A position summary
A more comprehensive summary can be seen on the "Deception behind banning Light Bulbs" page: http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/p/deception-behind-banning-light-bulbs.html
Whatever about the relevance of saving energy and emissions,
banning popular and safe-to-use products is a rather odd way to do it.
If using electricity was such a big deal,
it, or say coal, could simply be taxed
(The government income of which could help pay for insulation of poorer affected homes - or whatever. Bans give no such income!)
Light bulbs don't burn coal or release CO2 gas.
If there is a problem - deal with the problem.
The switchover savings,
even on US Dept of Energy, Canadian and EU institutional figures is a fraction of 1% of total energy use and only around 1% of total grid electricity.
Much more relevant to deal with electricity generation efficiency, grids, and alternative wasteful consumption, as described on the main site, than to tell people how they can use the electricity that they - yes they - pay for.
The so-called "power factor" alone of common CFLs means that they in basic terms use twice the energy to what your meter says (extra use as VoltAmperes) - the grid effects of which you will eventually have to pay for, and the reason why industrial consumers are price penalized for any such distortion in drawing from the grid.
Meanwhile, the 95% heat production of incandescents is not necessarily a waste in cold conditions, and the 80% heat production of CFLs is internalized, to give a greater fire risk, while LEDs have brightness and lifespan issues affecting supposed savings... and so on: No, you don't hear any of that from the earth savers.
All forms of lighting have their advantages.
Unfortunately, the US EISA standards (like the EU standards) will progressively ban all known general service incandescents, including touted halogens.
Efficiency is not just energy efficiency...
Banning for general service usage the most efficient way to make bright lighting,
to make broad spectrum lighting, to make it also in attractive clear bulbs, and at a remarkably low price, such that the simple and safe bulbs are so popular that they have to be banned
(no point in banning unpopular products!)
is about as dumb as you can get. In my humble opinion.
Even if the bulbs had to be targeted,
whether to simply save energy, or to specifically "stimulate the manufacture" of desirable energy efficient bulbs, the described alternatives, stimulation of competition (firstly) or taxation (secondly), are both better policies, for stated reasons.
How many politicians or bureaucrats should it take to change a light bulb?
How many citizens should be allowed to choose?