California considers ban on big screen TVs

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Didn't we already have this argument with the auto industry 10 years ago?

"NO DONT MAKE US CHANGE! WE'LL DO IT WHEN WE DAMN WELL PLEASE"
Fast Forward 10 years...
"WE'VE FALLEN BEHIND! HELP!"

If the government can push to have my choice in televisions be more energy efficient I'm all behind it. Too often there simply isn't choice in the marketplace available. The TV companies will try to undersell eachother and cut a little extra profit wherever possible. That's the nature of business. Save $1 to undersell the other guy by a $1. But then the cost to the consumer is $30. People usually don't think ahead. They don't have the data accessible to make an informed decision. So they naturally make the best decision for themselves. Everyone does what's best for themselves and society as a whole pays.

 

[Brandon Fraley]

Didn't we already have this argument with the auto industry 10 years ago?

"NO DONT MAKE US CHANGE! WE'LL DO IT WHEN WE DAMN WELL PLEASE"
Fast Forward 10 years...
"WE'VE FALLEN BEHIND! HELP!"

If the government can push to have my choice in televisions be more energy efficient I'm all behind it.

I personally agree with this 100%. People are usually good natured, but often need a little prodding.

For me the issue with this proposal is whether or not something should be banned. It's my opinion that very few things in the world should ever be banned, and a television is certainly not anywhere near the top of that list. I'd rather they instate an energy hog tax for TV's that don't meet the new requirements. That way people can still have their TV if they want it so badly and government gets more money to for green tech.

The TVs they're talking about banning are big, expensive sets anyway. The people buying 60" Kuros can afford put up a little extra for their added energy waste.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Right I would be more than happy if they could put a financial cost onto it. I think they should charge a little extra based on gas mileage and weight as well. Put a tangible cost onto vehicles that cause more roadwear and pollution.

I think it is important too to not ban something outright. After all if I drove a hummer to work every day I would burn less gas than most people driving a prius to work since I live so close. If you live 40 miles from work and drive a Toyota Echo or I drive 4 miles to work and drive a hummer my hummer can get 1/10th the gas mileage and still come out even on 'daily burned'.

Similarly with my TV. I might have a 52" TV... but I also use almost no other electricity. I have a really small apartment. I don't have AC and I don't use my heat except to stay above 60*. But I would be happy to get a more energy efficient TV if it were available and I could determine which one to buy. I actually asked the sales rep and he had no information for me. I was less concerned about electricity use than heat. A big screen TV in my apartment without AC means I'm boiling during a hot summer day. My old CRT rear projection TV would raise the temperature of a room 10 degrees. My new LCD uses a fraction of that.

And all of this is assuming the bill is even real this time unlike the last one for "black cars" that nobody had any intention of actually advancing or supporting. But even let me ask you this: in regards to the black cars. If there was a coating which looked the same, cost another $50 per car but would make up the cost over the life of car in gas mileage I would be more than happy to require the more energy efficient coating.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I have to say that I'm not a fan of energy taxes on individual items. Power is regulated and metered. You use more, you pay more, simple. Trying to micro-manage taxes and energy costs by imposing taxes to individual consumer items is just plain stupid. How is that fair that they put a tax on a larger TV and yet not on a cappuccino maker that may actually see more use and draw more power over the course of a year in someone's home? I'm at home right now and typing this message on a computer that sucks up more power than my 70" HDTV.

That said, I'm all for tougher restrictions and requirements for new TVs entering the market. The more efficiently a product can power itself, the better.

In the end it all comes back to affordable energy and the desire to have clean ways to produce it. I don't see financial restrictions or bans on token items having any real effect on overall energy usage, nor is it a good solution for our economy or long-term energy requirements.

What the power companies need to do is charge increasingly higher rates with higher consumption to help fund new power plants. Oh, wait a minute... They already do that.. So what's the problem? Real problem is that no one wants new power plants. Everyone wants clean power in the form of wind and solar and even then no one actually wants to chew up 20 acres of desert for a new solar farm that can only generate power 10 to 14 hours a day, depending on the time of year. And wind power is great... when the wind blows. It's not a sustainable source, just something that can take the load off the primary production facilities when mother nature cooperates.

Anyway, this discussion is really drifting OT now...

