>>FWIW, my mother said they've replaced most of their bulbs and their electric bill went down big-time. (I think she said it was cut in half.)
>
>Apparently, 11% of household energy use is for lighting:
>
>http://www1.eere.energy.gov/consumer/tips/lighting.html
>
>An average household dedicates 11% of its energy budget to lighting. Using new lighting technologies can reduce lighting energy use in your home by 50% to 75%.
>
>The majority of our household energy use comes from heating and cooling:
>
>http://www1.eere.energy.gov/consumer/tips/heating_cooling.html
>
>Typically, 45% of your utility bill goes for heating and cooling.
>
>Appliances count for another 20% and 13% for the water heater.
>
>The CFL idea is a good one, but I think people are being somewhat misled so far as it really making a dent in global warming.

Sure there's marketing hype.

But even with your stats above there's a simple hole - "energy" is not the same as electricity.

Someone who heats with gas or oil or wood (or solar or geo-thermal) and doesn't own an air conditioner in the first place might well have half or more of their electricity consumed by lighting.

Why can't you see that if you save yourself 75 watts per bulb on 5 bulbs you've saved yourself 375 watts per unit-time of use (from 500 to 125) and that 10 million households doing the same has to have a major impact on consumption, thus production, thus the environment (especially in the U.S., where coal is still king). 10,000,000 X 500 is a whole lot bigger than 10,000,000 X 125.