Of course, this ignores the mercury that is present in fluorescent bulbs, as well as the use cases for incandescent bulbs e.g. as heat lamps and in areas where lights are frequently turned on for short periods before being turned immediately off again (like in a stairwell). I agree with another comment that taxing is a better solution than outright banning, but I'm just not sure where I stand at all, because banning something that is clearly better in some scenarios just seems stupid.

As for the mercury issue, fluorescent light bulbs are much more difficult to dispose of safely. I was reading an article by the Sierra Club (an environmental group) which was arguing that if fluorescent light bulbs use 1/3 the energy of incandescents, and all of that energy is produced by burning coal, then the amount of mercury in the bulbs is approximately equal to the amount of coal saved over 5 years (I'm estimating here, but this was the general idea). Not exactly the most flattering numbers if you ask me.