Banning incandescent lamps was all about the usual nauseating hypocricy of politicians, and nothing about good science. Radical eco-pagans have gotten the ear of the chattering classes. Politicians threw a sop to them to be seen to be doing something. "Ban those horrible energy wasting Edison bulbs, ban them you hear, ban them!!!!" This falls along the junk science of anthropogenic global warming. Anything than reduces electrical consumption is seen a moral duty to the eco pagans.
Mandating CFL's may make sense in Australia when AC is the main issue, but not for most of the rest of the (colder) western world. Yes, incandescents waste electricity as heat. If the bulb is indoors, guess what? Your furnace runs less. So unless you're using an electric furnace, you're only offsetting one consumption for another. Now in south Florida it makes good sense and cents to use CFL's. Not in North Dakota. Ok, your AC will run a bit more in the summer, but the furnace less in winter. Where's the balance?
Incandescents were cheap to produce, mostly still made in the western world, used cheap, recyclable products (glass and metal), and needed little material and energy input to manufacture. CFL's are all made in China by that wonderful environmentally friendly nation, shipped across the world by fossil fuel using freighters, cost much more to buy, and give off mediocre light. In other words, for the majority of the developed world, they're the wrong product. But political expediency out weighed economic rationalism. Not ready for prime time, but BAMM you're on stage.
I agree: LED technology will be the way to go. Once it's matured, I can't imagine many people using CFL's.
I stocked up on 100W, 200W, and 300W incandescents for use in my garage. Once I'm done, I'll have T8 fixtures for working in there, but for just quickly getting something, incandescent it is. Especially when it's -18C inside the garage like it was last week.