A. Mercury as a health problem
Sometimes ridiculed, stringent EPA recommendations of what to do when a bulb breaks was more than confirmed by recent Maine state testing
See http://www.ceolas.net/#li191x

B. CFL mercury compared to coal power mercury emissions

CFL mercury is a bigger problem than coal power mercury emissions

The often repeated argument that emissions are worse, was only ever true where untreated coal power use dominated.
In the USA like the EU and Canada,
vigorous mercury emission control programs are in place
(using new injection and photochemical techniques as well as so-called wet scrubbers)
= USA EPA for example overseeing
90% reduction by 2018, as confirmed by new EPA administrator Lisa Jackson early 2009.
More: http://www.ceolas.net/#li198x

In a nutshell:
1. We know where the ever decreasing local coal power stations chimneys are and we can treat their emissions with ever increasing efficiency at lower costs.
2. Compare that with billions of scattered broken lights on dump sites, when we do not know where the broken lights will be, and so we can’t do anything about them

CFL refund chemes would alleviate but not solve the problem, as shown by low European compliancy…

But banning light bulbs is not the way forward,
and I think people who are less in agreement with
the background arguments will just be turned off from cooperating in more important environmental measures.

Let’s think about this:

Europeans, like Americans, choose to buy ordinary light bulbs around 9 times out of 10 (EU Commission and light industry data 2007-8)
Banning what people want gives the supposed savings – no point in banning an impopular product!

If new LED lights – or improved CFLs etc – are good,
people will buy them – no need to ban ordinary light bulbs (little point).
If they are not good, people will not buy them – no need to ban ordinary light bulbs (no point).
The arrival of the transistor didn’t mean that more energy using radio valves were banned… they were bought less anyway.

Supposed savings don’t hold up for many reasons:
( http://www.ceolas.net#li13x onwards
about brightness, lifespan, power factor, lifecycle, heat effect of ordinary bulbs, and other referenced research)

Effect on Electricity Bills
If energy use does indeed fall with light bulb and other proposed efficiency bans,
electricity companies make less money,
and they’ll simply push up the electricity bills to compensate
(especially since power companies often have their own grids with little supply competition)
Energy regulators can hardly deny any such cost covering exercise…

The need to save energy?
Advice is good and welcome, but bans are another matter…
people -not politicians – pay for energy and how they wish to use it,
and if there was an energy shortage, the price rise would lead to more demand for efficient products anyway – no need to legislate for it.

Emissions?
Does a light bulb give out any gases?
Power stations might not either:
Why should emission-free households be denied the use of lighting they obviously want to use?
Low emission households already dominate some regions, and will increase everywhere, since emissions will be reduced anyway through the planned use of coal/gas processing technology and/or energy substitution.

A direct way to deal with emissions (for all else they contain too, whatever about CO2):
http://ceolas.net/#cc10x

The Taxation alternative
A ban on light bulbs is extraordinary, in being on a product safe to use.
We are not talking about banning lead paint here.
Even for those who remain pro-ban, taxation to reduce consumption would make much more sense, since governments can use the income to reduce emissions (home insulation schemes, renewable projects etc) more than any remaining product use causes such problems.
A few pounds/euros/dollars tax that reduces the current sales (EU like the USA 2 billion sales per annum, UK 250-300 million pa)
raises future billions, and would retain consumer choice.
It could also be revenue neutral, lowering any sales tax on efficient products.
ceolas.net/LightBulbTax.html

However, taxation is itself unjustified, it is simply a better alternative for all concerned than bans.

Of course an EU ban is underway, but in phases, supposedly with reviews in a couple of years time…
maybe the debate in USA and Canada will be affected by the protests.