California sets limits on energy-gulping TVs

[Patranus]

ie: other people don't do what we want them to do so we will be totalitarian pricks and force them to at gun point.

Exactly. If the consumer was interested in paying more but getting an energy efficient TV than the consumer would do so. The consumer would rather buy an energy hungry TV at a lower price.

This is nothing more than the California legislature attempting to make up for the fact that it has terribly mismanaged California energy development.

 

[sandorski]

ie: other people don't do what we want them to do and don't share our unquantifiable OPINION so we will be totalitarian pricks and force them to at gun point.

Why hello there Mr. Stalin!

Tell me how being threatened by the church for not proclaiming faith in god in the 1500s is any different from being threatened by government force for not believing in global warming or some other boogieman?

Anyhow keep your shit to Kalifornia unless you want to add fuel to the states rights fire that has kindled across the nation.

ridiculous

 

[exdeath]

ridiculous

I know right? Next well be told what color we can paint our houses because certain colors radiate too much energy back to the clouds and it's killing ants in Africa.

 

[sandorski]

I know right? Next well be told what color we can paint our houses because certain colors radiate too much energy back to the clouds and it's killing ants in Africa.

If that were the case and it was a problem for the Food Chain, would you be Supportive or Opposed?

 

[exdeath]

Exactly. If the consumer was interested in paying more but getting an energy efficient TV than the consumer would do so. The consumer would rather buy an energy hungry TV at a lower price.

This is nothing more than the California legislature attempting to make up for the fact that it has terribly mismanaged California energy development.

It's not that. It's a secondary concern. When you buy a house, you don't really care if it's energy efficient if it's not the minimum number of bedrooms or size you want. Sure you'll be happy if your 3000 sq ft house is the most energy efficient one you can get for that size house, but you're not going to substitute a 500 sq ft house in the name of that efficiency. It's a secondary stat, it is not the driving criteria.

Likewise with a TV. I want size, clarity, and performance, and if I can get energy efficiency too, then great. But if I can't get the size and performance I want first, then I don't really care about efficiency, nor will I downgrade because someone says I have to.

This is just typical "zomg nobody should have bigger houses/cars/suvs/tvs/etc than anybody else we should all be the same" legislation from Kali. Of course that doesn't fly, so we use a Trojan Horse like "global warming" to pretend it's for a better cause than selfishness and envy to achieve the same results.

 

[sandorski]

It's not that. It's a secondary concern. When you buy a house, you don't really care if it's energy efficient if it's not the minimum number of bedrooms or size you want. Sure you'll be happy if your 3000 sq ft house is the most energy efficient one you can get for that size house, but you're not going to substitute a 500 sq ft house in the name of that efficiency. It's a secondary stat, it is not the driving criteria.

Likewise with a TV. I want size, clarity, and performance, and if I can get energy efficiency too, then great. But if I can't get the size and performance I want first, then I don't really care about efficiency, nor will I downgrade because someone says I have to.

This is just typical "zomg nobody should have bigger houses/cars/suvs/tvs/etc than anybody else we should all be the same" legislation from Kali. Of course that doesn't fly, so we use a Trojan Horse like "global warming" to pretend it's for a better cause than selfishness and envy to achieve the same results.

Once again you're being ridiculous. It is nothing of the sort.

 

[exdeath]

If that were the case and it was a problem for the Food Chain, would you be Supportive or Opposed?

That's just it. There is no "case" with something so intangible and unquantifiable. You can make a case for anything with invisible pink unicorns since you can't prove or disprove it, then use fear that it's not worth the risk just in case to coral people.

In the 1500s everyone used god. In 2009 democrats use global warming and republicans use terrorism. And so on goes the invisible pink unicorn as a source of fear, and fear leading to power, because after all, somebody has to save us.

But I would be opposed. Rather than panic over something that may or may not be an issue, I prefer to let nature take it's course. Should this "food chain problem" manifest and come back to me then I have a choice to revisit now don't I? Eat or have a purple house? Things will play out over time on their own without intervention.

The other problem with such "invisible pink unicorn" theories like global warming, is that it's a one way street. When legislation is passed to prevent that catastrophe, but the catastrophe never comes close to actualizing because it was a farce to begin with, the legislation isn't likewise repealed. Ban x to prevent A, find out later A wasn't going to happen anyway, but x is banned and burred in the history books never to be seen again. How convenient for a progressive totalitarian cause.

 

[sandorski]

That's just it. There is no "case" with something so intangible and unquantifiable. You can make a case for anything with invisible pink unicorns since you can't prove or disprove it, then use fear that it's not worth the risk just in case to coral people.

But I would be opposed. Rather than panic over something that may or may not be an issue, I prefer to let nature take it's course. Should this "food chain problem" come back to me then I have a choice to revisit now don't I? Eat or have a purple house?

The other problem with such "invisible pink unicorn" theories like global warming, is that it's a one way street. When legislation is passed to prevent that catastrophe, but the catastrophe never comes close to actualizing because it was a farce to begin with, the legislation isn't likewise repealed. Ban x to prevent A, find out later A wasn't going to happen anyway, but x is banned and burred in the history books never to be seen again. How convenient for a progressive totalitarian cause.

