs etc – are good,
people will buy them – no need to ban ordinary light bulbs (little point).
If they are not good, people will not buy them – no need to ban ordinary light bulbs (no point).
The arrival of the transistor didn’t mean that more energy using radio tubes were banned… they were bought less anyway.

Also see my earlier comment…