Is This A Bright Idea?

Given the bill's actual title, new legislation proposed by Lloyd Levine to ban incandescent light bulbs in California certainly sounds like a joke, but it actually might not be as goofy as some of the other ideas Levine has come up with.

The "How Many Assemblymen Does It Take To Change A Lightbulb?" act-- really, that's what it's called-- would mandate that all incandescent light bulbs in California be replaced with more energy-efficient, longer lasting fluorescent bulbs by 2012.

Apparently, Compact Fluorescent Lights ("CFL's) use 25% less energy and last 13x longer than traditional light bulbs.

I confess to knowing nothing about light bulbs, but there has to be a downside to this. Can CFL's fit in regular light sockets or would costly upgrades be required? Do CFL's throw off that horrible ghastly light that makes you look 20 years older when you look in the mirror?

The idea behind this legislation is solid: cut our energy consumption. We spend a lot of time on this site bickering about the need to generate new energy sources to meet California's consumption needs, but addressing demand as well as supply is just as relevant and important.

However, given that this is coming from Lloyd Levine, and given that nobody else has proposed this before, there's probably a catch. I'm sure we'll be hearing a lot more on this...

California may ban conventional lightbulbs by 2012 [Scientific American]