Ah ok, you're just a fountain of ridiculousness. I rue engaging you in conversation.

 

[Modelworks]

The reason for CA doing this is not because they care about the environment, global warming or care about anything but the bottom line. The fact is the national power grid is in poor shape, even more so in CA. They could have invested in improving the 50+ year old lines but instead they used the mindset of 'it works today it will work tomorrow' . If they had spent the money on infrastructure the increase in power usage would have been a non issue.

They lose more in transmission due to poor infrastructure than the increase from a bigger tv would ever pass.

 

[exdeath]

Ah ok, you're just a fountain of ridiculousness. I rue engaging you in conversation.

Why? Because I don't believe in god or invisible pink unicorns? eg: you can't convince me to take a side in an intangible unprovable opinion so you don't want to talk to me anymore?

I accepted a possibility of your opinion being right and mine being wrong when I responded to the hypothetical scenario of the ants in Africa; if it did cause a problem it would ultimately force me to change anyway even if I was opposed initially, as a result of cause and effect, rather than premature intervention and legislation.

It seems you are unhappy with that answer, in much the same way a religious person is unhappy when you say you don't believe in god but if you died and found yourself in hell or heaven you would probably have to change your mind.

Are you not willing to consider the possibility of my point of view, or is it simply that unimaginable?

 

[Double Trouble]

Liberal stupidity strikes again.... in California, as usual. This legislation won't have any major impact, because clearly that was the direction the market was going anyway.

Still, while they yammer on about supposed benefits to the consumer, the fact is that if the consumer wanted these "benefits" (being forced to buy a smaller tv for the same money), they could have had them. They voted with their wallets and said "no thanks, I'm going to buy this bigger tv because I enjoy watching a larger screen". No matter how you turn it, the consumer is going to get less TV for more money in the future in California, because the elitist enlightened liberals want to deflect from the horrible mess they've made of the state budget and energy situation.

Sad really, to see so many people so willing to give up their choices to the government and enlightened elitists who think they know better for everyone what they should be buying with their money.

 

[Zargon]

I would love to know what they put in the water out there

 

[Muse]

I would love to know what they put in the water out there

Fluoride, that's it. Hey, I'm glad. I watch my energy usage and I don't want a TV that uses 200 watts. This laptop uses less than 30 watts.

I was in Costco the other day and this guy was checking out the back of monitors for energy usage. He's on a boat and his TV will be running on a battery so it's a big deal.

 

[exdeath]

I used religion and pink unicorns as my examples. Here is the formula for what I'm describing:

1) Decide what it is that you want people to do that they won't do if asked outright and truthfully.

2) Come up with a two sided dilemma that will arouse people's emotional concern; it must be completely unrelated to cause laid out in 1) but ultimately supports that cause indirectly.

3) Offer two outcomes to this dilemma, one good and one bad, neither of which can be solidly proven or dis-proven for all time. If it can be disputed, you're dead in the water.

4) Impose a time limit, such that if you don't act, you will get the hypothesized bad outcome by default, with the restriction that once you do, it's too late and you don't have the choice anymore.

5) To enforce the idea that it's too late once your limited time offer expires and create a sense of urgency, make that bad outcome something catastrophic and undesirable and unfathomable, something valuable that will irreparably be lost, such that it's "not worth the risk" since you can't prove it can't happen.

6) Likewise, tie in the good outcome as requiring action that achieves the goal laid out in 1) and which guarantees the bad outcome doesn't happen.

7) Seed this dilemma via "education" and popular media until it's a popular and trendy social issue and nobody want's to be the bad guy and take the chance.

8) With enough support, you can now enact legislation that nobody will oppose.

Religion, global warming, terrorism, health care, gun control, oil, etc, all follow this pattern of manipulating both the sense of urgency (same as "limited time offer, call now before you miss out!" marketing methods) and the natural fear of the unknown in people to achieve political objectives.

 

[Vic]

Populism != liberalism

 

[Arkaign]

Liberal stupidity strikes again.... in California, as usual. This legislation won't have any major impact, because clearly that was the direction the market was going anyway.

Still, while they yammer on about supposed benefits to the consumer, the fact is that if the consumer wanted these "benefits" (being forced to buy a smaller tv for the same money), they could have had them. They voted with their wallets and said "no thanks, I'm going to buy this bigger tv because I enjoy watching a larger screen". No matter how you turn it, the consumer is going to get less TV for more money in the future in California, because the elitist enlightened liberals want to deflect from the horrible mess they've made of the state budget and energy situation.

Sad really, to see so many people so willing to give up their choices to the government and enlightened elitists who think they know better for everyone what they should be buying with their money.

Your point is self-conflicting.

(1)- Yes, the industry has already massively moved towards lower-power TV's. Basically all LCD sets already comply with the new requirements, particularly the LED backlit ones.

