Even as I hit Publish I thought this seemed self-serving or worse promoting WalMart. But my intent was to pose it as a matter for reflection and debate - others have commented on previous posts that they have adopted good energy saving strategies in their own homes and I applaud them.

There a myriad of technological innovations which we, as a Nation, haven't adopted - to save jobs, because the infrastructure developed as it did and changing it would be costly, and more often than we'd like to admit because we simply haven't stopped to think.

Thanks for the link. Tidal power is a god idea, but hardly one the average citizen can implement.

Have you read about Geothermal Heat Exchange systems? Link I recall reading the idea as far back as the 70's in a Rodale publication. As memory serves, it was in use in Scandinavian countries at the time both for heating and cooling.

The alternatives to the incandescents are the fuorescents. The fluorescents contain mercury and can't be just thrown out. Most people just throw them away. To mandate all fluorescents might dramatically increase the amount of mercury in the environment. Additionally, fluorescents do not give off full spectrum light as incandescents do. Many think that fluorescents are therefore damaging to the eye.

I think making all electricity include the uncaptured social cost of global warming is a good idea. There is no reason to single out just incandescent bulbs. Clothes dryers and the drying cycle of a dishwasher, and even aquariums burn more KWH than a light bulb. In fact, it would make even more sense to tax the utility for CO2 emissions caused by that plant's method of generating electricity. They provide the power and they can pass the cost on to the customers. Some power plants create more greenhouse gases than others, and it is the power plant, not the l;ight bulb, that creates the CO2.

The tax method is better than an ourtright ban because it allows more flexibility to directly address the problem and also maximizes choice for the citizen.