And a 60" Kuro uses less power than a 42" PX50 from 3 years ago. Not to mention it's about the same price as the 42" was back then, too. I don't go in for the "people who can afford to buy X shouldn't have any problem with paying a bit extra Y" stuff. That is a terrible approach that makes the blind assumption that everyone subscribes to the same financial practices. So we should penalize Mr. Joe ApartmentDweller, who is an avid movie watcher, for buying a 65" plasma TV? When Mr. Bob Billionaire could "afford it" and yet he steps down to the 46" LCD just so he doesn't have to pay the extra tax...

 

[Justin Anderson]

Didn't we already have this argument with the auto industry 10 years ago?

"NO DONT MAKE US CHANGE! WE'LL DO IT WHEN WE DAMN WELL PLEASE"
Fast Forward 10 years...
"WE'VE FALLEN BEHIND! HELP!"

If the government can push to have my choice in televisions be more energy efficient I'm all behind it. Too often there simply isn't choice in the marketplace available. The TV companies will try to undersell eachother and cut a little extra profit wherever possible. That's the nature of business. Save $1 to undersell the other guy by a $1. But then the cost to the consumer is $30. People usually don't think ahead. They don't have the data accessible to make an informed decision. So they naturally make the best decision for themselves. Everyone does what's best for themselves and society as a whole pays.

Completely agree with this, and I second Brandon's idea on high taxation rather than banning.

 

[Tom Lowe]

What's next? The new gaming PCs have 1000 watt power units. Will gamers be next to get hit these suggested punishing taxes? Should the government tell Nvidia to stop producing more powerful video cards? Intel? Should HD video producers be penalized?

Why not tax cheeseburgers, since they are fueling runaway healthcare costs? Will we see a pizza tax?

This is all nonsense, IMO. If the government wants to do something about energy, start building alternative energy projects with the tens of billions they are spending. California is a mecca of wind and sun.

 

[Brandon Fraley]

Anyway, this discussion is really drifting OT now...

I don't believe so, seems we're still discussing the topic.

And a 60" Kuro uses less power than a 42" PX50 from 3 years ago. Not to mention it's about the same price as the 42" was back then, too. I don't go in for the "people who can afford to buy X shouldn't have any problem with paying a bit extra Y" stuff. That is a terrible approach that makes the blind assumption that everyone subscribes to the same financial practices. So we should penalize Mr. Joe ApartmentDweller, who is an avid movie watcher, for buying a 65" plasma TV? When Mr. Bob Billionaire could "afford it" and yet he steps down to the 46" LCD just so he doesn't have to pay the extra tax...

The Kuro may use less power than the PX50, but they don't sell the PX50 anymore. Manufacturers have moved on to bigger and better (and more efficient) sets.

And lets not confuse my argument. Mr Joe Apartmendweller isn't being penalized because he's an avid movie watcher. He's being penalized for specifically choosing a very polluting set. No one thinks that he can't watch his Blu rays on a very nice 42" LCD and still really enjoy it. And the point of this is that if the tax does indeed dissuade the purchase of tvs, it will encourage further competition in manufacturers to make better, cheaper, and much greener products. Makes more sense than a ban to me.

 

[Brandon Fraley]

What's next? The new gaming PCs have 1000 watt power units. Will gamers be next to get hit these suggested punishing taxes?

Just hypothetically, why shouldn't they? Remember again that the reason this ban is being discussed is because some TVs are significantly less efficient than others, and the government wants to require the energy hogs to start to get their act together like the other tv companies.

And remember we're talking about luxuries here people. I just read somewhere that the average TV in america is twice the size that it was 5 years ago. Only 5 years. and it's true! 5 years ago the largest set in my house was 32", and now we have a 60" panny. And I often sit there and go "you know, it would be nice if it was just a little bigger..." lol wtf? access to a monster energy hog TV should not be an entitlement, especially if there are comparable, more efficient alternatives.

And finally, just a reminder that the tax argument was in reaction to the proposed ban. I don't think you should ban anything, art, guns, drugs, or TVs.

Why not tax cheeseburgers, since they are fueling runaway healthcare costs? Will we see a pizza tax?

Personally I wish they would, cheeseburgers are certainly a bigger problem for this country than plasma screens.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Just hypothetically, why shouldn't they? Remember again that the reason this ban is being discussed is because some TVs are significantly less efficient than others, and the government wants to require the energy hogs to start to get their act together like the other tv companies.