(2)- How will this end with 'less TV for the money'? Certain energy hog models, probably some of the older Plasma sets, will get discontinued, but as the future lies with LED and OLED, which are very low power usage, explain that to me?

(3)- This legislation doesn't affect current owners of any TV. If you have a 50" 4-year-old Plasma that sucks juice like nobody's business, you're free to keep right on using it.

---

I don't think this legislation will have much impact at all, but it's certainly nothing to go batty over. California does indeed do some stupid things, but it often makes sense in the context of their state. They are extremely overpopulated, and so the emissions improvements have helped a lot with the air quality out there, even though it's still poor. Their power requirements are also extremely large, so movements towards energy efficiency will help, this will be doubly important if plug-in hybrids/electrics start gaining steam.

I'm a classical conservative (think WFB) but this is a non-issue to me. My primary concern with the liberal conventional wisdom from the politician's viewpoint is their reluctance to expand nuclear energy. It's worlds cleaner than coal, more versatile/reliable compared to wind/solar, and with a surplus of cheap electricity we could indeed move a lot of transportation consumption to a nuclear-powered energy grip rather than dumping untold billions to the oil companies and overseas oligarchs.

 

[exdeath]

I'm a classical conservative (think WFB) but this is a non-issue to me. My primary concern with the liberal conventional wisdom from the politician's viewpoint is their reluctance to expand nuclear energy. It's worlds cleaner than coal, more versatile/reliable compared to wind/solar, and with a surplus of cheap electricity we could indeed move a lot of transportation consumption to a nuclear-powered energy grip rather than dumping untold billions to the oil companies and overseas oligarchs.

I hear Japan has reactor core breaches and meltdowns like every day.

 

[Arkaign]

I hear Japan has reactor core breaches and meltdowns like every day.

Hah! Who said that?

I <3 Nuclear energy, when done right (which is pretty much every case outside of Chernobyl and 3 mile island).

 

[Modelworks]

Nuclear if done right is fine. I live near one and have for years, I sleep just fine at night. The problem is with the way things work now if they decided one should be built today, it would be 30 years before it ever produced a watt of power by the time they got done deciding everything.

 

[exdeath]

Hah! Who said that?

I <3 Nuclear energy, when done right (which is pretty much every case outside of Chernobyl and 3 mile island).

Pardon my sarcasm. So many places in the world have been using nuclear power for years without incident... again it's that fear of what people don't understand rearing it's ugly head again.

 

[Patranus]

The reason for CA doing this is not because they care about the environment, global warming or care about anything but the bottom line. The fact is the national power grid is in poor shape, even more so in CA.

So instead of fixing the problem, they are simply pushing the problem off to next year...and the year after that....and the year after that...all the while people buy their TVs from other states causing a reduction in sales tax revenues.

The government of California is a total failure. It couldn't even build a new power plant if it wanted to.
The new span of the Bay Bridge in San Francisco was slated to open 3 years ago and it isn't even 1/2 complete.
To put this into perspective, it took them less than 3 years to build the ENTIRE bridge in the 30s.

 

[Arkaign]

So instead of fixing the problem, they are simply pushing the problem off to next year...and the year after that....and the year after that...all the while people buy their TVs from other states causing a reduction in sales tax revenues.

The government of California is a total failure. It couldn't even build a new power plant if it wanted to.
The new span of the Bay Bridge in San Francisco was slated to open 3 years ago and it isn't even 1/2 complete.
To put this into perspective, it took them less than 3 years to build the ENTIRE bridge in the 30s.

lol too much hyperbole. I imagine a handful of people might go out of state to buy a super gulper TV, but they're almost all below the threshold already, and this particularly includes the newest high-end sets. OLED sets will pretty much put a permanent end to any concern about TV power usage anyway, and they are vastly superior in quality compared to current LCD, Plasma, and Laser TV technology.

If you want to find something more valid that causes a huge amount of $ to leave the state, look at casino gambling, it costs Texas, New York, and California billions as residents flock to Vegas, Atlantic City, and Bossier City/Shreveport. Now THAT's a lot of money leaving those states.

 

[LS8]

How do they plan to enforce this? Mandatory home searches?

 

[sandorski]

How do they plan to enforce this? Mandatory home searches?

No. Read the details.

 

[bfdd]

The reason for CA doing this is not because they care about the environment, global warming or care about anything but the bottom line. The fact is the national power grid is in poor shape, even more so in CA. They could have invested in improving the 50+ year old lines but instead they used the mindset of 'it works today it will work tomorrow' . If they had spent the money on infrastructure the increase in power usage would have been a non issue.

They lose more in transmission due to poor infrastructure than the increase from a bigger tv would ever pass.

Like I said, I pay my fucking electric bill so fuck them. If the problem is an energy issue maybe they should stop fucking road blocking every goddamn thing that comes along to create more energy. "oh noes that will raise the co2 output by .2% of all power plants in california don't do it even though we're constantly on the brink of an energy crisis" or "oh noes that new thing you want to build to create new and clean energy for millions in california is going to possibly kill an animal don't build it!" it's getting fucking ridiculous.