Response To California's Large-Screen TV Regulation 619
An anonymous reader writes "It's great that unelected bureaucrats in California are clamoring to save energy, but when they target your big-screen TVs for elimination, consumers and manufacturers are apt to declare war. CEDIA and the CEA are up in arms over this. Audioholics has an interesting response that involves setting the TVs in 'SCAM' mode to meet the energy criteria technically without having to add additional cost or increase costs to consumers. 'In this mode, the display brightness/contrast settings would be set a few clicks to the right of zero, audio would be disabled and backlighting would be set to minimum. The power consumption should be measured in this mode much like an A/V receiver power consumption is measured with one channel driven at full rated power and the other channels at 1/8th power.' This is an example of an impending train wreck of unintended consequences, and many are grabbing the popcorn and pulling up chairs to watch."
Hooray! (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey Sacramento - if I want a bigger television, I'll drive out of state to get it and you won't get any tax money out of it. Suckas!
Tax (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeah, I know, there the issues of a black market or keep folks from crossing over to another state to buy them....
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's a good thing most Californians like along the Pacific coast, and the Nevada line is far, far away. That makes it less practical to drive that far just to save a few sales tax dollars. It's why even though I could drive to Delaware to get tax free goods, I opt not to.
I just heard on the news last night that California's Treasury Secretary is investigating the Constitution. He's wondering if California can revert back to being a territory, in order to resolve its budget crisis!!! Wow. Frankly I d
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Tax (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Tax (Score:5, Interesting)
California's problems are self created. They spend more than they take in, it's just that simple. Removing themselves from the union would just add additional costs for subsidies that they currently get at the federal level.
Their problems stem mostly from social services run amok and loss of tax income revenue. They have a huge illegal problem (some estimates as high as 10 percent of their workforce [sacbee.com]) according to a recent non-partisan study, where folks earn money, and then simply send it back to Mexico. Same on the health care front. They end up offering social services not only to tax payers, but to the large illegal population. They also spend millions on wasteful social services they simply can't afford. I found it odd that everyone was screaming when they put those services on the chopping block in order to get a budget that would pass muster. They simply don't realize that you can't spend what you don't have. They've been in that sort of spend cycle for years, and it finally came to a breaking point.
Public schools are a biggie. They actually tried to deny illegal children the right to attend public schools but a federal judge blocked that. The illegal population can collect welfare, as well as take advantage of health services all on the taxpayer dollar. Many of these are also avoiding taxes simply because they are paid cash for day labor. I'm generally about as left as you can go, but I have to stop short on giving a free ride to illegals. Unfortunately most border states suffer from the same issues.
Add on top of all that their tax system, which relies almost heavily on income taxes (over half of their budget money comes from this). Every time the economy tanks, so does their revenue.
They have a lot of problems that have to be addressed both in their taxation, and spending. Succeeding from the union won't fix them.
Re:Tax (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I have no problem legalizing illegal immigrants provided they teach their children English and assimilate into our culture. I don't want an underclass of people in this country separated by language who can be exploited by unscrupulous businesses into low wages and forced into perpetual lower class hell.
If we just legalize them and don't expect them to assimilate it will be bad for their offspring in the long run. Their offspring may as well have been born in the country their parent came from as they fa
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, in the United States of America, it is and has been the dominate language. It is a requirement to show some proficiency in English in order to become a US citizen. If you want to move well within our society here in the states, you need to be able to at least be able to speak and understand English. It is our official unofficial language (why the hell can't they jus
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There are three groups to blame for the illegal immigrant mess in this country.
1. Big Business, they want their uneducated slaves to do their grunt work and pay them below minimum wage and no benefits. If a worker gets hurt they go to an ER where they cannot be turned away and we end up paying for the benefits the company should have provided.
2. Big Politics, They see a potential voting pool that if they can pander enough to when they become eligible for voting they can have guaranteed votes to keep them
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, I used to think this to be too radical to rationally consider in the past, but, the more I think of it, especially in terms of what you mentioned, perhaps it is time to change the laws to prohibit those on th
Re:Tax (Score:5, Informative)
>>>the entirety of the American people are helping to prop up this '8th largest economy'.
That's not really true. According to a study from 2005, for every dollar paid to the IRS in taxes, California only gets 81 cents back. If anything it's CA and other rich states (i.e. the northeast) that are propping-up the rest of the continent.
