The embodied energy in light bulbs is quite small compared to their lifetime power consumption, as is true for most energy intensive devices (cars, power plants). The extra cost is primarily capital, labor, and materials, which each have their own embodied energy, but overall energy breakeven happens much sooner than economic breakeven, hence the savings.
There are certain new technologies that are spectacularly efficient compared with the old technology. The energy saving light bulb which produces significantly less heat is one of them and I'd expect you to recoup the higher initial cost of such bulbs within a year or so, provided they are used several hours a day.
This is why we've legislated in Australia to phase out the old-fashioned filament bulb which produces far more heat than light. Nevertheless, heat is often required to warm up your living room in winter, so one has to presume that those who live in cold climates who are using energy efficient light bulbs which generate less heat will have a proportionally higher heating bill in winter.
I think the fundamental point I'm making, which you seem to have missed, is that the only major impact we can possibly have on slowing down this current warming phase we are into is to simply stop pouring carbon dioxide, monoxide, methane etc into the atmosphere, and we simply can't do that because there'd be a world-wide depression far greater than the 1929 economic collapse.
It's not enough to just create ways of using our existing energy supplies more efficiently, from coal and oil powered electricity generators, power plants and motor cars etc. We actually have to change
the ways we produce base load electricity and stop driving cars which burn gasoline and stop travelling in planes which use oil based aviation fuel.
We simply can't do it because our economic prosperity is totally dependent upon the cost of energy and the efficiency with which we use that energy. In an expanding and growing economy, the energy savings resulting globally from the widespread use of a more efficient form of lighting (the energy saving light bulb) will not have the effect of shutting down power stations, but rather that same amount of saved energy will be used elswhere, on other development projects.
The power stations spewing greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere will continue doing that. If they are sending less electricity to you
(because of your more efficient lighting), they'll be sending more
electricity somewhere else. This is the nature of economic growth.
There are hundreds of new coal-fired power stations in the planning stage, around the world, most of them in China and India. They are needed, in part to produce energy efficient light bulbs.