Changing Scotland's lightbulbs to energy efficient models would cut annual carbon dioxide emissions by about a quarter of a million tonnes a year, according to environmentalists - and save £88 million.
Yet while Australia and the Canadian province of Ontario have recently pushed ahead with bans on the old bulbs, green campaigners claim the situation in Scotland is fast becoming a bad joke.
Far from following in Australian footsteps, MSPs do not even have the power to enforce a ban even if they wanted to.
Moves such as forcing all public bodies to use the bulbs have not been fully implemented, they claim.
Earlier this week, Iain Smith MSP for North East Fife, tabled a motion in the Scottish Parliament which included the entreaty to "encourage all those who use incandescent light bulbs to switch to fluorescent energy-saving bulbs as part of the fight against climate change, and call on the Executive to consider further ways to accelerate the full uptake of energy-saving light bulbs in Scotland."
But The Scotsman can reveal that the issue is tied up by constitutional politics and international agreements.
The Scottish Executive has no power to ban products; that lies with Westminster. But Westminster says free trade rules prevent the UK from acting unilaterally and only the European Union can legislate.
At the EU level, the process stalls altogether, with countries expressing good intentions, but no sign of impending action.
Even the suggestion that Scotland could make all public buildings use energy efficient bulbs is mired in bureaucracy and the legalities of whether the Holyrood or Westminster has the final say.
Stuart Hay, head of research and policy at Friends of the Earth Scotland, said ending the use of tungsten bulbs would mean a 2 per cent cut in energy use in the UK - the equivalent of shutting down an entire power station.
He added the problem with legislation north of the border highlighted the "limitations of the devolved powers Scotland has".
He said: "It would be great if the Scottish Executive found a way to produce a similar result as being produced in Australia."
But he added: "At the least, there could be some form of push to make sure that power companies subsidise the sale of energy-efficient bulbs in Scotland."
Mr Hay called on the Scottish Executive, even if it could not legislate on its own, to use its clout with UK MPs to push for new legislation on lighting.
Although using energy efficient light bulbs seems like a win-win situation - they cut emissions and save money - surveys by the Energy Saving Trust trust reveal that millions of consumers are not changing.
While 70 per cent of people say they have at least one low- energy bulb, or CFL as they are known, 30 per cent are still apparently resistant to the idea.
Mike Thornton, head of the Energy Saving Trust's Scottish team, believes legislation or guidelines requiring all public buildings to fit them would help convert some of the doubters.
"[Bringing in guidelines] could be done and it probably would send some very powerful signals. It would save them such a large amount of money," he says.
And the benefits would not simply arise from using less electricity. Low-energy bulbs last on average 12 times as long as standard ones.
Even if it costs £10 to get someone with health and safety approval and a ladder to change a bulb in a civil servant's office, library or public swimming pool, the savings would mount up.
Australia is not the first country to make the switch to energy-efficient lighting. Cuba launched a similar programme two years ago, inspiring the Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez, to launch his own lightbulb giveaway scheme.
And, in California, there is proposed legislation dubbed the "How Many Legislators Does It Take to Change a Lightbulb Act". This is a question you may regret trying to ask in Europe.
A spokeswoman for the Scottish Executive said: "Product regulation is reserved to Westminster so in terms of an all-out ban on non-energy efficient lightbulbs it's not within the jurisdiction of the Scottish Parliament."
It is the Scottish Executive's policy to use low-energy bulbs "wherever possible" and they have replaced traditional bulbs "in the vast majority of [Executive] buildings where practicable".
"However, there are some areas where less efficient forms of lighting are still in use because of the nature of the fittings involved," an Executive spokeswoman said.
It is understood that the parliament could, depending on the terms of a bill, vote to compel Scottish public buildings such as schools and offices, to switch to energy efficient lighting.
What about Westminster? At the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, a spokeswoman was keen to stress that "we very much support the decision by the Australian government to phase out standard light bulbs".
However she went on to add: "The UK government - nor any other EU member state - cannot by itself introduce mandatory minimum standards for lightbulbs, which would inhibit their free trade on the basis of their energy efficiency.
"We continue to press the European Commission to make lightbulbs a priority for regulatory action under the Eco-Design for Energy Using Products (EUP) framework directive. We would welcome prompt and ambitious action by the EC."
This prompted some head-scratching at the Commission. If negotiations about the directive would or could lead to restrictions or an outright ban, they were unaware of it.
"It's far from clear that this applies. [The directive] is about identifying various products that have energy-saving aspects and approving them for marketing in the internal market and setting standards for them. It's not a ban-type directive."
For Dr Matt Prescott, founder of the Ban the Bulb campaign, failing to legislate is a "blasé waste of public money" if nothing else.
"How can you justify wasting so much money unnecessarily?" he asks. "Everyone says a ban is too difficult, without knowing why. The Germans are saying: 'We'd love to ban them, but we can't do it unilaterally'; Britain is saying: 'We cannot do it'; but if you've got Britain and Germany both saying they want it to happen, then it can happen.
"Petty bureaucracy and rules are selectively used - where there's a will, there's a way."
The UK has set itself the target of a 60 per cent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, but Dr Prescott fears that if even the simple lightbulb cannot be changed, then there is little chance of meeting it.
"If we cannot do lightbulbs, how are we ever going to deal with cars and buildings? This is the very smallest thing, and we are struggling with that," Dr Prescott says.
But perhaps the market or people-power will win the day. And is a ban even necessary? Dr Prescott would actually only tax incandescents, not ban them, and Mr Thornton does not think outlawing them is necessary.
"The reality of the situation is it is so cost-effective to do that, there is such a very compelling case for using them, that I don't necessarily see that a ban is the way forward," he says.
• Additional reporting by Raymond Hainey
Eco-friendly lighting has its dark side
THEY may be more environmentally friendly, but many consumers still do not like the quality of light compact fluorescent (CF) energy saving bulbs give off.
Clare Smith, 32, a marketing manager from Midlothian, said: "They definitely look different. We have half energy efficient and half not in our house.
"Eventually I suppose we should go fully green, but it will make the house feel colder and I'm not sure I want that."
There are also environmental implications to using the energy efficient bulbs.
Lighting expert Scott Ferrier, of David Brown Lighting in Edinburgh, said that, although CF bulbs use a lot less electricity than old-style lightbulbs, they are more complicated to produce, and more energy is used in the manufacturing process.
He said that CF bulbs also contained more chemicals, including highly toxic mercury, which could cause problems at the disposal stage.
Mr Ferrier added: "From a holistic point of view, from manufacture to recycling, some of the efficiencies can be diminished."
But he said: "Using CF bulbs reduces people's electricity bills - you are getting the same amount of power, but using less energy."