1. New Jersey ($0.62)
2. Connecticut ($0.64)
3. New Hampshire ($0.68)
-4. Nevada ($0.73)
5. Illinois ($0.77)
-6. Minnesota ($0.77)
-7. Colorado ($0.79)
8. Massachusetts ($0.79)
9. California ($0.81)
10. New York ($0.81)
-Why do these states get back so little? Surely Las Vegas, Denver, and Minneapolis/St Paul don't generate that much wealth? Also with military bases and parkland, I'd expect them to get lots of U.S. handouts.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm throwing away mod points for this reply.
The claim that you make is patently and completely FALSE.
For every dollar that California pays in federal taxes we receive approximately $0.91 in federal projects.
California is propping up the rest of the country.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In case you didn't notice, the entire country has a budget shortfall, and it's a hell of a lot larger per capita than California's. The US has a projected deficit this FY of $1.4 trillion, and a population of about 304 million, or about $4600 per person. California has a projected deficit of $21 billion, and a population of about 36.7 million, or about $570 per person. As another poster pointed out, it is very consistently the "liberal tax and spend" states (including CA) which prop up the "conservative
Re:Tax (Score:4, Funny)
I don't think anyone in the rest of the U.S. would stop California (or Texas) from leaving.
Sure we'd have to spend a fair bit in border security to make sure none of them ever get back in but it'd be worth it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, states don't have the right to leave the Union.
The United States Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869), that while the Union was "perpetual" and that secession ordinances were "absolutely null."
The thought that states can leave is just another misconception, like that Texas can go if they want. They can't, but they can be split into five states.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, because Californians live in a statewide, narcissistic reality-distortion field where they use referendums to increase services yet limit what they pay in taxes. The politicians are limited in what they can do.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Politicians are limited in what they can do only because the layout of the legislative districts locks in a Democrat majority just shy of being able to pass a budget on its own. However, there are plenty of places that can see changes that they're just not willing to make unless their backs are against the wall, like they were a few months ago. Now their backs are now inside the wall with another $21 billion gap over the next 19 months, the census is coming up, and the chances that the process used in 200
Re:Tax (Score:5, Insightful)
Well silly, don't you know that most politicians steal from Peter to buy Paul's vote? If they had to cut, you know, spending and stuff, then they would not be able to live off the public dole for their entire lives.
The only way to get this situation fixed, is the stop voting for people promising things like free healthcare, welfare and benefits for people who are perfectly capable of otherwise having a job and earning money.
And stop taxing people into leaving California for other less regressive tax states, like Texas.
In this budget crisis, it is interesting to see the states in the biggest mess financially are the ones with the highest taxes.
But the liberal progressives scream bloody murder every time their pet government project is cut. They just don't get it.
And the wimpy conservatives are unable to counter the "grandma on dog food" crap that the liberal progressives love to spew.
Next time you hear "Think of the Children" crap, whether it is from an (R) [porn/crime] or (D) [starving/homeless], tell them to STFU and address the real problems, and not politically expedient anecdotal cases.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Tax (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, the goal of saving energy/reducing pollution from energy generation would be better served by taxing energy. You wouldn't have to have a TV set power consumption regulation office, you just take whatever the electric company charges and slap a percentage on top of that. Then you except commercial uses, and give everyone a standard tax rebate so that it's possible for nearly everyone to avoid the the tax by using electricity moderately.
Yes, it's another case of using the tax code to achieve something other than bringing in revenue, but it does the same thing that *regulation* would do, only across *all* uses of electric power, and without forcing anybody to change anything. If you absolutely MUST have that gigantic plasma TV, and absolutely DON'T want to pay without tax, you can go without lights or a refrigerator.
Re: (Score:2)
No exceptions, no rebates. It's the only way to balance a checkbook.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Tax (Score:4, Funny)
That reminds me of a particular line from the film, My Cousin Vinny [imdb.com]:
Vinny Gambini: I object to this witness being called at this time. We've been given no prior notice he would testify. No discovery of any tests he's conducted or reports he's prepared. And as the court is aware, the defense is entitled to advance notice of all witness who will testify, particularly those who will give scientific evidence, so that we can properly prepare for cross-examination, as well as give the defense an opportunity to have his reports reviewed by a defense expert, who might then be in a position to contradict the veracity of his conclusions.
