For some reason, Democrats and their enablers in the legacy media don’t want you to believe that light bulbs are banned, and engage in amazing hair-splitting to deny the fact. For example:
Opponents often describe the standards as a “lightbulb ban,” arguing that the rules would greatly restrict consumer choice by pushing out traditional incandescent bulbs in favor of more expensive, but more efficient, LED (light emitting diode) and CFL (compact fluorescent light) bulbs.
But the standards do not ban incandescent bulbs. They instead require them to be more efficient. While more efficient lightbulbs are often more expensive at the point of sale, experts note they save consumers money on their electricity bills over the long term.
Take that, straw man! No one contests the proposition that high-efficiency lighting saves money in the long run. People like incandescent bulbs because of the quality of their light. So, do high-efficiency incandescent bulbs generate the same quality light as traditional light bulbs?
If you’ve ever used a high-efficiency incandescent bulb, you know the answer is no. The light is colder and harsher, not so much as a fluorescent bulb, but visibly more so than a traditional bulb.
Moreover, this is what you would expect from the physics. Different physical processes tend to generate different spectra. Scientists often use those spectra to identify things that they cannot observe directly. We don’t know how to craft a made-to-order spectrum, at least not inexpensively. So if you change the process to generate less heat, you’re almost certainly going to change the spectrum.