The modern ones look great too - the "warm white" models I use have very nearly the same colour as incandescents, and I've never noticed any flicker - not like conventional overhead fluo tubes, whose flicker drives me nuts.

Here in Singapore, incandescents and fluorescents are both readily available. This in a country where chewing gum is banned! Most people buy fluorescents, not because of legislation or any desire to save the environment, but rather because it's much, much cheaper.

With the electricity rates here (about US$0.14 / kWh), replacing a 100W incandescent with a US$5 20W compact fluorescent saves about US$100 over its ~10000 hour life. It's a no brainer, regardless of whether you care about the environment!

Rather than legislate, perhaps the utilities could provide a service to sell bulbs (and maybe even come to your house to screw them in), and have consumers pay for them in installments, say, over the course of 6 months via their utility bills. Over the first 6 months, the installments & energy savings would cancel out; afterwards, the utility bills would drop noticeably. Who would argue with that?

Clearly, no one involved with this proposal has any practical knowledge of how these lights work. Fluorescent bulbs, including compact fluorescent bulbs, don't actually emit steady illumination, but a series of flashes far too fast for the eye to see. this is fine for Most purposes, but not all.
Try using a fluorescent light around machinery, like a lathe, and you soon may be missing body parts, as the strobe effect can fool you into thinking somethings not moving. I watch this happen in high school shop when someone didn't turn on the incandescent light on the lath, using only the classroom fluorescent, they ended up loosing 2 fingers

(1) the new bulbs are functionally adequate to replace the old;

(2) they use substantially less electricity;

(3) requiring their use will decrease electricity use, which is a Good Thing.

Legislatures make calls like that all the time, and I don't understand what about this particular instance is getting anyone's panties in a wad.

As for "enumerated powers," I don't know what California's constitution provides for in that respect, but I notice the conspicuous absence of any discussions thereof in this thread.

I see your point that it seems some are against all laws, all the time. But in this case I think it goes back to the idea that government should have certain enumerated powers. Intruding into all facets of private life should be looked upon with suspicion by both conservatives and liberals. The issues may be different but both ends of the political spectrum fear that bureaucrat lording over us.

Man, I am so glad there was no internet when leaded gas went out.

The other question, of course, is whether are not such a law would prevent better technologies from being used. The law of unintended consequences would seem to apply here.

And Anderson, that you can ask such a question speaks loudly to my mind that you have no concept much less any love, of the rights of the individual.

The argument, presumably, is that this sort of thing is outside the res publica. Simply because 50% plus one is in favor of something does not mean it should therefore be the law.

Does the state of California use exclusively fluorescents now? If not perhaps a good start might be to do so before banning incandescents.

Some commentators seem opposed to the notion of "law" in general, inasmuch as laws don't let us do whatever we want.

I wonder how Hollywood is going to deal with that, or are they more equal than ordinary households?