California to ban power-hungry TVs?

[the Interceptor]

Not necessarily; that's a cartel. Also, the consumer is not forced to buy anything. Capitalism is a system of voluntary exchange.

Sure, noone has to buy anything. But let's face it, people do. And when competiting companies start to work together to make more money, something is very wrong. Who, if not the government, could intervene?

Can we please keep this thread serious as long as possible? I would be glad if we can make this a substantial discussion instead of rendering it the ridiculous internet argument it can become so quickly.

So? If the consumer wants to put up with company 1 then that's his/her prerogative. Big deal if company #2 can't compete. But that's making the awful assumption that it would be absolutely impossible for them to compete.

Not impossible, but unlikely. Said loudspeaker manufacturer has become virtually unparalleled in its market share because of said dumping prices. A serious competitor would have to go the same low-price/low-quality way to be at least considered to be an alternative. To actually compete, they'd have to go even lower. But where does that take us? To what (low) quality levels should companies bring their goods in order to get their piece of the cake?

We haven't had free market capitalism for a long time. Your example, the global financial correction, is an example of capitalism in action. It's the solution to the mess made by the fed and the government from bad monetary policy, economic policy, and regulatory practice.

Can you elaborate this more please?

Re: Banning of filament bulbs

Wow, I'm sure every artist in England is going to be super pissed off. Just because using CFLs to replace incandescent bulbs is common sense doesn't mean the government should ban filaments. I guess it never occurred to them that people might use those bulbs on purpose for certain things.

I'm with you on this one. Proposing to buy energy-saving lamps (ESLs) is one thing, but banning the classic light bulb is a totally different one, and stupid at that. There are incidents where an incandescent bulb simply makes much more sense, and probably is even better for the environment. But with them being banned, I am robbed of a choice I should be able to make. There are many other (and better) ways to make people buy ESLs.

 

[Sureboss]

What's that supposed to mean?

I can have a 20Watt bulb in the dining room, and it's as bright as a 100W bulb. Why waste that energy? It's pointless, technology moves on, sometimes it has to be enforced.

In my house, total wattage in each room:

Kitchen 200W (but it's only 12 volt spotlights, so not sure what that means energy wise)
Dining room - 20W (energy saving)
Living room - 100W on side, 200W on chandelier.
Hall - 12 W (energy saving)
Upstairs - 12W
Bathroom - 60W Spotlights
Downstairs Loo - 40W
My room - 120W
Other bedrooms - 160W
Garage - 40W (fluorescent bulb)
Upstairs loo - 40W
Airing Cupboard - 40W
Loft - 160W (4x40)
Under-eves cupboard - 40W

Total wattage: 1.32Kilowatts
If we swapped out all filament bulbs, to an energy saving one (at let's say 12W, as they work well, but 8 do a fine job too), I reckon we'd reduce the total wattage to: (21x28 = 588W) 0.74Kw

Now, we've got a decent amount of energy saving bulbs, I reckon. But we can cut down our total wattage of lights by 40%, most households will be more.

Besides, you save money, they also last a lot longer. It's just common sense to use these energy saving bulbs, filament bulbs are being made pretty much useless. We're moving on.

 

[Keef]

You know what I do with energy saving bulbs? I buy them specifically so I can leave them on all night. To avoid being immature I'll avoid the American/fat/cheeseburger/wasteful joke I desperately want to make, and just say that since they use so little energy they make great night lights.

But I don't leave incandescents on all night. Gotta keep an eye on that electricity, man!

 

[Omnis]

Can you elaborate this more please?

FoolKiller has given that whole deal its due in one of these threads. I don't care to go over it again here because you'll find it gone over ad nauseum in the other threads.

 

[the Interceptor]

Also, one should consider that ESLs are much more polluting when being made and when being disposed of. Also, they tend to suffer more from frequent power ups/downs than classical light bulbs. Thus, there are places where the latter makes more sense, such as in a larder, where it only runs for a few seconds each day. A light bulb may live for decades here, where as an ESL will only be a waste and likely not better for the environment in the long run.

 

[Jay]

Also, one should consider that ESLs are much more polluting when being made and when being disposed of.

