Even if it weren't for energy use, not having to change light bulbs for a decade is a huge motivation to switch.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel?oldformat=true#...
So it's already possible to not have to change a normal light bulb for 10 years — in fact there's currently a bulb that's been burning for 118 years.
The parent comment actually makes a good point, and shifting the blame for global warming to non-corporate entities is disingenuous. Sure, go ahead and recycle, buy LEDs instead of incandescent bulbs, buy local produce, these are all good things to do and I would never discourage them, but let's not buy into the nonsense that it's going to make a dent compared to say, shipping containers (https://inews.co.uk/news/long-reads/cargo-container-shipping...). To do so would move focus away from where things really need to change.
If I was someone partial to conspiracy theories, I might point out that this shift in focus is convenient for the corporate entities I alluded to.
Yes I have, actually https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26946432
>So it's already possible to not have to change a normal light bulb for 10 years — in fact there's currently a bulb that's been burning for 118 years.
yeah, the trade-off is that it's horribly inefficient and wastes more energy than it costs to replace.
As I said, I would never discourage people using LEDs, recycling etc. for other very good reasons. I just think it's important that we're honest on the impact of me using 2 LED bulbs in my house, vs. an entire office block having their lights and air conditioning on overnight.
Let's focus on making changes where it will have a large impact, like the shipping containers I mentioned. Anything else is counterproductive.