For a confluence of good reasons, people even in the US seem to finally be coming around to the concept that energy conservation is a good idea. Terrorism and the war in Iraq have brought home the notion that the US rate of energy consumption is pumping money into the hands of individuals who certainly do not have the best interests of the US at heart. Changing weather patterns have been blamed for the brutal 2005 hurricane season that brought hurricane Katrina, and the increased incidence of severe weather is also thought to be at least partly dependent on human activity-induced global climate change. Now that the nay-sayers are losing ground in the national debate, the question shifts from "Is there a problem?" to "What can we do to fix it?" Our neighbors to the North have passed an interesting measure that could have large ramifications for energy consumption, and might offer a model that the US could follow for doing the same. Starting in 2012 incandescent lights will no longer be sold in Ontario, following in the footsteps of Australia, which passed a similar measure earlier this year.

While they're cheap, easy to use and output light that is often consider softer and less harsh than fluorescent alternatives, incandescent bulbs are significantly less efficient than the increasingly marketed Compact Fluoresent bulbs, since incandescence technology converts much more of the electricity used by the bulb into wasted heat than fluorescent bulbs. A 60W incandescent bulb puts out the same amount of light as a 15W fluorescent bulb, so energy savings add up quickly if alternative lighting technologies are adapted. In addition, the development of cheap LED lighting technology may provide an even more efficient alternative to fluorescent lighting, as LEDs convert even less of the energy used to power them into heat. They also do not require mercury vapor to function like fluorescent bulbs do, and some would pose less of a pollution hazard if adopted on a large scale.

With Australia and Canada taking the initiative to improve lighting efficiency, would the US be willing to follow? Free market devotees tend to take a less-than-favorable outlook on government mandated changes to the business environment, instead preferring to believe that a superior product will dominate the market based on its own merits (though proponents of the Linux OS or the Tucker Torpedo might disagree.) US regulators tend to at least pay lip service to free market ideology, so it seems unlikely that any such far reaching legislation will be enacted in the world's largest energy consumer. However, tax incentives and state initiatives to accomplish the same thing are sure to come. And US consumers will be able to ride of the coattails of countries like Canada and Australia; currently a complaint about non-incandescent light bulbs is their higher cost, but with forced markets arising in other countries, manufacturing efficiency should increase and bring the cost of these products down, which will hopefully reach consumers around the world, not just in countries where these bulbs are mandated.

Regardless of how the change happens, the sooner it does, the better. The colossal waste of energy caused by widespread use of incandescent bulbs versus more efficient ones is a major contributor to a variety of environmental woes, so an improvement in in lighting efficiency will benefit the entire planet.