Judge Chamberlain Haller: Mr. Gambini?
Vinny Gambini: Yes, sir?
Judge Chamberlain Haller: That is a lucid, intelligent, well thought-out objection.
Vinny Gambini: Thank you, sir.
Judge Chamberlain Haller: Overruled.
Re:Tax (Score:5, Funny)
I see a business opportunity for folks willing to be a TV "mule" to smuggle big-screens into the state.
I don't think this would be as popular as you might think. I can only think of one person who would be capable of kiestering a 65-inch TV, and even he might be turned off by the sharp corners.
Re: (Score:2)
They can't stop you from importing goods into your home state.
But the feds can, if the representatives from California manage to dupe the House into thinking that extending California's TV power consumption regulations to the whole of the United States is a good idea, and the House in turn dupes the Senate.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Virg
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
According to the CEC, nearly 1000 HDTV models on the market today already meet the Tier 1 standard for 2011, and some 300 meet the 2013 standard (Tier 2).
Re:Hooray! (Score:5, Insightful)
It was well said already, I do not repeat:
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1451590&op=Reply&threshold=2&commentsort=0&mode=nested&pid=30172042 [slashdot.org]
What is fascinating is how these discussions so soon turn towards political drivel. I am genuinely interested in finding out what makes people behave in such irrational manner. Lack of logic? Anchoring to a view and incapable of admitting the mistake?
- TV size is not regulated, power consumption is.
- The household energy use issue is real for CA. Remember the rolling blackouts?
- Legislation often happens in parallel. Homework assignment: how many laws they pass in a year? Would you want them to do it one at a time in order of importance?
Having said the last one, I also think some issues are just distraction, for sure.
Silly fool! (Score:3, Funny)
This is a win-win-win-win solution for California.
1> These measures ensure that California's current power plants will be capable of supplying all the electricity nmeeded for the foreseeable future. There be no need for trying to find a safe place to put new power plants that will either vastly increase CO2 emissions or worse cause increased radioactive contamination from nuclear power.
2>In addition, it will vastly increase employment opportunities in the state. When you cross back into California wit
Re: (Score:2)
WTF? Who modded the parent "troll"? It was a satire, and a very good one, and illustrated the point very vell. I guess someone in California's legislature or bureaucracy has mod points today. Someone please mod that back up to visibility!
Re:Hooray! (Score:4, Insightful)
"Hey Sacramento - if I want a bigger television, I'll drive out of state to get it and you won't get any tax money out of it. Sucka"
You want to break the tax code, good for you. Most people aren't going to spend the time and money to drive to another state and get a TV.
Plus that won't matter since all TV'x will be built to meet CA standards.
Of course, modern LED TV's already meat the standard, but you go on a ignorantly pound your meat hooks against your keyboard in a futile attempt at making some sort of coherent point.
Re:Hooray! (Score:4, Informative)
I certainly hope an 11 inch $2500 TV could meet the standard.
I'm not sure where you shop, but for well under $2500, you can get a 55" LED-backlit TV [vizio.com].
Those modern LED TVs are what informed people call LCDs.
Informed people call them LED TVs because it's shorter than saying LED LCD or LCD with LED backlighting. LCD, for better or worse, refers to the first LCD-based displays which do not use LED backlighting. And while LED TVs use LCDs, we need a different term to refer to them, since the ownership experience is very different...both viewing, form factor (LED TVs tend to be very thin) and when the utility bills come. So we can either spit out a long-winded and technically correct string of words, or we can pick the one feature that differentiates them from all other TVs and use that term.
Guess which one the product marketing departments chose?
Re:California Uber Alles (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:California Uber Alles (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe they'll add cool televisions to their targets when they invade our privies.
Why are they invading your toilets?
Re:California Uber Alles (Score:5, Informative)
That's no longer permitted [wikipedia.org] in the US.
(Apart from being a good ruling for civil liberties and privacy, Kyllo's also interesting for its strange 5-4 split: the majority, pro-civil-liberties, opinion is by Scalia, joined by Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, and Breyer.)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
After all, the pigs already use infrared sensors to search homes without a warrant looking to bust up harmless pot farms.
