apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

Actually there are choices out there, and not ones you would expect. While LEDs will probably be the future, they still have a long way to go to even catch CFLs. And with the newer generation of incandescents, who knows?

I have a great article about the pros and cons of each technology - CFLs vs LED vs Incandescents.

opps, you meant 2012, the phase out starts...

this is a cool contest - the L prize - i was just reading about this morning for designing a light that does the same job as the 60W incandescent (by color temperature and amount of light) but with only 10W, and lasting at least 25,000 hours. so... maybe we WILL have another alternative! there are also prizes for an energy efficient halogen reflector lamp replacement and a "21st century lamp." i hear philips is in the lead...
http://www.lightingprize.org/requirements.stm

Once again, I find the premise of your question here deeply flawed. Individuals have an impact on our collective environment. To pretend otherwise is absurd. So, this isn't a choice between the individual and the collective. It's a choice between different methods of prioritizing and protecting the environment. If you don't think the environment is a high priority or don't think this is the best way to protect it, you're going to screech about it using high-minded "individual rights" rhetoric because it sounds less selfish than "I want my lightbulbs!". So, quit with the pretense and false framing please.

It's a light bulb. Anyone who would get upset over having to use a CFL instead of an incandescent bulb needs to get some perspective.

Those who think CFL bulbs are a far better alternative to incandescent bulbs, should educate themselves. Mercury is poisonous to the environment.

@s_boston: this is the age old debate about CFLs and mercury, and you should educate *your*self about it. it's much more complex than "mercury is poisonous."

CFLs do contain mercury, and it's true that mercury is terrible for the environment as well as human health. however, the amount of mercury *emitted by coal plants* through the equivalent use of inefficient incandescent bulbs for the same light output is far greater than the amount actually contained in CFLs. The EPA has a great fact sheet about this topic, complete the figures and graphs: http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf

the big issue is the proper handling of mercury-containing bulbs like CFLs. they need to be recycled, but many people do not know that. these days big retailers like home depot, ikea, and most local ace hardwares will take your CFLs for proper disposal. if one breaks in your home, you have to isolate it and wrap it up for disposal, and be careful not to vacuum.

CFLs are far from perfect, but they're the best stopgap until we get a better technology that is more efficient, offers the same feel as incandescents, and lasts longer than both. the catch is that people need to learn to recycle them. unfortunately, i realize it's not as easy as it sounds in practice.

Even if you don't recycle them, CFL's emit less mercury overall than incandescents, because less coal is consumed lighting the CFL's. And much of that mercury in discarded CFL's would presumably end up in landfills, which would sequester it for hundreds or even thousands of years. As opposed to raining immediately down on our lakes and streams and quickly ending up in the food chain.

And of course, if you do recycle the CFL's, they emit practically no mercury at all.

I'd also note that the mercury they do contain is elemental mercury, which isn't absorbed all that well by the human body. This is in contrast to the mercury compounds in the exhaust of coal-fired power plants, which once out in the environment quickly convert to forms which we - and other living things - absorb quite readily.