I don't totally disagree with you here, Hedge, it's just that I think banning lightbulbs is the equivalent of urinating into the wind.
If this law is the only effort, then yes, there is little meaning.
But with 100's, or 1000's small efforts in different ways, through voluntarily efforts, legislative measures, cooperative joint efforts, international, regional, et al...
I believe all these small things together can make a difference. It's really about changing the attitude.
I'm no tree hugger. I don't believe that trees have feelings or shyte like that.
I simply believe that if our scientists give us a prediction that we may risk a global disaster that would make all previous problems seems like futile...
Then my take is: Why gamble that they may be wrong? What's the harm in changing our lives for a more energy efficient society?
For one, it would make the world a safer place, since USA wouldn't be oil import dependent.
Frankly, I don't see this as a political issue. The ways on how to make our society is the political issue IMO.
It's not how fast we need to make the transition. It's how we should do it. The time table is determined by scientist, and Greenpeace or the Oil Lobby can't do much about that.
-Hedge