Not since 2001 (better late than never) -- http://www4.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-8508.ZS.html [cornell.edu]
Re:California Uber Alles (Score:4, Funny)
"The pigs?" What is this, 1967?
Do you call money "scratch" too?
Re:California Uber Alles (Score:4, Informative)
No, it's 2009 and really... nothing's changed since 1967. They're still pigs.
Simple solution (Score:3, Insightful)
If you want people to use less electricity charge more for it and use the tax to fund something good like public transit
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If you want people to use less electricity charge more for it and use the tax to fund something good like public transit
Mr. President? Is that you?
Re: (Score:2)
If you want people to use less electricity charge more for it and use the tax to fund something good like public transit
The difficulty is people don't know how they're using that energy. Most consumers probably don't think of their energy bill when buying a TV (they're thinking picture quality and price.) Moreover, even if they are, it's pretty difficult for a normal consumer to figure how how much energy a television will use and exactly what the additional cost of that energy usage is over the life of the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Even people who are just trying to use it to run some basic necessities.
Why does the final use of the power matter when charging for it? The power plant and grid are use agnostic. A KWH is a KWH and is just as expensive to deliver whether it powers a massage chair or a insulin pump.
I do support tiered usage -- first 500KWH for the month at one rate, the rest at a higher rate but that doesn't really correlate with usage. I use the median amount of power for my area but a huge proportion goes to technological gizmos and very little to necessities.
Re:Simple solution (Score:5, Informative)
"If you want people to use less electricity charge" We all saw how well this worked when gas prices hit $4. People are not willing to drive less or even willing to drive sanely.
"Motorists drove 112 billion fewer miles during the 13-month period between November 1, 2007 and November 30, 2008 compared with the year-prior period, the U.S. Department of Transportation said"
http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/22/news/economy/gas_use/?postversion=2009012215 [cnn.com]
Hilarious (Score:5, Insightful)
New TVs, whether plasma or LCD, consume FAR less electricity than the old fashioned CRTs. My TV is one of the old ones, a 42 inch Trinitron that uses over 200 watts of energy, probably over four times as much as an LCD of the same size.
Maybe California should subsidize the purchase of new TVs for Californians who still use CRTs?
Re:Hilarious (Score:5, Insightful)
...sadly, still no regulation to require RTFA. (Score:4, Informative)
"In fact, by the time the first wave of CEC regulations enter into effect in 2011, Energy Star 4.0 will be in place."
"In short, the differences between the two are not dramatic--the CEC's requirements are ultimately not any more stringent than the Energy Star guidelines."
"According to its analysis, many popular HDTV models already meet the CEC's requirements for the year 2011, and some LED models--which have made a selling point of their energy efficiency--already meet the CEC's Tier 2 standard."
Stay calm, people. The Governator is not coming to steal your teevees.
Why the uproar? (Score:4, Insightful)
Today, the Energy Star 3.0 spec limits active power consumption for a 32-inch HDTV to 120 watts; the impending Energy Star 4.0 spec, which goes into effect in May 2010, drops that to 78W; and the spec for Energy Star 5.0 (due in May 2012) is 55W. For a 50-inch set, the current Energy Star 3.0 spec limits power consumption to 353W; for Energy Star 4, that drops to 153W; and for Energy Star 5.0, that drops to 108W.
The mandatory Tier 1 CEC spec for 2011 says a 32-inch HDTV's maximum power consumption must be no more than 116W for a 32-inch model; the Tier 2 spec for 2013 drops that to 75W--higher than the Energy Star 5.0 spec, which will be introduced six months earlier. For a 50-inch HDTV, the Tier 1 CEC spec will require the maximum power consumption to be at 245W; the Tier 2 CEC spec drops that to 153W.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why the uproar? (Score:4, Insightful)
Can anyone explain what the manufacturers are up in arms about?
Probably the expense of testing their products to prove they meet the regulations. Energy star is voluntary and probably less bureaucratic to get. To have to do it all over again to prove to a state that they meet the regs (even if it is just the time of a staffer to submit the paperwork) is viewed as a un-necessary expense. What if multiple states start doing this kind of thing? Pretty soon is a whole department of people needed to keep up with the paperwork. Which makes your TV more expensive.
