Rush Limbaugh's Morning Update: Fade-Out
Rush Limbaugh: I warned you. The unelected and unaccountable environmentalist wackos who comprise the California Energy Commission are prohibiting stores from selling television sets that don't meet certain energy requirements. The ban takes effect in 2011, targeting LCD and plasma TVs, which the public loves -- and the wackos hate.
Before the vote (which was unanimous), Art Rosenfeld, one of the commissioners who has spent 30 years advocating such bans, claimed the action would be "a very good deal for society." He said his agency wanted to put a damper on energy demand since TV sets have gradually morphed into home-entertainment centers. You see, Art doesn't approve of that.
The commission claims the TV ban won't cost consumers anything because manufacturers already make over a thousand products that meet the requirements. But how can that be? If manufacturers and consumers won't be affected, there'd be no reason for the ban!
The Consumer Electronics Association warns the ban will cost California jobs and sales tax revenue; that it will stifle competition and harm consumers. I'll tell you what else. Businesses across the California state line are going to sell the banned TVs, and if the ban is too invasive, a black market is going to flourish.
So a question for you hardworking California taxpayers: What's it going to take before you reach your breaking point out there with the loss of freedom under these liberal tyrants? I mean, you've got a little over a year to buy the TV of your choice. Make the best of it, because time -- like your liberty -- is fading out fast... into a test pattern.
Read the Background Material on the Morning Update...
• WSJ.com: New California Rules to Make TVs Greener
posted by Andy W. Rogers | 12:10 AM
1 Comments:
Andy, I find myself agreeing with Rush...
Are you guys in the 'Free America' or are you wannabees to join our Bureaucratic ban-loving EU? :-)
Either way,
Governor Schwarzenegger is shooting himself in the foot!
1. Taxation is better for everyone, if politicians really believe that targeting these products gives any worthwhile energy savings.
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 (with emission tax or gas tax), 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.
Also, the energy efficient products can have their sales taxes lowered.
2. Product regulation, bans or taxation, are however unwarranted:
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 the bigger 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.
----------------------
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
Post a Comment
<< Home