Yep, due to the mercury we have to dispose of them by taking them to a special bin our local council will provide (probably by the council building), not allowed to throw them in the trash..... yeah... right, I bet 95% of them will be thrown in the trash anyway.

 

[Max Powers]

I'm damn proud to have the right to watch my obnoxiously big and energy wasting tv and use old fashioned non fluorescent light bulbs as much as I want. I'm the one paying the electric bill, the Govt. has absolutely no business in any of these matters.

 

[Sureboss]

Well, er, it does. Look at all the "green" measures being passed across the worlds governments.

 

[Vasco]

Can we please keep this thread serious as long as possible? I would be glad if we can make this a substantial discussion instead of rendering it the ridiculous internet argument it can become so quickly.

To be honest, you really shouldn't try to argue with some of these guys. They like to think they know all about economics and are the only ones who know the "true" cause of the GFC.

I can't believe some of you are against improving energy efficiency of TVs? Creating better industry standards sounds like a great idea.

 

[Max Powers]

Er, I never said I was against improving televisions and such, I'm just against the government telling me what kind of light bulbs or television I have to own. It has very little to do with going green. There is a pretty clear difference, you're going down a slippery slope when your government is deciding something as trivial as what kind of light bulbs you are using.

 

[Sureboss]

But it's not trivial if it cuts down power consumption, which is pretty important for all government agendas.

 

[the Interceptor]

Er, I never said I was against improving televisions and such, I'm just against the government telling me what kind of light bulbs or television I have to own. It has very little to do with going green. There is a pretty clear difference, you're going down a slippery slope when your government is deciding something as trivial as what kind of light bulbs you are using.

Problem is that seemingly, virtually no customer decides which TV to get according to its energy consumption in California. So having the end-user sort it out by his wallet is pointless, since his decisions play no role in reducing overall energy consumption. So given the state wants to reduce unnecessarily comsumed energy, they will have to do things such as this one.

Furthermore, the goverment will not tell you which TV to get. They will, given they will pull this through, set a standard for maximum power consumption which manufacturers will have to meet with their products from a certain point in the future. That means that any TV you will be able to buy will use less power and thus save you money.

Like I said earlier, I am with you on the bulb thing however, that's just stupid.

 

[Tornado]

But it's not trivial if it cuts down power consumption, which is pretty important for all government agendas.

It is trivial when the tiny amount of saved energy proceeds to be wasted because you need specialized disposal facilities to get rid of them, making the huge assumption that people won't just throw the damn things out anyways. Even ignoring that the savings themselves are undermined by the compromises that incandescent lights have in comparison. Quite frankly, efficiency laws like the EU filament ban reek of the same idiotic smugness environmentalism that is becoming all too common in politics.

To be honest, you really shouldn't try to argue with some of these guys. They like to think they know all about economics and are the only ones who know the "true" cause of the GFC.

I can't believe some of you are against improving energy efficiency of TVs? Creating better industry standards sounds like a great idea.

I can't believe you came into this thread to chew out people with a differing opinion than you on an unrelated matter.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Not impossible, but unlikely. Said loudspeaker manufacturer has become virtually unparalleled in its market share because of said dumping prices. A serious competitor would have to go the same low-price/low-quality way to be at least considered to be an alternative. To actually compete, they'd have to go even lower. But where does that take us? To what (low) quality levels should companies bring their goods in order to get their piece of the cake?

Well the other company can out-price them or provide higher quality with a higher price. If they aim for quality, they will most likely have a higher profit margin so they don't need to sell as much as the cheap company.

I can't believe some of you are against improving energy efficiency of TVs? Creating better industry standards sounds like a great idea.

If people don't want inefficient TVs, they won't buy them. Plus the benefits most likely won't outweigh the costs.

Problem is that seemingly, virtually no customer decides which TV to get according to its energy consumption in California.

That's because energy consumption isn't that important, so why should the government decide for the consumer.

 

[the Interceptor]

That's because energy consumption isn't that important, so why should the government decide for the consumer.

In the end, this is a(n important) question of the individual point of view. Does the fact that we live in countries where we have access to energy for very little money mean that we may waste as much as we like of it as long as we pay for that? How about water? Would it be okay to let my faucet run 24/7 because I can afford it?

