When it comes to figuring out the best indoor lighting solution for widespread use, authorities in most countries have split opinions, as do the health advisors and the scientific community. In other words, although legislation already exists in Europe and the US – regulating the time frame for the removal of incandescent light bulbs from all households – those responsible for ensuring both the health of the population and environmental protection cannot agree on the one of the three options that is best for lighting.

Incandescent bulbs have been around for a long time, but they are harshly criticized for being very power-hungry, and account for almost 25 percent of the total power consumption in the US alone every year. In an attempt to reduce pollution from electric plants, law makers have decided to ban the use of these electric light sources by 2012. America takes after Europe, which already has a prohibiiton in place on incandescent bulbs, and will soon completely stop selling them.

Compact fluorescent lighting (CFL) is said to be the best alternative to the classic light bulb, because it consumes very little energy, has an increased life span, and is more eco-friendly. However, some doctors and scientists say that the mercury these light sources contain may be harmful for humans, as it builds up in landfills, and very little recycling programs for their accurate disposal exist. Despite these arguments, most decision makers agree that it's more advantageous for everyone to build an infrastructure then to renounce CFL as well.

The third lighting option, that is to say light-emitting diode (LED), is advertised to be the “real deal” in next-generation lighting, with proponents arguing that these bulbs could stay in continuous use in a household for up to ten years, making them the most long-lasting of the three variants. Nevertheless, their prices are too high now, and until large-scale manufacturing processes are implemented, the world will just have to do with CFL.