I am glad Canada has delayed the foolish light bulb ban until 2014. Hopefully we will eliminate the ban totally before 2014. We should have the choice of what light bulbs to use. We will be getting a steady stream of Americans coming here on light bulb tourism. A good piece by Peter Foster.
I have always found CFL lights harsh, unattractive and annoying. I discovered this week that my aversion might be more than a psychological quirk attached to skepticism about "settled" climate science and distinctly unsettled climate policy. In a recent edition of a U.S. publication called The Energy Advocate, editor Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics at the University of Connecticut, points out that while incandescent bulbs are "notoriously inefficient, emitting less than 10% of the input power as visible light," they are visually pleasing because they emit light similar to the light from the sun, that covers the "entire wavelength range visible to the human eye." Professor Hayden notes that the problem with fluorescent lamps is that their light is not a continuous spectrum. Thus they distort colours. To put it less scientifically, they are hard on the eyes, and harder on older and more damaged eyes in particular.
Dr. Mary Lou Jackson, director of the Vision Rehabilitation Center at the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary in the Harvard Department of Ophthalmology, told me some people with damaged vision actually prefer CFLs. However, many do not. The important thing, she said, is to have the choice.
When Canadian light bulb legislation was amended in April to delay banning those "inefficient" incandescent bulbs until 2014, press reports suggested the then-minority Conservative government had done so "quietly." Perhaps that was so as not to enrage environmental NGOs or suggest to Washington that Ottawa was daring to walk out of eco-goosestep, thus inviting trade sanctions.