Energy is a limited good, which means that noone should feel free to waste any. So if the government implements a law that makes TV manufacturers make better, energy-saving devices (with technology which is available anyway, so the goals to be achieved can be met with ease), I don't see how this would be of any disadvantage to me as a customer.

 

[Sureboss]

It is trivial when the tiny amount of saved energy proceeds to be wasted because you need specialized disposal facilities to get rid of them, making the huge assumption that people won't just throw the damn things out anyways. Even ignoring that the savings themselves are undermined by the compromises that incandescent lights have in comparison. Quite frankly, efficiency laws like the EU filament ban reek of the same idiotic smugness environmentalism that is becoming all too common in politics.


I can't believe you came into this thread to chew out people with a differing opinion than you on an unrelated matter.

If you can cut the consumption of all light bulbs by at least a quarter, I don't think that is trivial, or that the energy needed to dispose of them would overcome that difference.

 

[Tornado]

If you can cut the consumption of all light bulbs by at least a quarter, I don't think that is trivial, or that the energy needed to dispose of them would overcome that difference.

It is trivial because it looks at an agitator and calls it the root problem. If my car uses the souls of orphans (or something equally awful) to run, making my car have more range doesn't make the problem (orphan fuel) go away.


The problem with the concept of "wasting energy because we can is wrong" is that there is a greater picture to it that environmental laws and most proponents of them almost always ignore or don't think about. Sure, maybe one could say that wasting energy just because one wants to is bad (though the water analogy doesn't apply because energy is not a limited good, so that really cannot be proven). What one could not say, and what laws like those in the OP and that idiotic EU ban say anyways, is that wasting energy is damaging to the environment. And the issue is that most of these laws surrounding the issue act as if it is energy waste that is the problem because it is damaging to the environment.


If every lightbulb in my house is a 100 watt filament bulb that is left on all the time, but I get the energy my house runs off of from solar panels on my roof or a windmill in my yard, then who cares? The energy creation process is the problem that damages the environment. Energy waste just makes the problem worse. It is not a problem by itself, and if energy production was more green it wouldn't be a problem at all.

On top of that is the issues of whether the government has any right to impose a will against what the people actually cares about just because they can, but that is an issue I'd rather not drag out.

 

[the Interceptor]

If you can cut the consumption of all light bulbs by at least a quarter, I don't think that is trivial, or that the energy needed to dispose of them would overcome that difference.

Well, that depends. The only intervention a government should apply in this matter should be educating people about the differences/advantages. And if they want people to use them, they might try bonus programs.

... though the water analogy doesn't apply because energy is not a limited good, so that really cannot be proven ...

Since all major ways of producing energy we use to this day depend on finite fuels, energy is a limited good. Technically, the whole earth could be fueled by solar power and thus get an endless supply, but we're not there yet.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Energy is a limited good, which means that noone should feel free to waste any. So if the government implements a law that makes TV manufacturers make better, energy-saving devices (with technology which is available anyway, so the goals to be achieved can be met with ease), I don't see how this would be of any disadvantage to me as a customer.

You pay more for the TV or get cheaper quality.

If it was cheap to make them more efficient, then I'm sure more efficient TVs would already be out there. Plus it's not like consumers don't have a choice. TVs are made by different companies using different technologies.

 

[Keef]

I'm damn proud to have the right to watch my obnoxiously big and energy wasting tv and use old fashioned non fluorescent light bulbs as much as I want. I'm the one paying the electric bill, the Govt. has absolutely no business in any of these matters.

👍

Well, er, it does. Look at all the "green" measures being passed across the worlds governments.

None of this green crap should ever have anything to do with the government. They should not be allowed to pass these regulations, and if our US government abided by the Constitution they wouldn't. But they have a blatant disregard for our country's rules, and so they do it anyway.

Er, I never said I was against improving televisions and such, I'm just against the government telling me what kind of light bulbs or television I have to own. It has very little to do with going green. There is a pretty clear difference, you're going down a slippery slope when your government is deciding something as trivial as what kind of light bulbs you are using.

