Yes. Marketing Not Backed By Logic.

The August 28th Economist makes my points for me. I don't recall the newspaper (its description - not mine) coming out with a stated position against green incentives, but it seems to me there has been one of late.

Why fluorescent lighting is not energy efficient:

Assuming that ... solid state lights will be about three more times efficient than fluorescent ones and that the price of electricity stays the same in real terms, the number of megalumen-hours consumed by the average person will, according to their model, rise tenfold .... The amount of electricity needed to generate that light would more than double. Only if the price of electricity were to triple would the amount of electricity used to generate light start to fall by 2030.

In short, for fluorescent or LED light bulbs, making them available increases the demand for their product: light. The more light is used, the more energy is used. This is similar to the observation that increasing the size of roads leads to more congestions. As more cars get drawn to the highway, the collector streets get jammed. Or as you increase the size of your desk, the paperwork starts to back up.

Do I need to point out that we need to re-tool factories to make the lights? Isn't that an energy expenditure that needs to be considered? It is not readily apparent to me that building/re-tooling an industry is particularly "green" (though it surely is good for jobs). Also, I can't recall a discussion where the problem of disposing of all the outmoded incandescent and, in particular, fluorescent bulbs has been addressed.