I simply showed that the statements you made about government enforcement were not based on fact, and as was pointed out later in the comments, was conflated with a European set of laws. You made what I argued was a mistake, and I pointed this out to you. You are still wrong.

Your long and tedious arguments why one should by these little death traps would only be worth arguing about, if coercion were removed from the table. This is not the case.

I specifically referred to “upfront” costs. This is VERY, very different from the overall cost of materials, or even the overall costs of energy (what you pay for wattage over time).

If you take the purchase of a $.50 light bulb available now, versus a $2.50 bulb of the same luminary output but lesser overall wattage requirement, you conserve one cost at the expense of another. If you factor in replacing bulbs over time, a CFL bulb should last 10 times longer than a typical incandescent light bulb. If you spend $2.50 upfront for a CFL, you end up spending half the money in materials for CFL bulbs than for incandescents. The final component of this is the wattage used and thus watt-hours paid for, with an energy conserved for lumination at 25% that of incandescents.

So the overall cost savings is over time, not upfront. As more and more CFLs are made, the technology becomes more refined, and this upfront cost will drop. This is not a supposition, but a projection of the actual effect since their arrival on the market, hampered only by the competing effect of misinformation of the value and effect of CFLs.

The short-sightedness of looking only to the immediate costs is deliberative on some people’s parts, although I do not ascribe this to all arguments against CFLs. We cannot simply do away with the argument that increased use of CFLs domestically will require more care and safety in disposal, but this is a concern that is encountered with new foundational technology. It certainly affected the rise in Plasma televisions, and it will come the next time new or unfamiliar materials are involved in new versions of familiar domestic products. The fear-mongering involved in CFLs does not help the argument for people actually trying to discern value over the short-term, it only deters them from ever setting their feet into the pool … and I aver that this is the point of the fear-mongering.

Environmentalists backed the wrong horse this time. They should have chosen LEDs for the massive social / legislative promotional push. Republicans would have opposed those too out of pure spite just as surely as they are doing for CFLs now, but in those circumstances they would not have accidentally and through absolutely no merits of their own wound up being right.

You made a lot of sense until you said the above paragraph. First, I’m all for the massive social push to use CFLs or LEDs in the place of Edison light bulbs. Heck, I’m all for a massive social push to start eating dogs so we don’t defile the sacred cow, but at least its only a social push. When the legislation comes along, it’s not promotion, its coercion. If you are cool with that, just be clear that you prefer coercive politics over collaborative politics.

Second, there is an obvious bias against conservatives in your writing that is blinding you to the basic structure and ideals of the Republican party. Republicans are neither fighting CFLs for spite nor are they accidentally right; they have an ideological aversion to mandates from on high and regulation for the sake of ‘making people [economically] better’. If only we could get those conservatives to understand that trying to make people socially and morally better is just as restrictive and intrusive into freedom.

I know that Limbaugh getting involved to motivate the base really muddies up matters, but he just uses the buzz words that get them rolling similar to how progressive icons use buzz words like “failure to regulate” or “lassei faire” or “Koch Brothers” to get the Democratic base all in an uproar. It would be more valuable if you listened to those you see as your opponents.

As a note of disclosure, I use CFLs all throughout my house and have for the last ten years. I’ve changed 2 bulbs, one of which was broken and I had to clean it up. I used a mask and gloves and hope that was enough. I am willing to accept this risk because in 10 years, we have had only 1 broken light bulb while in the same period, I’ve dealt with two broken mercury thermometers. I LIKE CFLs and pay for them both because they are good for the money and because they make me feel like I’m helping the environment. It was, however, not forced upon me. I also have five traditional bulbs that operate on the dimmers because the dimmable CFLs are terrible.

Uh, no, I’m afraid the solution is to not use them.

Think like a marketer, guys. If a parent of young children breaks some glass in the kitchen, they want to go grab a broom and dustpan and get it all over with in 5 minutes. The moment you start talking to them about an involved, hazardous, legitimately toxic cleanup process, you have lost. If young kids are in the picture they simply will not do it. Most people do not raise young kids in the office buildings that use fluorescent tube lights, and if one of those lights breaks there’s someone whose entire job it is to do maintenance and cleanup. It is not an in-your-home-on-your-free-time pursuit. Recycling centers require driving, which, again, is just more of a pain, and renders questionable any pollution savings.

Environmentalists backed the wrong horse this time. They should have chosen LEDs for the massive social / legislative promotional push. Republicans would have opposed those too out of pure spite just as surely as they are doing for CFLs now, but in those circumstances they would not have accidentally and through absolutely no merits of their own wound up being right.

Just to take that last point, you concede openly that this will mean higher costs, not money saved. If no one is being ‘coerced’, I suggest you raise the point with Chris, as his post points out that they are using the weasel way out of “not forcing anyone” because “any lightbulb is fine” as long as it meets certain criteria, such as energy efficiency levels that these CFLs are best suited to. Incidentally, if you think that using taxpayer money to subsidize an industry, which is what is happening, is not “forcing you to buy something”…

Now, in response to your highly tedious insistence that there is no problem with the toxicity, I will simply state that that is your opinion, and the people who draft the official guidelines have a markedly different one. I would not want one of those things around me, let alone near any small child.