You do not seem to have discussed any of the issues yourself, it might be pointed out. I think most everyone here would agree that the ban on light bulbs is a bad idea, but given some level of consensus that CO2 emissions are a problem, what to do about them?
Doubtless your answer would focus on the fact that there is no problem at all because the existence of an externality of some kind disagrees with your ideology.
You might even be right that there is no problem, because it's not an easy subject, but on the other hand, a number of scientists appear to indicate that there is a problem of some kind.
In any case, you started going off about communists and (in another thread) Nazis, so maybe we can call Godwin's law and leave it at that.
Speaking of voting people down, someone seems to have had a go at everything of mine they could get ahold of, including those completely unrelated to this discussion:
No counter argument is needed when someone claims that to say CO2 emissions are bad is to reject the very foundations of science.
No counter argument is needed when someone says employers don't pay payroll taxes.
No counter argument is needed when someone says taxes paid by employees don't affect employer costs.
These are obviously false. The down arrow is a perfectly good response.