You said "...doing so produces very real, tangible savings for the consumer. I’m sorry if you find this offensive..."
That isn't what I find offensive. What I find offensive is your tone in relaying your opinion. I am not going to quibble with someone over whether they save money, whether they are better or worse for the environment or whatever. People are entitled to their opinion.
So, I do take issue with is your tone, but what I take issue with even more so, is with government bureaucrats taking my money via confiscatory taxes, TELLING me how to spend the money they leave me, then passing legislation to DRIVE up the cost of energy so we are FORCED to spend more money to drive our cars, heat our homes and turn on our lights, whether they be incandescent or CFL. These bastards think they are doing us a big favor because they think they know best, and are trying to twist our arms to accept their utopian crap. They think if energy costs go up high enough, their plans to harness unicorn flatulence or whatever will become economically viable.
Well I don't care to take part in their damned experiments. If my town wants to purchase LED based traffic and street lights because it saves the town money and is a guaranteed return on investment, then power to them.
If you and others with your point of view want these CFL lights in the marketplace as an alternative to make your home more energy efficient, then I think is is fine and would never say boo to anyone so inclined.
Our issue is not residential lighting. Making citizens like you and me purchase stuff we don't want and don't need is NOT going to solve anything. It is the equivalent of selling carbon credits or putting a magnetic sticker on the back of a car. It is Jimmy Carter wearing sweaters and telling us to turn our thermostats down.
I just took this well known (I presume) graph from Livermore Labs showing energy sources and consumption and cut out a part of it and marked it up. Of the four major sectors, residential is the smallest using just 4.65% of generated electrical power as shown by the graph. Government statistics say lighting consumes 12% of 4.65% of electricity flowing into a house.
On this graph below, the blown up part shows the 4.65% pipeline with the red stripe on it showing the lighting share, and the green stripe showing what it would be if we assume 10% efficiency compared to CFL for incandescent bulbs.
I didn't get this image from some anti-enviroweenie website. I made it myself after analyzing the data on the graph and government data such as estimates of how much lighting uses.
I didn't disparage you for choosing CFL's as a stand to take. You disparaged me with sarcasm for taking the stand I took, which I took exception to. I believe I have the data (shown graphically here) to indicate that using CFL's in houses isn't going to save us. You can make an argument for commercial/industrial building codes and so on, and I might buy into it and agree, the same as I agree with towns purchasing led-based traffic lights.
By my home is my home. And we have gone far too long allowing the government to dictate what we can and cannot do on our own quarter acre of land, small as it is. I am sick to death of it.