As expected, today the California Energy Commission on a unanimous vote passed strict regulations that will prohibit sales of TVs up to 58" that don't meet strict energy efficiency requirements beginning in 2011. The Commissioners say this is the easiest and cheapest way to conserve electricity. Unfortunately, this unelected commission misses the point. The main issue is how to provide enough electricity for the citizens in the state and for future needs, not to force conservation by restricting the sales of TVs. Building more power plants is the place to start. Pay attention if you value the freedom to choose which television you wish to buy and expect your legislators to use the California decision as a model for other states.
California citizens can do three things:
- Demand our state government build more power plants to meet our present and future energy needs.
- Buy 'banned televisions' online or from another state to bypass these ridiculous regulations.
- Elect representatives with some common sense that will dismantle the California Energy Commission.
The Rasmussen Reports has released a poll indicating that 66% of Americans oppose regulations and favor big screen TVs over energy conservation.
Robert Silva, About.com Guide to Home Theater has more.
Comments
California is about as green as inside a septic tank by building terrible polluting power plants out of state, then building power transmission lines to bring in dirty electric power and calling it green power.
Nuclear power generation is the ONLY green, and emission free non polluting source of electric power which does not use polluting fossil fuel.
Talk about waste and pollution, CA ought to eliminate or downsize the California Energy Commission, and CARB/ARB, California Air Resources Board which has done more harm than good in saving energy, pollution, and greenhouse gases, and cost California billions in duplicating already established federal air and pollution standards.
REMEMBER the disasters of: [Which we are still paying for]
MTBE
Re Formulated Diesel Fuel
SMOG I
SMOG II
AND proposed Replacing all Diesel engines.
ONCE AGAIN…YES, Televisions are the one item that sucks up electricity…are these people retarded? I guess they don’t want to piss off big corporations, that are actually sucking up electrical power!
arnie must be on the commission..this is something that moron would do, as he drives his piece of sh*t hummer.
The electronics industry must not have very powerful lobbyist!
Agreed Gary
All energy efficiency regulations are wrong
whether one is for or against environmental savings
Governor Schwarzenegger is shooting himself in the foot!
1. Taxation, while itself unjustified, is better for everyone, if energy really needs to be saved.
TV set taxation based on energy efficiency – unlike bans – gives Governor Schwarzenegger’s impoverished California Government income on the reduced sales, while consumers keep choice.
This also applies generally,
to CARS (with emission tax or gas tax), BUILDINGS, DISHWASHERS, LIGHT BULBS etc,
where politicians instead keep trying to define what people can or can’t use.
Politicians can use the tax money raised to fund home insulation schemes, renewable projects etc that lower energy use and emissions more than remaining product use raises them.
Also, the energy efficient products can have their sales taxes lowered.
2. Product regulation, bans or taxation, are however unwarranted:
Where there is a problem – deal with the problem!
Energy: there is no energy shortage
(given renewable/nuclear development possibilities, with set emission limits)
and consumers – not politicians – pay for energy and how they wish to use it.
It might sound great to
“Let everyone save money by only allowing energy efficient products”
However:
Inefficient products that use more energy can have performance, appearance and construction advantages
Examples (using cars, buildings, dishwashers, TV sets, light bulbs etc):
http://ceolas.net/#cc211x
For example, big plasma TV screens have image contrast and other advantages along with the bigger image sizes.
Products using more energy usually cost less, or they’d be more energy efficient already.
Depending on how much they are used, there might therefore not be any running cost savings either.
Other factors contribute to a lack of savings:
If households use less energy,
then utility companies make less money,
and will just raise electricity prices to cover their costs.
So people don’t save as much money as they thought.
Conversely,
energy efficiency in effect means cheaper energy,
so people just leave TV sets etc on more, knowing that energy bills are lower,
as also shown by Scottish and Cambridge research
ceolas.net/#cc214x
Either way, supposed energy – or money – savings aren’t there.
———————-
Why energy efficiency regulations are wrong,
whether you are for or against energy and emission conservation
ceolas.net/#cc2x
Summary
Politicians don’t object to energy efficiency as it sounds too good to be true. It is.
–The Consumer Side
Product Performance — Construction and Appearance
Price Increase — Lack of Actual Savings: Money, Energy or Emissions. Choice and Quality affected
– The Manufacturer Side
Meeting Consumer Demand — Green Technology — Green Marketing
–The Energy Side
Energy Supply — Energy Security — Cars and Oil Dependence
–The Emission Side
Buildings — Industry — Power Stations — Light Bulbs
testing comments work??