We're also all familiar with the need to not leave all our lights on, and vampire-energy and so forth, and the evils of big SUV's and other gas-guzzlers.
But now they're after our TVs. I just read on Saturday that "California assails TV power usage" and that a "one-third cut" has been mandated by 2011.
The problem is that the big new flat-panel TVs, though lighter and easier on my back, suck up more power than the old fashioned cathode-ray tubes of yesteryear. TV's account, they say, for 10% of household electrical use if you include "related devices" like digital recorders and game consoles.
Egads, they'll be after our games next, and my gods' given right to record programming for later viewing. The Consumer Electronics Association, as might be expected as an outfit representing manufacturers, disagrees with the 10% figure and says 3% is more reasonable.
Personally, I'm more worried about my back than the power.
Even so, I wasn't consulted and California has decided that there be limits on TVs over 58 inches wide.
So they're shooting for a one-third reduction by 2011 and a one-half reduction by 2013. Those that can't meet the standards won't be allowed in CA. I wonder if they'll stop you at the border when you're moving into the state and make you throw your TV into the desert if it's too big.
And that's not all. Washington, Oregon, and Massachusetts, along with Canada and Australia, are considering similar measures.
My biggest TV is 42 inches. Just upgraded from 27. So I'm set even in California, but it's not about me.
Well, okay, it's about me, but it's about a lot of other things as well - where do we draw the line, for instance, between consumer rights and the needs of the environment? What becomes necessary? And how much can we justify in the way of government interference?
The environment is a precious thing. We only have one. I'm a Heathen - a Pagan if you will - and Pagan religions are nature religions, as all original religions were. We have a good healthy respect for the environment. That's perhaps natural when you understand that we live in a world filled with the divine.
As such, I try to be careful. I try not to drive when I don't have to. I don't leave unnecessary lights on. In short, I follow Solon's advice: Nothing in excess. Or, as it is put in the Icelandic Sagas, "A wise man does all things in moderation" (Thorkel in Gisli Sursson's Saga).
If everybody lived according to these rules, we could go a long way towards voluntarily resolving some of the problems we are now seeing legislated against. As we go on, we may see more extreme measures taken to protect the environment.
And they will likely be necessary. The problem is, most of the burden falls on the individual in this country. Very little in the way of regulations control what industry does to our environment. They have power lobbyists in Washington. They practically own members of Congress.
So industry pollutes and we lose our big TVs.
Now being a moderate guy, I can probably live without a TV bigger than 58 inches. Honestly, I don't have the wall space for more than that unless I finish my basement.
Will that be next? You can't finish basements because the construction process pollutes? Or will it harm some heretofore unknown microbe that dwells in the cracks of the concrete.
Excess, you see, can go many ways, not only in individuals who might be careless environmentally, or in businesses which remain unregulated, but in governments - even environmentalists, who resort to extreme solutions where moderation might suffice.
I'm not trying to discourage California. After all, they've always been at the forefront of environmentalism. Environmental Heatlh Perspectives (EHP) tells us that
According to a 2006 survey conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), a San Francisco–based research organization, 65% of Californians don't think the federal government is doing enough to combat global warming.
That certainly seems above the curve, and I applaud them for that.
I'm just saying I've seen some crazy things over recent years. Crazier even than wanting to take away our TVs (and you don't see an NRA-like group protecting our TVs do you? If they come to take them, are we just going to throw them at them, and wouldn't that be counter-productive?).
I would just like to see common-sense, moderation prevail.
I don't think that's too much to ask, or to expect - from all sides.
4 comments:
Common sense never enters into these things ;-)
Politicians need to be seen to be "doing something" and bans "look good" (they think)
Well...
Why TV, light bulb etc regulations are wrong
1.
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.
Notice: If there was an energy shortage, its price rise would
A. Limit people using it anyway, and make renewable energy more attractive
B. Make energy efficient products more attractive to buy.
No need to legislate for it.
It might sound great to
"Let everyone save energy and money by only allowing energy efficient products"
However:
Energy efficiency is only one advantage a product can have,
and mandating for energy efficiency unfortunately means that product features have to be sacrificed in other areas
- or the products would be energy efficient already.
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, with current California TV legislation, big plasma TV screens have image contrast and other
advantages along with their large image sizes.
Conversely, using other examples:
Energy efficient lights may be slower to come on, bulkier, less bright, mercury containing.
Energy efficient buildings are often sealed buildings - not always what users want.
Energy efficient cars tend to be unsafe (light in build and weight) and slower
- and so on.