Re:Why the uproar? (Score:5, Insightful)
What manufacturers are really worried about has nothing to do with the content of these specific regulations.
They're concerned about the possibility that individual states can have separate regulatory frameworks from the government. In that case, they'd be obliged to do testing and demonstrate that their products satisfy the regulations of every state in the Union that passed regulations. Theoretically they could just make sure they satisfy the most stringent of the state regulations, but if the regulations conflict, that's a problem; if different regulations emphasize different aspects, that's a problem. If CA mandates that televisions use less than 200 KW, and NY mandates that their manufacturing process not contain any Insidium-A, both those regulations may be achievable individually, but you may not be able to make an energy-efficient TV without Insidium-A, and now the megacorps lose the economies of scale that let them crush any smaller competition. (Though to be fair, it would be kind of a headache to keep track of all that, which was sort of the idea behind the Interstate Commerce Clause to begin with).
I don't think it's a terrible thing, particularly when the regulations aren't onerous and no other state really does this -- CA is large enough that it deserves to be its own state (in the poli-sci sense) anyway -- and the manufacturers, like all big businesses, have an immediate knee-jerk reaction against any kind of regulation. But I can see how the precedent might not be pleasing to manufacturers.
Article is BS... (Score:4, Informative)
The standards are not only necessary (its a suprisingly large fraction of the household power consumption in CA), but imminently doable.
Roughly 25% of the TVs on the market ALREADY meet the 2013 specification, with 50% meeting the 2011 specification.
The key is "LCD with LED backlight". Such TVs easily meet the spec and are of good quality.
LCD's with conventional backlights needs to change the backlight technology, but they are doing this anyway: LED backlights are better for longevity as well as power consumption.
Who this hurts is those who have bet on Plasma technology, as plasma can effectively not meet these requirements, but plasma is dying anyway, as LCD screens keep getting bigger and faster reacting while being cheaper than plasma TVs.
It is not a question of technology (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Article is BS... (Score:4, Insightful)
Who this hurts is those who have bet on Plasma technology, as plasma can effectively not meet these requirements, but plasma is dying anyway, as LCD screens keep getting bigger and faster reacting while being cheaper than plasma TVs.
You can pry my plasma from my cold dead hands, because I appreciate things like dark blacks, bright whites, color fidelity and blur free motion. LCDs are a lot better than they were at these things, but 1000:1 contrast (DNC is a lie) is still a deal breaker.
I gladly pay for every watt that my plasma draws, so if you think that I'm not paying my fair share, I invite you to find a rate that you think is more fair (of course, remember that you'll have to pay that rate for your fridge too -- a KWH is the same irrespective of what use). Moreover, my energy use is median for my area, so I'm not using more than my neighbor even if my TV uses more than his TV -- I save energy in other ways.
Finally, I have no problem driving up to Oregon (bonus: no sales tax) to buy my next TV. It's quite ironic that a measure intended to cut energy use would encourage such insanely wasteful behavior -- TV energy use pales in comparison to a few hundred miles on my (30mpg) vehicle.
Re: (Score:2)
Thats the mercury backlight in a conventional LCD. Those are being replaced by LED arrays.
What's the big deal? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What's the big deal with large TV's anyway. 12" CRT TV owner, and proud of it.
If you're single and rarely have friends come to visit, a TV the size of a laptop PC's monitor might work. But people with a family or a social life can't easily fit four grown bodies around a 12" TV with a comfortable viewing distance and angle.
cost != price (Score:2)
. IF THEY COULD MAKE MORE EFFICIENT TVS FOR THE SAME PRICE THEY WOULD. They can't, so the TVs will be more expensive. This is more or less a hidden tax on CA consumers, or worse - a hidden tax on all of us, should manufacturers decide to redistribute costs amongst all of their products.
Why do people still believe that the price most goods are sold at is in any way affected by the cost of the manufacturing? tTere are markets where it is true, but in most it is not. Say it costs TV manufacturers an extra $100 to make high end TVs more energy efficient, but 11% less people are willing to pay for it, well if the TV is more than $1000 it's not worth it and the $100 will just eat into profit margins, if it was less than $1000 they would have been charging the extra $100 already. There are marke
This whole thing is BS (Score:2, Interesting)
Why is People's Republik of Kalifornia banning these things?
