>>>>>>>> If CFL's were so great they wouldn't have needed to ban incandescents.
Just like if wind and solar were so great and cost effective they wouldn't need massive subsidies.
The whole better mouse trap thing. Great products sell themselves
<<<<<<<<<<<
all untrue
First, if the user bought all bulbs, or one was required to pay for the energy at time of purchase, no one would buy incandescents, except to heat the pump house.
wind and solar require subsidies because the variable cost of energy can eliminate a project, the threat of this prevents any from starting. Additionally society at large not having to have another fossil fuel powered electric plant is something 'we' want which is not something the profit making entity cares about.
CAFE is a great example of a regulation that works. The failure to increase CAFE in the late 80's left us with hordes of SUV's that continue to guzzle gas and keep the cost of petroleum high.
CAFE plateaued in 1987. Look at what happened to gas prices
http://www.randomuseless.info/gasprice/gasprice.html
http://www.sightline.org/images/blog-2008/Mileage-horsepower-EPA-600.gif
second graph is weird, shows economy increase stop in oh, 1988, then power goes up
Long term vs short term thinking.
They continue to sell lots of 'bad' mousetraps. Mousetraps don't cost everyone money. Bad light bulbs do.
I have some led's, they are ok, I only pay for them for the small fixtures. with PAR bulbs
Newer dimmables are better, cold cathode ones are better, dimmable led are probably going to be ok, but might not dim that much either
I just buy smaller bulbs......
As a side note, I would not have banned anything, just tax them, make users pay 'true cost'.