Quote:No I am correct.  The CFL mandate does away with incandescent bulbs because they consume more electricity.  They are actually worse for the environment, but you won't hear about that.

 

Incandescent bulbs are cheaper to manufacture thus they are cheaper to purchase.  However, they consume more electricity and produce heat which might not be desirable.  They are banned.  Disposal of them doesn't harm the environment at all.

 

CFL bulbs are actually more expensive to manufacture and are more expensive to purchase.  The up side is that they use less electricity and don't produce heat.  The downside is in colder temperatures they take longer to produce the light that they are designed to produce.  Also disposal of them isn't as simple as throwing them out because they contain toxic properties that actually harm the environment.

 

LED bulbs are an alternative that has huge advantages and disadvantages.  They give off light immediately, consume less electricity and don't produce heat.  The downside is that they are WAY more expensive to produce and therefor more expensive to purchase.  Disposal of them has minimal impact on the environment since they don't have any toxic chemicals or gasses, but they do contain silicone which isn't biodegradable.

 

My point is though, people should be free to decide which kind of light bulb they want to use based on their needs.  It's not up to the government to tell us which kind to use.  The government as usual is/was wrong with this mandate because even though CFL bulbs consume less electricity, they actually harm the environment more than the other two technologies and the technology that they banned.