The problem is that penny loafers have no grip on a slippery slope, so they just slide right into their government's trap. Ya'll need ta git you some steel toe boots, ya hear, so you cin kick 'em in the shins.

But it's not trivial if it cuts down power consumption, which is pretty important for all government agendas.

Cutting down power consumption is only important to my wallet, because I'm the one who pays for it. Power companies innovate on their own without any government intervention, and they do that based on their own interest in the company's longevity, and on consumer demands. There is absolutely no need for government intervention. The free market works, why do you people refuse to understand this?

Problem is that seemingly, virtually no customer decides which TV to get according to its energy consumption in California. So having the end-user sort it out by his wallet is pointless, since his decisions play no role in reducing overall energy consumption. So given the state wants to reduce unnecessarily comsumed energy, they will have to do things such as this one.

If the State wants to reduce energy usage they could start advertising, handing out information, and that kind of stuff. But they should never be allowed to pass regulations which force companies and consumers, directly or indirectly, to change their ways.

Furthermore, the goverment will not tell you which TV to get. They will, given they will pull this through, set a standard for maximum power consumption which manufacturers will have to meet with their products from a certain point in the future. That means that any TV you will be able to buy will use less power and thus save you money.

Like I said earlier, I am with you on the bulb thing however, that's just stupid.

The bulb thing, yeah. You're not realizing that the TV thing is exactly like the bulb thing. They're outlawing one thing that they feel uses too much energy, and forcing companies to make and you to buy a different thing that uses less energy. They are exactly the same scenarios, just with different products. So why is one okay when the other isn't?

I'm no shining star of morality, and I realize my principles are flawed, but I'm working on it. Even so, it confuses me how you can think that one of these situations is okay and the other is wrong. They're the same damn scenario. Talk about a lack of principle, jeez.

 

[wfooshee]

The main problem with the government telling us how we can do things is that the government, whoever they are, does not understand the thing they're regulating 99% of the time. The politicians want to be seen doing something positive: anything, actually, as long as it's perceived as positive.

Rather like a certain presidential candidate promising "change," with the implication that such change has to be better, it can't be any worse. Hmmm......

Case in point. Last year a ban went into effect for children's products that contain lead. Sounds positive, has to be a good idea, right? No more of these cheap Chinese dolls with lead paint slathered all over them. But nobody thought to make that ban on lead limited to lead that was actually accessible to the children. As such, youngsters could no longer get a dirt bike, or even parts for old dirt bikes. The batteries have lead in them. Doesn't matter that at no time in history has a child ever poisoned himself by eating a motorcycle battery, it has lead and it's got to go.

Worse yet, if a part is shared with a child-size motorcycle and a full-size motorcycle, such as a brake lever, shifter pedal, or even a special fastener, it can no longer be sold to anyone, simply because it's a part for use on a lead-containing "toy."

Worst yet, dealer stock of these items could not be returned to the manufacturer, it is supposed to be destroyed. All those Chinese lead-painted dolls have to be burned and displosed of in some environmentally safe manner, but so do millions of dollars worth of dealer inventory of "children's" motorcycles.

Is any of that reasonable? Is any of it even remotely acceptable? That kind of crap is what happens when government regulates technology for political rather than scientific reasons.

As it happens, the agency responsible for enforcement has stated emphatically that it will not enforce the lead ban in such youth equipment until some sort of clarification, rewrite, or such is issued.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

I heard it also affected the tires for bikes.

 

[Sureboss]

Cutting down power consumption is only important to my wallet, because I'm the one who pays for it. Power companies innovate on their own without any government intervention, and they do that based on their own interest in the company's longevity, and on consumer demands. There is absolutely no need for government intervention. The free market works, why do you people refuse to understand this?

Like it or lump it we live in a world where political changes are happening because of fears over energy usage. This isn't about your money, this is about governments trying to reach targets of "we'll reduce CO2 emissions by x". The point I've been trying to make, isn't really around money, it's about cutting down power consumption.

 

[Keef]

Like it or lump it we live in a world where political changes are happening because of fears over energy usage. This isn't about your money, this is about governments trying to reach targets of "we'll reduce CO2 emissions by x". The point I've been trying to make, isn't really around money, it's about cutting down power consumption.

