The argument is that forcing consumers to buy more efficient — and far more expensive — bulbs will greatly reduce energy consumption, and in turn, air pollution and global warming.
Consider the above, then ask yourself this: “Why?”
Why do we want to reduce energy consumption? There surely is no shortage. “Eat all you want; we’ll make more.” Betting now that what we do today will run us out tomorrow is like betting on whale oil in 1840. We will have energy available to us until the heat death of the sun. If we don’t, we deserve to die.
What’s with air pollution? Any stats on petroleum consumption 1970 to today? Is our air cleaner over that period? Is it proven necessary to reduce the use of something in order to lessen its impact on the world? No. May we therefore taken it as a given that any proposals which seek to starve our economy for the sake of reduction of air pollution are, ab initio, made in bad faith, and suspicions of ulterior motives stipulated as probable?
And, finally, since global warming — or, more correctly, catastrophic anthropogenic global warming — has been most thoroughly falsisfied and debunked, may we again take it as given that any public policy proposals which use “global warming” as their casus belli do so in bad faith? And may, therefor, be dismissed out of hand?