Also, imposing energy efficiency usually means increasing cost
or, as said, the products would be more energy efficient already.
There might therefore not be any total running cost savings either,
depending on how much such a cheaper product is used.
Other factors also contribute to a lack of savings:
If households use less energy as a result of the various bans,
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, using more energy, knowing that energy bills are lower,
as also shown by Scottish and Cambridge research
ceolas.net/#cc214x
Either way, supposed energy - or money - savings aren't there.
Emissions?
Do electrical products give out any CO2 gas?
Emissions (for all else they contain too) can be dealt with directly via energy substitution or emission processing
See ceolas.net/#cc1x
The argument that
"dealing directly with energy and emissions takes too long and costs too much"
does not hold up:
http://ceolas.net/#cc201x
- there is also the taxation alternative......
2.
The Taxation alternative
While still wrong, taxation is better than bans for all concerned.
Bans on TVs, light bulbs etc are not like a ban on dangerous lead paint!
They are simply bans to (supposedly) reduce electricity consumption.
TV set taxation based on energy efficiency - unlike bans - gives Government income on
the reduced sales, while consumers keep choice.
This also applies generally,
to cars, buildings, dishwashers, light bulbs etc,
where politicians instead keep trying to define what people can or can't use,
which unfortunately alienates many from more important environmental cooperation.
2 Billion ordinary light bulbs are sold annually in the USA, so just on them, significant tax income can be raised.
The tax money be used to fund home energy/insulation
schemes, renewable projects etc that lower energy use and emissions
more than remaining product use raises them.
Energy efficient products can have any sales taxes lowered, making
them cheaper than today.
People are not just hit by taxes, they don't have to buy the higher
taxed products - and at least they can still buy them.
Of course, to avoid smuggling, bans (and to a lesser extent taxes) have to be applied nationwide or internationally.
Both bans and taxes are however unjustified,
taxes just being a comparably better option, also for ban proponents, and taxes can be lifted once sufficient low emission energy is in place (since emissions are a main issue that ban proponents raise).
Peter! Thank you for the lengthy response. I agree that common sense and politicians seem destined never to meet, even half-way. As you say, they need to be seen to be doing something and don't stop to think: just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.
I have always argued for moderate approaches to problems and this ban strikes me as an extreme approach, rather like banning the eating of meat because there are environmental issues involved in raising livestock for slaughter. Let's address those issues without doing away with the cows.
It's a delicate balance, I think, and politicians and lobbyists both like to use sledge-hammers.
I'm not against regulation. I think regulation has a place because it has also been demonstrated historically that unless forced to do so, those with power will not do the right thing unless compelled, or unless as you say, public demand forces their hand.
But while I believe regulation has its place (for example, emissions standards, fuel economy), I again don't think we should regulate just because we can. There has to be some rhyme or reason involved and that went out the window with common sense.
I can't imagine all that many people have TVs over 58". I can't believe there aren't more reasonable ways to reduce energy consumption.
I don't personally know what the energy situation is in California so I can't comment on it, but what's next? Banning SUV's? What is a big family supposed to do? Drive 2 cars everywhere? And how does that help? Now you have 2 cars on the road instead of 1.
I'd like to see mass transit where it can be made to work but the US and most American cities are so sprawling, I can't imagine it being a cure-all either.
Just leave my damn TV alone.
Thanks Hrafnkell,
RE Banning SUV's? What is a big family supposed to do? Drive 2 cars everywhere? And how does that help? Now you have 2 cars on the road instead of 1.
-- reminds me a bit of the light bulb ban,
people don't like the dim fluorescents and say they use more of them (same with LED lights, cause they are directional)
- and since 100W bulbs are banned first here in Europe, people have taken to just using 2 x 60w side lights instead, etc...
Re cars,
I believe emission tax is better than fuel or emission regulation
That way it's neutral what fuel you use (they have developed CO2 emission processing for gasolene fuelled cars at Georgia Tech, for example)
- and you are free to choose what car you like, although paying more for emission-high varieties.
Unfortunately its also about helping manufacturers,
cash for clunkers and all that
In general,
manufacturers will make more money from expensive energy saving products also because consumers can't choose the cheaper alternatives any more
See the industrial politics behind the light bulb ban as an example
http://www.ceolas.net/#li1ax
As you say,
how many people have those TVs anyway...
(and the other way round too: the "great energy savings for the people" is of course only if they can no longer buy what they WANT - no big savings from banning what people DON'T buy so much!)
Once upon a time there was the energy using radio tube (and big TV tube) but nobody banned them when transistors came - people could see the advantages for themselves!
Post a Comment