Your toilet, your light bulbs, and now ... your TV?

[jimpeel]

This could be the last straw that starts the revolution. They can tell you what kind of toilet you can shit in. They can tell you what type of light bulbs you can screw into your fixtures. But when they start telling people what kind of TV they can own well, that is just taking this too far. We want our Judge Judy and Maury! Grab the pitchforks and torches!

SOURCE

Calif. Considers Ban on Big Screen TVs
Ban would prohibit retailers from selling non-energy efficient models.

March 25, 2009 | by Chuck McKenney

Lawmakers in California are exploring all avenues for cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Even your TV isn’t off limits.

The California Energy Commission is considering a proposal that would ban in state retailers from selling all but the most energy-efficient televisions, reports the Orange County Register.

The CEA believes the ban could take 25-percent of televisions off the market. It would affect most TVs 40-inches and larger.

“The larger the television, the more at risk it is of being banned unnecessarily in California,” Douglas Johnson, senior director of technology police for the Consumer Electronics Association tells the OC Register.

Has California’s Energy Commission heard of the fed’s Energy Star specification? Not to mention, the number of flat-panel TVs with green features is growing at a rapid rate.

Research shows 20 percent of flat-panel shipments in 2008 had green features, and this number is expected to soar to 70 percent by 2012.

But according to the OC Register, TVs are an energy problem:

Televisions are the fastest growing consumer appliance in California. Californians are buying bigger TVs, and more of them. If something doesn’t happen, televisions are going to devour a bigger and bigger piece of the state’s power grid, which means we’ll need more power plants. More power plants mean more greenhouse gas emissions.

The commission is spinning this to the public as a way to save money. They estimate buying an energy efficient TV can save you $18 to $30 per year.

Those in the know expect the regulations to be approved this summer.

Via: Engadget, OC Register

 

[H2O boy]

They estimate buying an energy efficient TV can save you $18 to $30 per year.

really? wow. imagine how far all that moey would go. why, that'd put a real dent in a persons tax bill...

 

[jimpeel]

And, at $18 to $30 per year, what is the ROI between the TV you got compared to the one you wanted?

 

[valkyrie]

JP, do you have a job? I mean, other than posting ignorant, reactionary, conspiracy theory threads at this site...

Just curious.

 

[BlurOfSerenity]

fuck the enviromnent, i want my huge tv so i can overstimulate my mind even more!

 

[Inkara1]

I think the headline in your article is misleading.

Also... I don't think only allowing energy-star large-screens to be sold in the state is "limiting freedom" in the same way that banning incandescent bulbs is. For the end user, the only difference in an energy-star and non-energy-star TV is a logo on the box, maybe a few extra dollars spent at Best Buy and a few dollars saved on the PG&E bill. But for CFL bulbs vs. incandescent bulbs, the type of lighting is different, the only way to get dimmable or three-way CFLs is to spend beaucoup bucks, CFLs have issues with disposal, and so on.

As for toilets... San Luis Obispo is notoriously liberal about these kinds of things, and my toilet, which by city ordinance had to be certified as low-flow before the sale of my mobile home could be completed, does a great job of getting all the crap down the chute on the first try. In fact, of all the toilets I've used in my life enough times to have a sample size, it's one of the best, if not the best, at getting everything down in one flush. That means I'm not sacrificing flush performance by having a low-flow toilet instead of one that uses three gallons per flush. I have a hard time seeing the fact that only low-flow toilets can be sold in stores here as limiting freedom, also.

Do you consider the regulation requiring positive crankcase ventilation on a car to be limiting freedom as well?

 

[jimpeel]

JP, do you have a job? I mean, other than posting ignorant, reactionary, conspiracy theory threads at this site...

Just curious.

How is proposed legislation a conspiracy; and how is an actual bill being proposed and written a theory?

How is a legitimate consumer electronics publication, published throughout the United States, a conspiracy site?

How is a legitimate newspaper, the Orange County (CA) Register, which has some of the widest circulation in CA some kind of conspiracy site for printing the actual news? They have printed three stories since 3/23/09 on this subject. LINK --- LINK --- LINK

You really need to learn the difference between a conspiracy and a news story, a fact and a theory, and a legitimate news outlet and a conspiracy site.

 

[jimpeel]

I think the headline in your article is misleading.

