I would suggest George Will shove his incandescent light bulbs where the sun don't shine.

[lighthouse10]

30. Let's hear it for George ;-)

George Will might like to shoot his mouth off,
but he's got a point about the pointlessness of the light bulb ban, as it were. For example:

The incandescent heat effect...
As per The Canadian Centre for Housing Technology (CCHT) and other studies, finding irrelevant savings on the incandescent heat replacement effect: when it's dark it's often cold and heating is on. Use with climate cooling is rarer for most North American states/provinces, and optional anyway.
Where electricity is already low emission, switching bulbs may ironically increase emissions if using ordinary room heating from polluting source.

Time of use...
Mostly after 7pm off-peak electricity, using surplus electricity supply = when often same coal (the main "culprit&quot burned anyway on minimum cycle operation - coal plants slow to turn down/up, operative wear and tear costs etc. on APTECH and energy commission data.

Life cycle energy/emissions...
CFLs, LEDs etc replacement bulbs are far more complex than simple incandescents - and use up rare earth minerals etc.
Hence, the energy and emissions of raw material mining, component manufacture before construction, assembly, recycling and transport in all stages, including bunker oil powered ships from China bringing most such bulbs
- comparatively easier to locally make simple patent expired incandescents by small or new companies.
As it happens, GE, Philips and Osram/Sylvania jointly lobbied for the ban (GE CEOs Welch and Immelt advising successive US administrations) to sell expensive patented products not otherwise bought.

All light bulbs have advantages and disadvantages, also on energy and environment - it is a spurious decision to ban what is arguably the safest and best known type.