As I’ve mentioned before, the 2007 EISA law does not mandate CFL usage. It just puts minimum standards in place. CFLs, Halogens, and LEDs all meet the minimum standards. LEDs, as an immature technology, are still priced out of the market for most people, and they are not as efficient as CFLs. So, as of today, CFLs are probably the best bang for your buck.
If you hate CFLs, and really love incandescents, halogens are probably going to be the choice for you. They offer only approximately a 25% energy savings instead of a 75% energy savings, and don’t last much longer than an incandescent, but they match the characteristics of an incandescent most closely.
The misinformation out there is knee deep, and I hope this helps allay your concerns a little bit as to “What do we do?”
As for toxic landfills, CFLs aren’t going to have that much effect one way or another. The amount of mercury in a CFL is negligible compared to old style linear tubes. In our product line, we use less than .5 mg for our household lamps, contained in an amalgam pellet (like the fillings in your teeth, unless you’ve been very good about brushing).
Combustion powered production of electricity is responsible for 60% of mercury released into the environment, while disposal of CFLs is responsible for less than 1%. Reducing the demand for electricity with CFLs would therefore cause a net reduction in the environmental release of mercury.
Some food for thought: You get greater mercury exposure by eating a tuna sandwich than by breaking a CFL. The Hazmat response is just another example of nanny-state overreaction.
A CFL manufacturer could make a great commercial out of a skit like that. Some poor schlub opens up a tuna sandwich at lunch, and management calls in an environmental swat team.
The narrator then explains that this scenario makes as much sense as calling out the envirocops when somebody drops a CFL.