NewsFactor – California’s ban on plasma-screen televisions to reduce energy consumption could cost as much as $50 million per year in sales taxes because consumers are free to buy the sets online or in other states. “At a time when the state of California is facing its worst money crisis in history, this is going to be disastrous,” said Jennifer Bemisderfer, a spokesperson for the Consumer Electronics Association, which lobbied against the ban.
Syndicate or subscribe to this feed- Facebook Creates Individual Pages About You and Your Friends
- Your Social Strategy May Lack Key Elements for Increasing Conversions
- Nielsen Wants to Take the Mystery out of Measuring Online Advertising
- APNewsBreak: University posts info of 40K students (AP)
- IT Worker Gets Prison After Stealing Data for Online Surveys (PC World)
- PARTING SHOTS: Prisons helped draft AZ immigration law, Joe Miller in dead last (The Upshot)
- Online Masters Program Focuses on Free Software (PC World)
- Gawker editor defends anonymous O’Donnell post (The Upshot)
- Does Urgency Matter More in Email Than in Social Media?
- Using Social Media As A PR Tool For Your Business
I agree that this ban is wrong,
also in an overall energy savings perspective.
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.
It might sound great to
“Let everyone save money by only allowing energy efficient products”
However:
Inefficient 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, big plasma TV screens have image contrast and other
advantages along with their large image sizes.
Products using more energy usually cost less, or they’d be more energy
efficient already.
Depending on how much they are used, there might therefore not be any
running cost savings either.
Other factors contribute to a lack of savings:
If households use less energy,
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, knowing that energy bills are lower,
as also shown by Scottish and Cambridge research
http://ceolas.net/#cc214x
Either way, supposed energy – or money – savings aren’t there.
2. Taxation, while still wrong, is better than bans for all concerned.
TV set taxation based on energy efficiency – unlike bans – gives
Governor Schwarzenegger’s impoverished California 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.
Politicians can use the tax money raised to fund home 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.
———————-
Why energy efficiency regulations are wrong,
whether you are for or against energy and emission conservation
http://ceolas.net/#cc2x
Summary
Politicians don’t object to energy efficiency as it sounds too good to
be true. It is.
–The Consumer Side
Product Performance — Construction and Appearance
Price Increase — Lack of Actual Savings: Money, Energy or Emissions.
Choice and Quality affected
– The Manufacturer Side
Meeting Consumer Demand — Green Technology — Green Marketing
–The Energy Side
Energy Supply — Energy Security — Cars and Oil Dependence
–The Emission Side
Buildings — Industry — Power Stations — Light Bulbs and other
electrical products