Feinstein Going After Hi-Def TV

This via Congress Daily. (subscription required) Why is it that every little, or big technology advance always looks like an additional source of revenue, or regulation to these people? And, yes, the industry claims it will drive up the price of hi-def, among other things. Of course it will. They'll be forced to re-engineer. And so what if a little of the quality goes away? We have to feed Congress and preserve gaia if we want to sit around and watch great TV.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., wants the federal government to follow her state's lead in cutting the energy usage of power-hungry high-definition television sets.

The California Energy Commission on Wednesday approved a plan to cut the energy consumption of new televisions sold in the state by one-third beginning in 2011 and by one-half starting in 2013.

In a Thursday letter to Energy Secretary Chu, Feinstein urged the department to take a "serious look" at crafting national standards for TVs that are as rigorous as the ones adopted in California.

But the Consumer Electronics Association, which represents the views of most set manufacturers, wants to pull the plug on both the California requirements and the senator's proposal. "It will result in higher prices for consumers, job losses for Californians and lost tax revenue for the state," the group said.

Comments

[peter in dublin]

Riehl
I agree with the CEA
Are those ban proposing guys in the 'Free America' or are they wannabees to join our Bureaucratic ban-loving EU? :-)

Either way,
Governor Schwarzenegger is shooting himself in the foot!

1. Taxation is better for everyone, if politicians really believe that targeting these products gives any worthwhile energy savings.
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
http://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
http://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

[Elmo]

The gubment tellinya what TV to buy? Merely a half step away from them telling you which programming to watch.

How these braindead libturds can manage to tie their own f*cking shoes in the morn?

Let em try and take my 300B/singled ended triode audio amplifier ....

This sh*t is getting old, fast.

[Mike campbell]

The Old Sen Di Fei wants the rest of America to follow her cesspool of a state down the rathole. Senator facelift should keep her communism to herself and Governator RINO AHHHHNOLD. Let the rest of America be free of their wingnut social experiments, bankrupt coffers, and perverted lifestyle choices. We don't need the misery to spread any further - President Manchurian Candidate is enough.

[Elmo]

And ... flat panels TV's, one of the few bright spots in the retail sector (along with guns and ammo). A very, very important one. Not to be underestimated. And so what do they want to do? Right ... fook it up. Morons. Idiots. Dingleberries.

If the Cali sh*t passes, will lead to dual inventories. Just like (not too far) back in the day with automotive smog specs.

Insane.

[To average libturd on the street ...]
Q: What do you think of LSD?

A: Greatest President ever!

[Lala]

Just wait until the Smart Grid (or whatever it's called) monitors your electric usage and shuts your appliances off.

[x11b1p]

I wonder what America would be like today had we not passed the 17th Ammendment to the US Constitution? Hmmmmmmmm!

[Al in St. Lou]

Lala should worry about being reported for divulging state secrets!
/

[A_Nonny_Mouse]

Let's simplify the debate, and pull the plug on Congress instead.

All these weasels do is sit around, trying to come up with new ways of depriving us of our money for their own vainglorious ends. If ever there was a group of employees that should be furloughed in order to save money, Congress is OBVIOUSLY it.

And think of the energy savings when they go: lights, computers, cameras, printers and the thousands-of-pages of onerous legislation they output.

Win-win-win, I'd say.

[Mark_0454]

Global warming

seen this?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/