It will NOT save the state of California millions every year. Utilities are taxed. By decreasing electricity consumption, they are actually DECREASING tax revenue - something People's Republik of Kalifornia cannot afford at this time.
If Joe Sixpack wants to spend money on a plasma television, they ought to let them. The consumers pay for the electricity they use.
Hell if they wanted to save power, they would ban LCDs as well - my Sony 36" CRT uses l
Surplus Plasma? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not free, but cheap enough for me to consider an antiquated plasma screen. Burn in isn't an issue for the purpose I would be using it.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Trying to save the planet (Score:5, Insightful)
Half true, but you ignore one important historical fact...
From the early 1900s until the 1960s, "energy" cost a pittance and no one worried about emissions. You can see the consequences of this in home designs from that period - They leak like a sieve because, well, "just burn more oil". Older heating systems (including wood) have insane particulate outputs, simply because no one cared. If you compare almost identical houses built in the 60s vs the 80s (and not substantially renovated since), you'll find that the former has literally 2-3 times the HVAC costs of the latter.
Thus the DoE's big push to get people to do those energy saving renovations... Get better insulation, get better HVAC systems, get double-glazed low-E windows, and they'll pay people to do this because it literally pays itself back to the US economy within a year or two (it also pays itself back to the homeowner, but most people can't afford to blow $10k on replacing all their windows without some sort of incentive).
We need to start rolling out more sensible power generation facilities.
I agree with you completely that we desperately need to solve our dirty and nonrenewable generation issues... But these form two sides of the same coin. If we can at least hold our energy use constant for 20 years, we can slowly replace older capacity with cleaner sources. If we keep using more and more and more, we might add in renewable capacity but we'll just end up keeping 80YO coal plants online despite the "improvements".
Nothing wrong with pruning your your orchard for a better harvest next year, but don't ignore the existing low-hanging fruit you already have.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's cheaper to save a watt of power than to generate another watt of power.
Utter nonsense. You ignore what that watt of power is doing. It has benefits in addition to the costs. Otherwise, the logical extreme is simply don't produce power at all and "save" a lot of money.
So you start with making things as efficient as possible, and look at additional generation as a last resort.
How about you start with real problems instead of imaginary ones? There's no problem with power consumption. Hence, no need to do anything about it.
Geniuses (Score:2, Interesting)
People will just buy their TV's out of state (Score:2)
The only people this is going to hurt are people who sell large screen TV's in California, and the moronic government that will now miss out on the revenue from it.
Unless they are prepared to guard the borders to check Californians for "illegal" large screen TV's people will still get what they want.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, there were a few things that were highly illegal to sell in Utah: hardcore pr0n, beer with an alcohol content of over 3.2%, actual fireworks, and gambling.
The cities of Wendover, Nevada and Evanston, Wyoming both manage to do a very brisk trade in these things - they are both nearly a 2-hour drive in opposite directions from Salt Lake City. The majority of these towns' incomes come straight out of the wallets and purses of Utah citizens.
Now, these commodities are fairly cheap, and certainly not worth
Just cut us off already (Score:3, Interesting)
(I mean I don't live in the States, let alone in California)
But if the Government wants to get serious about energy consumption, just put a system in place that gives users a fixed amount of Energy for the day. Give me a 1 hour warning that my juice is almost up - and I'll know to finish my round of Halo, go take a shower, and either go to bed or read a book with a flashlight.
I mean, my hot water tank won't last long enough for me and 3 room mates to take showers one after another, but its not like its a such a huge inconvenience that I can't survive. The same could go for energy.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"SCAM" mode? (Score:2)
Idiotic bureaucrats (Score:2)
This is idiotic; what would stop someone from driving to AZ, NV or Oregon and buy a TV from another state? Ironically, this bureaucratic idiocy will create more pollution as a result of folks driving to buy TVs from another state AND it will cost CA sales taxes, with neighboring states benefiting from the decision.
And what's next, TV police vans, like the UK has?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is idiotic; what would stop someone from driving to AZ, NV or Oregon and buy a TV from another state?
Well, given that the two largest population centers (SF Bay, LA) are not a 20 minute drive to the border, how much money would be saved driving out of state? The cost of gas to drive to and from the border would outweigh the savings on a cheaper, less-efficient set. On top of that, the energy bill for the TV will be higher over its lifetime. If you are going to be buying a huge TV, then you'll need an SUV or a big truck, and that doesn't sound like a cheap tank of gas.
