energy saving light bulbs?

LightPlanet

It isn't the mercury in a single bulb in normal use that is the problem. It is the cumulative effect of all of the mercury used in CFLs once they reach landfill. It is quite similar to leaded petrol really - no-one died from lead poisoning at the time, but it is clear now that a lot of damage was done.
Incandescents need to be replaced, because they are not efficient, but CFLs are not the best solution.

Ben84

Of all the light bulbs, filament bulbs are the biggest mercury polluters because using them requires more fossil fuels to be burnt in power plants, and fossil fuels like coal contain mercury, much of which goes up the chimney in to the atmosphere.

Fluorescent bulbs cut this source of mercury pollution significantly, certainly enough that even if none of them were disposed of properly in light bulb recycling and the mercury they contain emitted in to the environment their total mercury pollution would still be lower. Fortunately bulb recycling and mercury capture is widely available in the EU, so this doesn't have to happen in any great amount. This does however depend on people realising they should not go in the rubbish bin.

LED bulbs look better still, they both use less electric so less mercury from coal burning, and contain no mercury themselves. However, availability is limited and prices very high. I'm not aware yet of any replacements for the typical 100w bulb, and only one that claims to replace 60w bulbs. I look forward to using LED bulbs in the future, but also need to make practical choices now to decide what of the currently available bulbs are going to be the most environmentally sound.

Fluorescent bulbs are currently the most available technology with the best selection of bulb shapes/wattages which help reduce mercury pollution. The complaints that they contain mercury are a bad reason to avoid them when the only other practical alternative, filament bulbs, are the biggest mercury polluters.