I have no doubt there was similar design in play to the deliberate life-expectancy limitation we're all familiar with re: incandescent bulbs.
Another point: I personally believe that a large percentage of the energy savings attributed to CFL and later LED illumination are actually due to the fact that large-scale deployments (the kind most often used as data for these statistics) most often also included automation in the form of IR/Motion sensor and centralized "Smart-Building" type computerized lighting controls. Just plain turning the damned things OFF is still more conservative than all the "special bulbs" hooey we've had shoved down our throats over the last couple decades.
The main point being that considering the much larger environmental damage done in the manufacture and toxic waste associated with disposal of all these new lighting technologies, I am not convinced the switch from incandescent and lo-tech fluorescent bulbs is hugely better for the environment overall than just better lighting controls.
mnem
![Uber Geek :ugeek:](./images/smilies/icon_e_ugeek.gif)