A better solution than SCAM mode? (Score:2)
The Fox News crowd is out in force today. (Score:4, Informative)
Too many of the comments seem to come from Fox News viewers. All rant, no facts.
First, here are the actual regulations. [ca.gov] All comments submitted (including e-mail rants) are on-line. Some of the better ones:
Other than Sony, most of the big players don't seem to have major problems with the requirements.
Now is not the time. (Score:4, Interesting)
Disclaimer: I'm all for "green" and the environment when it makes sense. [cents?]
The problem with "green" is that it is not always the right time to do it. California's economy is in serious trouble. (Not the serious like.. Oh my, we need a new governor; I mean serious like in a few years we may not have a higher education system or any small businesses left. I'm employed in what's left of our higher education system and I see federal receivership as a real possible end.)
But what does this have to do with television regulation? I'm renovating a house. I want to improve my home, my neighborhood and California. But we have a piece of regulation called "Title 24" that is a lot like the Television regulation proposed. What does this mean for my renovation... Lighting costs 500% of what it should. You must have high efficacy lighting. This means compact fluorescent and, no, you can't get cheap Type A incandescent fixtures and screw in a retrofit CFL bulb. You have to use the plug socketed CFL fixtures. So "green" lighting for my house costs $6000 while older incandescent would have cost $1000.
This is a serious impediment to purchasing these lights. The same is going to be true for the televisions. They will be more expensive because they will have to be built with more sophisticated technology. People will balk at buying them. Oh.. wait... they don't have a choice because it's a draconian state law; so the only choice is not to buy a TV... or move to where you can. More people will move to any other state to avoid this crap (we are currently having a mass exodus of talented, skilled people and families). Manufacturers will move their manufacturing and marketing to areas more conducive to sales (again... already happening without, yet another, regulation).
And the end result is that California's economy and culture will slip into an even deeper disaster.
"Green" regulation gets myopic... "Since it's better for the environment it MUST be done, at all costs." Well, other factors of equal and greater importance, such as "will we be able to educate our children", exist and should be considered first. It might be the right time to regulate the banking industry but it is certainly not the time to regulate, yet another, consumer oriented product that in the last decade has already seen leaps and bounds of improvements in efficiency just based on natural evolution of the product's technology. Remember tube TVs?
Just SOP for California, learn to love it. (Score:5, Insightful)
California is basically the only reason we have efficient washers and dryers, wallwarts with switching power supplies instead of transformers, consumer electronic devices which actually have low power modes, and vehicle requirements that vastly improve safety and mileage over federal standards. It has all been beneficial in reducing per-capita energy consumption (and water consumption too when it comes to washing machines).
The problem the U.S. has is that most people can't see beyond the end of their nose when it comes to shaping policy. It's really unfortunate that the Feds can't get their act together and it takes action by a state like CA to actually get something done. It's doubly unfortunate that CA regulations designed to give industries upwards of a decade to make changes aren't allowed to take effect until the very last minute by idiot politicians who think they are doing industry a favor when all they are really doing is making our industry non-competitive with other countries and creating massive shocks to the system that are totally unnecessary.
-Matt
Fradulent Summay (Score:4, Insightful)
Everyone, please read the article. The summary is a deliberate prevarication (three dollar word for "lie"). There is no plan or proposal to " target your big-screen TVs for elimination". Under the proposed California regulations anyone can sell or buy and size TV they like now and in the future. In fact the proposed regulations are unremarkable: they are essentially the same as the voluntary Energy Star program, considered to be well within reach by the industry. The CEC mandate simply makes them mandatory instead of voluntary. The better TV manufacturers (e.g. Visio) are in full compliance, and fully support both the standards, and making them mandatory. The only whiners here are companies that wish to hawk cheap inefficient TVs, and ideologues who feel that any government regulation is inherently evil in principle.
Re:What is more important (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
there's just too many people on planet earth
So the only way to cure the planet is to kill the people. You'd best do the honourable thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seppuku#Ritual [wikipedia.org]
Let me know how that works out.
Re:Deckchairs? (Score:5, Insightful)
I did say the disease is the life style of relentless consumption that we see nowadays in most of the industrialized world.
