If energy needs to be saved, there are good ways to do it.
                                                               Government product regulation is not one of them

Position on the Issue


A position summary

A more comprehensive summary can be seen on the "How Regulations are Wrongly Justified" page.

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.
Power plants might - and might not.
If there is a problem - deal with the problem.
The supposition is of a long term benefit to light bulb regulations, but emissions are being lowered anyway, and there is no shortage of sources for electricity.

Much more relevant to deal with electricity generation efficiency, grids, and alternative wasteful consumption, as described on the ceolas.net site.

The switchover savings, 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, and that in turn does not take into account the referenced actual use of such lighting at night time of low demand, when coal plant night cycle levels also mean that the same coal is often burned anyway, coal being the main emission "culprit".
It also does not take into account the described researched heat benefit of incandescents in most countries at such times, or their power factor (PF) advantages, the lower life cycle energy demand outside usage, and much else mitigating supposed savings.

All that in turn is without going into all the simplicity/safety/environmental advantages of old and thereby well known incandescents compared to pushed complex expensive alternatives, sometimes questionably safe, and with life cycle environmental effects from mining to component manufacture to product assembly to distribution to recycling (when not dumped) - and all the extra transport in each stage.

Certainly, 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, and replacement halogens are still different anyway and cost much more for marginal usage savings, hence their unpopularity.

Efficiency is not just energy efficiency...
Excluding for general service usage the most efficient way to make bright lighting in using few components or earth resources, to make it high quality broad and smooth spectrally, to make it in versatile clear/frosted constructed forms, 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 an odd way to call "product progress".

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 of stimulation of competition (firstly) or taxation (secondly), are both better policies for stated reasons.
One might also note the oddity of the USA and the EU launching clearer product information labelling after - rather than before - banning products on the basis that consumers are making "misinformed" choices"!

How many politicians or bureaucrats should it take to change a light bulb?
How many citizens should be allowed to choose?