Till then,

Jean

Good point..I don’t even have a TV anymore.

Personally, I think the California ban is wrong,
I agree it’s good to let people know how they csn save energy and money, but it should be voluntary.

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 limit
people using it anyway.
No need to legislate for 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.
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, 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.

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 http://www.ceolas.net/#cc1x

The excuse that dealing with emissions like that takes too long does not hold up, as explained,
http://www.ceolas.net/#cc201x
- also because of the taxation alternative……

2.
Taxation, while still wrong, is better than bans for all concerned.

This is not like a ban on dangerous lead paint!
It’s simply a ban to (supposedly) reduce electricity consumption.
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.

Of course, to avoid smuggling, bans (and to a lesser extent taxes) have to be applied nationwide or internationally.
Both bans and taxes are in any case unjustified, taxes just being a comparably better option.