Also... I don't think only allowing energy-star large-screens to be sold in the state is "limiting freedom" in the same way that banning incandescent bulbs is. For the end user, the only difference in an energy-star and non-energy-star TV is a logo on the box, maybe a few extra dollars spent at Best Buy and a few dollars saved on the PG&E bill. But for CFL bulbs vs. incandescent bulbs, the type of lighting is different, the only way to get dimmable or three-way CFLs is to spend beaucoup bucks, CFLs have issues with disposal, and so on.

As for toilets... San Luis Obispo is notoriously liberal about these kinds of things, and my toilet, which by city ordinance had to be certified as low-flow before the sale of my mobile home could be completed, does a great job of getting all the crap down the chute on the first try. In fact, of all the toilets I've used in my life enough times to have a sample size, it's one of the best, if not the best, at getting everything down in one flush. That means I'm not sacrificing flush performance by having a low-flow toilet instead of one that uses three gallons per flush. I have a hard time seeing the fact that only low-flow toilets can be sold in stores here as limiting freedom, also.

Any time you limit choice you limit freedom. You apparently don't know the power the California Energy Commission has in that state.

Do you consider the regulation requiring positive crankcase ventilation on a car to be limiting freedom as well?

The PCV valve does nothing more than suck the oil and fuel fumes from the crankcase the way the old pitot tube method did. The only difference is that with the closed crankcase system the fumes are routed through the combustion chambers and the system works while the vehicle is standing still. The pitot tube system depended on the forward motion of the vehicle to work. The system is passive and does not threaten anyone's freedom.

 

[spike]

How is a legitimate newspaper, the Orange County (CA) Register, which has some of the widest circulation in CA some kind of conspiracy site for printing the actual news? They have printed three stories since 3/23/09 on this subject. LINK --- LINK --- LINK

Jim really, could you please quit linking us to blogs?

 

[valkyrie]

Fucking hilarious. Really. I'm about to piss myself I'm laughing so hard.

 

[randomJACKASS]

God damn it, now here even Jim is WRONG! I DEMAND the freedom to buy a vehicle that has no PCV valve (another part to by when it breaks). I DEMAND the right to a vehicle that spits ALL of it's emissions out of the tailpipe. Environmentalism is just a myth, perpetrated on you to make money folks! The earth can take whatever we can dish out to her! God made it that way for us to use as we see fit! If you don't like it, you are probably going to hell anyway. If the Earth ever gets tired of you namby-pamby sissy hippie environmentalist fucks, The good Lord will just call up the Rupture to happen and assume all of us good white God a fearin' folks into heaven, while he annihilates the rest of you sinner fucks, and then puts us back down here to make the Earth what it was meant to be, a very large Bible camp that runs 24/7 365!

Praise freakin' JEEEEBUSSS! and pass the ammo!

 

[Cerise]

really? wow. imagine how far all that moey would go. why, that'd put a real dent in a persons tax bill...

The majority of the 0bots don't pay any taxes.

 

[spike]

They pay more taxes than the Bushbots.

 

[valkyrie]

When I read that "obots" statement... all I could think of was...

The "Oh Face".

 

[Inkara1]

The PCV valve does nothing more than suck the oil and fuel fumes from the crankcase the way the old pitot tube method did. The only difference is that with the closed crankcase system the fumes are routed through the combustion chambers and the system works while the vehicle is standing still. The pitot tube system depended on the forward motion of the vehicle to work. The system is passive and does not threaten anyone's freedom.

Now you're just being obtuse and making conservatives look bad. Also, I'm very familiar with how cars work, so feel free to stop patronizing me. kthnx.

You yourself said any time you limit choice, you limit freedom. The PCV valve adds cost compared to the road draft tube, both initially and in maintenance. Requiring a large TV to be Energy Star-compliant adds cost initially (although not in maintenance). The driver of the car won't notice the difference between an engine with a PCV valve and an engine with a road draft tube. The watcher of the TV won't notice a difference between an Energy Star TV and a non-Energy Star TV. An engine with a PCV valve routes the crankcase gases into the combustion chamber, where they are burned, resulting in improved emissions and thus less smog. An Energy Star-compliant TV uses less electricity, thus making the power plant burn a little less coal. But Energy Star adds cost to the item, and a PCV valve adds cost to a car. Because the PCV valve is mandatory, you're forced by law to pay more for your car.

Therefore, if you're against requiring a large TV to be more energy efficient, then you MUST be against mandatory PCV valves. Both add cost, both make the product more environmentally-friendly and both make no difference how the product works to the end user. There is no backing your way out of that one.