And remember we're talking about luxuries here people.

Having a computer with a 1000-watt power supply and power-hungry graphics cards is not a luxury for HD videos producers like most of us here. It's a necessary tool to do our jobs. And these PCs and Macs draw far more power than the TVs that are proposed to be banned. So will SLI video cards be banned next? Where does it end?

Personally I wish they would, cheeseburgers are certainly a bigger problem for this country than plasma screens.

What's next? Pasta? Maybe some clown in Sacramento or DC should decide if Pasta should be banned next? Or perhaps pasta with Alfredo sauce should be banned or hit with punishing taxes? Who decides? Alfredo sauce is certainly as dangerous to our arteries as the average hamburger. Is the government going to decide that pasta with Alfredo should be banned or taxed, but not pasta with Marinara sauce??

Haha, I mean, it's all a bunch of nonsense!

Like I said, instead of trying to police our living rooms and TV sets, maybe they should be doing the job we elected them to do and make sure we have clean energy to power our computers, cars and yes... even our HDTVs! :thumbsup:

 

[Brandon Fraley]

Having a computer with a 1000-watt power supply and power-hungry graphics cards is not a luxury for HD videos producers like most of us here. It's a necessary tool to do our jobs. And these PCs and Macs draw far more power than the TVs that are proposed to be banned. So will SLI video cards be banned next? Where does it end?

Again, I don't think anything should be banned. However, you've changed your example. You originally cited gaming PCs as your example which yes I would consider a luxury. If your an HD producer than logic would suggest you'd be able to write off the purchase of such a workstation or graphics card.

What's next? Pasta? Maybe some clown in Sacramento or DC should decide if Pasta should be banned next? Or perhaps pasta with Alfredo sauce should be banned or hit with punishing taxes? Who decides? Alfredo sauce is certainly as dangerous to our arteries as the average hamburger. Is the government going to decide that pasta with Alfredo should be banned or taxed, but not pasta with Marinara sauce??

Again, I feel you've swapped out examples. I was responding to your example of cheeseburgers. I would think McDonalds is responsible for more pollution and medical costs than the tobacco industry. Again, not suggesting a ban, but at least an additional tax for all the methane thats destroying the ozone over cattle factories in the midwest. Hell, if we just knocked off the corn subsidies it would have an encouraging effect on the fast food industry to find other healthier ways to make profits.

Tom, you're absolutely right, it's never going to happen and I think i'm in the minority on this. Just participating in the discussion

 

[Tom Lowe]

Again, I feel you've swapped out examples. I was responding to your example of cheeseburgers. I would think McDonalds is responsible for more pollution and medical costs than the tobacco industry. Again, not suggesting a ban, but at least an additional tax for all the methane thats destroying the ozone over cattle factories in the midwest.

What about Olive Garden?? Or Morton's Steak House?? My point is, once you start down the path of nonsense, it never ends.

Hell, if we just knocked off the corn subsidies it would have an encouraging effect on the fast food industry to find other healthier ways to make profits.

I agree! You've nailed an example of government "good" that actually does harm.

Anyway, we better cool it with the political talk or this thread will be locked! :head_explode::head_explode::head_explode:

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

The political talk? That was the topic.

It's not a question of "banning" this or that. It's a question of "when there is an alternative of equal or near equal value with similar costs to ban the inefficient system.

Capitalism only works when the costs are recognized and accounted for. It fails in the margins where there is no pressure.

Nvidia wouldn't be banned from selling a 1,000 watt video card. They would be banned from using a power supply though that was 30% efficient instead of 60% efficient but $10 more.

Customers won't know that two identical systems draw different amounts of power unless the product is marked as such. So they see a $10 price difference and the individual makes the correct market decision to buy the cheaper but identical model.

Washington State just passed a very smart law. They aren't taxing fat... they're mandating its display in all restaurants who can financially measure it.

So you go to McDonalds and you can see the calories right there on the giant picture menu. Suddenly you see the "Salad" which has 4x the calories of a Big Mac and you feel guilty/educated.

 

[Brandon Fraley]

The political talk? That was the topic.

lol true. Yeah, i agree this kind of discussion can get out of hand, but I think all the participants have been level headed and are just enjoying the discussion. No flames fired. I see no need to lock the thread.