The biggest problem is that the pollution bill is footed by everyone in the planet. People buying (and throwing away) stuff should be forced to also pay for the pollution produced by the waste and manufacturing of the goods.
Kyoto was a first attempt at trying to get handle of that. It didn't go very far.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The disease is overpopulation
[Citation needed]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think it's overpopulation, per se. I think it is simply a matter of how much energy each human uses over their lifetime.
Think about it. Tribes in the forest use next to zero energy. They use rudimentary tools and what little carbon they create/release (breathing/fires) is easily absorbed by the environment.
The issue really is when you look to "civilized" society where we have cars (and all the manufacturing to make/sustain them), houses, "things", and simple energy usage to power tv's and other e
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
We, in the US to use an often cited stat, use 25% of the World's oil - and we're what? 4% of the World's population?
The reason why the consumption around the World is increasing is because people in developing countries want to live like US. If 300 million people are using 25% of the oil, then that would mean that only 1.2 billion can use oil like we do.
I say, we here in the USofA lead by example. If folks want to live like US, let's show them how to live.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Hello? The 70's are calling and wants its bugaboo-de-jour back.
Seriously, population isn't growing geometrically or even close to geometrically. The rate of increase has steadily been trending down for a decade or more, and (at least in the industrialized West) it looks as if population will top out aroun
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Deckchairs? (Score:4, Informative)
"The disease is overpopulation - there's just too many people on planet earth, and even if you do cut back energy usage, you can't economize fast enough to keep up with geometric population growth."
The inevitable collapse from overpopulation is always just around the corner. And we face dire consequences (this time for sure!) unless we immediately institute arbitrary and draconian measures to control even the most basic human actions.
Your premise is based on two incorrect assumptions:
- Available resources are in constant decline
- Population always increases geometrically
Both are wrong. They've been wrong since Malthus proposed them. They've been shown to be wrong so many times that it's difficult to understand why otherwise intelligent people keep repeating them uncritically as though they're unassailable facts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Deckchairs? (Score:5, Insightful)
The best way to fix overpopulation is what we're doing. Encourage economic prosperity which in turn reduces the number of new children born. This method is already working in Europe and has always worked well in the United States.
The fewer people living in poverty, the less of an economic engine having lots of kids will provide and the problem will become underpopulation.
Re: (Score:2)
The real issue there is security, not prosperity. Having lots of kids is an unconscious hedge against the fact that most of them will die without reproducing.
But if we spread prosperity first, the current population glut will destroy the planet before the birth rate is sufficiently constrained.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The other factors the strongly affect birthrate are education, equality for women, and availability of birth control. All of which are probably more important than prosperity, and many of which are not present in some prosperous countries (like the oil-rich middle-eastern countries).
Re:Deckchairs? (Score:4, Insightful)
There's a difference between prosperous in terms of GDP and prosperous in terms of having an empowered middle class. You can have a country with a staggering GDP yet a massive, poverty-stricken underclass and serious quality-of-life problems simply by balancing it with a few obscenely rich folks.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
More prosperity leads to fewer people.
More prosperity also leads to increased emissions per person.
Which effect is stronger? If smaller prosperous families use more energy than large indigent ones, increasing prosperity might be a net negative for global warming.
Re: (Score:2)
I say we build three spaceships. The "A Ark" would contain leaders, the "B Ark" would contain middle-men and the "C Ark" would contain workers.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Dibs on whichever ark is carrying the telephone sanitizers.
LCDs are MUCH less power... (Score:2)
LCDs generally use a lot less power than plasma TVs.
LCDs with LED backlights are even better... Those TVs already meet the 2013 california specifications.
EG, the Vizio 55" LCD tv with LED backlights draws only 150W average [vizio.com]. So significantly bigger LCD backlit TV (20% larger area) draws only 20% of the power of a plasma TV.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
LCDs (of 50") are nowhere near that. From a nice article:
Average plasma: 338 watts
Average LCD: 176 watts
http://reviews.cnet.com/green-tech/tv-power-efficiency/ [cnet.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Uh... California (Hollywood, Burbank, et cetera) already have control over what the Soviets... er, Americans watch. They also have a lot of influence in Canada and Europe. I for one welcome our tan-skinned, bikini-clad overlords.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)