 

[randomJACKASS]

But Inkara! what you fail to realize, is that in Jim's twisted perception of the world, not only is he nearly always right, but he is also much more intelligent than most all of as well. Also, you did not take into account that global warming, CO2 elevation, and all that are liberal-socialist hippie "green" types way of cashing in on a global scam, where they can essentially make money for really not having to do anything of value for society or the world, other than perhaps fill their pockets keeping them off the government tit, and maybe employing people on the grunt level.

That being said, all of it is a scam! Cars need to go back to pre 1970 standards if true freedom and the American way are to be realized!

So as you can see, Jim is obviously, once a again right, and with my help actually this time, he has proven what fools all the rest of us are! Are we not lucky to have such and epic hero braniac master among us? All hail jimpeel!

Don't bother wasting your time on this pettiness Jim, cuz I got your back!

 

[Inkara1]

Your act isn't really helping either.

 

[randomJACKASS]

Oh I will let up soon, but what I can't wrap my mind around, is that how someone who is obviously quite intelligent, can on the one hand say that global warming and stuff is all a myth, but on the other hand debate the finer points of automotive emission controls. As I see it it's hard to have it both ways. Perhaps he has some convincing argument why he can have it both ways, but I sure have not seen it to date.

 

[Altron]

I don't think it is the government's responsibility to tell me how to use my electricity that I'm paying for. If I want a big-ass TV, and I'm willing to pay the associated energy costs, they should not be able to stop me. Same with the "gas guzzler" tax. If I am willing and able to pay additional fuel costs (and additional fuel taxes), then I should be able to use as much fuel as I want.

And, of course, it all blows up when you realize that emissions, fuel consumption, and energy consumption are all directly dependent on the length of time the product is used for. Laws like this don't take that into account at all. It's really simple math - If I watch my 46" LCD one hour per day, and you watch your 23" LCD that uses half as much electricity for 2.5 hours per day, guess who is using less energy.

All of these schemes just reek of being a way for them to tax the shit out of the middle class even more than they already are. If I like cars, and I can afford to purchase a second car that is not fuel efficient to be able to drive on the weekends or in the summer, and I can afford insurance and gas for it, I shouldn't have to pay an additional tax.

At this point, it's extortion. Mention "health" or "environment" in Congress, and your tax is gonna get approved. You can ban whatever you damn well please, or if you can't outright ban it, you can impose huge taxes on the people that buy it. Gas guzzler tax, tobacco tax, alcohol tax, gas tax - none of that exists to make people healthier, or to reduce the use of fossil fuels. It's because you can make a fuckton of revenue creating taxes like that, so we have more money to piss away on failed corporations and deadbeat losers. And it's hard to oppose something like that, because there are a bunch of "holier-than-thou" fucktards who will make you the bad guy.

 

[spike]

I don't think it is the government's responsibility to tell me how to use my electricity that I'm paying for. If I want a big-ass TV, and I'm willing to pay the associated energy costs, they should not be able to stop me. Same with the "gas guzzler" tax. If I am willing and able to pay additional fuel costs (and additional fuel taxes), then I should be able to use as much fuel as I want.

Nobody is stopping you. You can use as much fuel as you want if your willing to pay the gas guzzler tax and you can buy a big assed TV.

If the things you buy can have a negative effect on the environment and other people then the government can regulate and tax it.

And, of course, it all blows up when you realize that emissions, fuel consumption, and energy consumption are all directly dependent on the length of time the product is used for. Laws like this don't take that into account at all. It's really simple math - If I watch my 46" LCD one hour per day, and you watch your 23" LCD that uses half as much electricity for 2.5 hours per day, guess who is using less energy.

It doesn't blow up at all since there are taxes on the energy. You're going to watch about the same amount of TV regardless but if you have an Energy Star TV you will be using less energy than if you don't.

All of these schemes just reek of being a way for them to tax the shit out of the middle class even more than they already are.

Because only the middle class buys big TVs and gas guzzlers?

If I like cars, and I can afford to purchase a second car that is not fuel efficient to be able to drive on the weekends or in the summer, and I can afford insurance and gas for it, I shouldn't have to pay an additional tax.

Seems you should have to pay an additional tax if you chose to drive something that is going to create a lot more smog and pollution than other cars.

Gas guzzler tax, tobacco tax, alcohol tax, gas tax - none of that exists to make people healthier, or to reduce the use of fossil fuels.

Higher prices reduce demand. So reduced demand on gas guzzlers and tobacco would actually reduce use of fossil fuels and tobacco.