But will anyone benefit from having a broader choice of televisions, given that the plan of the Commission will actually decrease the number of TVs on offer?
Yes. Here's why.
1) Human rights would remain intact
2) If the TV is being offered and selling (ie: continues to be offered), it means there is a market for it. In otherwords, some people prefer it and think they benefit from the sale.
3) Consumer choice is good.
I'll give you an example of how this might work. Let's imagine for a moment that the projected reduction in pollution that this legislation would achieve is 1 unit of pollution. And let's imagine that it is 1 unit of pollution that we wish to save. If, instead of going after televisions, the government imposed a cap on pollution that required power companies to reduce their pollution by 1 unit, the end result would be higher electrical costs. The increase in cost is either used to help reduce consumption, improve processes, or, more likely, a combination of both designed to achieve an overall decrease in pollution of 1 unit.
The increased cost is then transferred to consumers. Some consumers may choose to spend more money. Others will choose to reduce their electrical consumption. If they choose to reduce their electrical consumption they'll likely do it in the least painful way to them. For some, this might mean buying a more efficient television. For others, this means adjusting their thermostat, replacing light bulbs with more efficient ones, installing an attic fan, insulating the house, or turning off lights or idle computers.
The idea is to send a signal to all consumers that saving electricity is a good thing. Of course part of that signal is currently being sent, but there is no better way to send it than directly. People respond to incentives. The more their electricity costs, the less they will use. At some point, this may require that they have enough solar panels to power everything on their own - but the cost/demand relationship will remain.
This is the most efficient way to reduce pollution. Go directly to the source and send the appropriate signal to consumers. Beating around the bush by restricting trade not only violates human rights, but it's also highly ineffective at conveying the intended message or achieving the desired effect. Furthermore, it increases legal compliance costs on companies that are completely unrelated to the creation of pollution. This artificially raises the price of their goods and hampers the economy. Beyond that, it discourages companies from entering the market - which results in a further reduction of choice and competition while raising prices.
