The traditional incandescent light bulb has been in use for several years. However, it has been discovered that the incandescent light bulb was contributing to global warming and climate change. Hence, some countries began to entertain the idea of eradicating the traditional light bulbs in favour of more efficient light bulbs, with less effect on the planet. Among the main champions of this is the USA who had an Act in 2007 termed the ‘the better use of light bulbs act'. This was supposed to be in effect by 2012.
‘The better use of light bulbs act' was supposed to encourage higher standards in the production of light bulbs. Climate friendly light bulbs, such as the compact fluorescents and LEDs, would help this. These modern light bulbs are more efficient and save energy, as well as cut pollution. In short, traditional light bulbs are much more damaging to the environment than the modern alternatives.
However, not everyone shares the idea that traditional light bulbs should be phased out, especially the way the US government was purporting. Critics have viewed the implementation of a bill against traditional light bulbs as being government interference in what people buy at the market place, wrapped in the ideology of global warming. Critics also claim that phasing out light bulbs will not do as much for climate change as other measures to protect the environment, which have not been implemented could. The efficient modern light bulbs are welcome in the market but not when they are enforced by law.
The people, who are championing the adaptation of the more efficient light bulbs, also point to other benefits. One of these is that houses will have lower electricity bills, and people will therefore save money. However, most critics feel that the choice of traditional light bulbs and modern light bulbs should be left to the consumer and not be pushed through law. If the modern light bulbs are more efficient and cheaper in the long run, then people will adapt to them regardless of what the law says.