Abd all points eventually return to money. The government wants to control your money, and you want to let them. Everything governments do have an eventual goal: total power. It has happened countless times throughout history, and you're falling for it just like the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Persians, the Romans, The Germans, the Russians, etc. Now, tell me, are any of those empires still around? Why not?

 

[Sureboss]

Are you that paranoid and insecure?

 

[Vasco]

If people don't want inefficient TVs, they won't buy them. Plus the benefits most likely won't outweigh the costs.

You're making an important assumption here, that all consumers are smart and take into account the environmental impact of their purchases and that the market is environmentally efficient. This is simply not the case.

I'm pretty sure the article states that even an industry rep says it will be easy to comply with the new standards with no significant increase in cost.

Also Toronado this became about economics when Keef and Omnis went on their "free market is the best, government is trying to control us all" rant.

 

[Keef]

No, I'm not paranoid and insecure at all. I'm being realistic. I'm actually trying my best to understand how you Brits can care so little about your own future. It blows my mind how you're entirely content with somebody else making all your decisions for you. There are a few notable members on here that have a surprisingly "American" (by that I mean free, and not that only Americans support it, but this country at least used to be a classic example) philosophy on how things should work, but the rest of you can't be bothered to care in the slightest. It's like the government is your God, and you do as you're told. Eventually you'll realize how important those incandescent light bulbs were to your freedom as not even citizens of a country, but as people at all.

 

[buickgnx88]

Thing is though, if this basically meant that all new TVs must be power efficient, then I don't see a problem so long as the prices don't increase in reflection of the change. The real question is whether they will force people to replace their inefficient televisions.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

You're making an important assumption here, that all consumers are smart and take into account the environmental impact of their purchases and that the market is environmentally efficient. This is simply not the case.

You're also assuming that politicians are smart. And TV manufacturers have been working on using LEDs in TVs for years, so I don't see the need for state intervention. And people might want to sacrifice some efficiency for perhaps picture quality.

I'm pretty sure the article states that even an industry rep says it will be easy to comply with the new standards with no significant increase in cost.

I'm a bit sketchy about that since it was only one company and that thing about LEDs above.

 

[Keef]

then I don't see a problem so long as the prices don't increase in reflection of the change.

This is the reason these useless bans keep getting enacted. Because people "don't see a problem". How many times now has Foolkiller written speaches about erosion of rights? Apparently not enough, because it hasn't soaked in yet.

EDIT:

The main problem with the government telling us how we can do things is that the government, whoever they are, does not understand the thing they're regulating 99% of the time. The politicians want to be seen doing something positive: anything, actually, as long as it's perceived as positive.

Rather like a certain presidential candidate promising "change," with the implication that such change has to be better, it can't be any worse. Hmmm......

Case in point. Last year a ban went into effect for children's products that contain lead. Sounds positive, has to be a good idea, right? No more of these cheap Chinese dolls with lead paint slathered all over them. But nobody thought to make that ban on lead limited to lead that was actually accessible to the children. As such, youngsters could no longer get a dirt bike, or even parts for old dirt bikes. The batteries have lead in them. Doesn't matter that at no time in history has a child ever poisoned himself by eating a motorcycle battery, it has lead and it's got to go.

Worse yet, if a part is shared with a child-size motorcycle and a full-size motorcycle, such as a brake lever, shifter pedal, or even a special fastener, it can no longer be sold to anyone, simply because it's a part for use on a lead-containing "toy."

Worst yet, dealer stock of these items could not be returned to the manufacturer, it is supposed to be destroyed. All those Chinese lead-painted dolls have to be burned and displosed of in some environmentally safe manner, but so do millions of dollars worth of dealer inventory of "children's" motorcycles.

Is any of that reasonable? Is any of it even remotely acceptable? That kind of crap is what happens when government regulates technology for political rather than scientific reasons.

As it happens, the agency responsible for enforcement has stated emphatically that it will not enforce the lead ban in such youth equipment until some sort of clarification, rewrite, or such is issued.

Sorry I missed this post wfooshee. You make very good points about the hidden costs of these unnecessary bans on businesses and consumers.