The energy-efficient TVs you want but may not be able to buy
A Rasmussen Reports poll released Tuesday seems to confirm a point The Times made in an editorial last month on a California regulation that would ban large-screen TVs from being sold because they consume too much energy: Leave it up to the market to catch up on electricity-inefficient televisions. An excerpt from the Rasmussen summary:
Most adults (53%) say being able to buy whatever kind of TV they want is more important than conserving energy. However, 37% rate conserving energy as more important.
Still, 54% are willing to pay more for a television that is more energy-efficient. Thirty percent (30%) are not, and 16% aren’t sure.
Conservation-minded folks (this bike and bus commuter considers himself one) may be discouraged by the majority opinion that most people feel being able to buy whatever mega-screen television they darn well please is more important than saving energy. But the energy-unregulated TV market is working in conservation's favor: Nearly the same percentage of people -- 54% -- say efficiency is important enough to them that would pay more for televisions that use less electricity.
As The Times' editorial pointed out, the new regulation would actually hamper the innovation already underway in the industry. The Rasmussen poll adds another point: California's action may deprive consumers of the energy-efficient entertainment they'd pay a premium for.
Hat tip: Katherine Mangu-Ward and Reason's Hit and Run.
-- Paul Thornton
Photo credit: Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times
Obviously our esteemed state regulators haven't considered the possibility that people with large flat screens might not leave the house as much, driving in search of their distractions. Every technology category of TVs is becoming more efficient, generation to generation, without a wit of government intervention. My current 60" plasmas (yes, plural) use less energy than the 50" screens they replaced. New LED-lit LCD screens are more efficient (and operate sans mercury-containing fluorescent backlights) than the prior LCD screens from the same vendors. This problem is already corralled. The few people who can afford an 84" plasma aren't numerous enough to make a difference. The answer isn't in banning TVs, it's in expanding subsidies for mass solar and tapping coastal tidal & wave power, geothermal, wind and, yes, a mix of nuclear and carbon-sequestering cleaner coal power generation when appropriate.
Posted by: Phil | November 16, 2009 at 02:07 AM
Somebody has got to be kidding. When the buffoons in the State Capitol have nothing better to do than ban flat screen TVs to conserve energy and “reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” they clearly have too much time on their hands.
Why not ban cars with air conditioning or larger SUVs because they use more gasoline? Who are these clowns, and why do we keep electing them and reelecting them?
With the stroke of a pen, government can regulate almost anything out of existence under just about any pretext. If you think California is a high-cost, high-tax state now, wait till Gov. Schwarzenegger’s quixotic “Global Warming Solutions Act” kicks in. Hold on to your wallets: It won’t make much difference which TV you buy because the cost of electricity will skyrocket.
All anyone has to do is buy their TV online and out of state, getting a better price and saving usurious sales taxes and the Gray Davis™ e-waste recycling fee. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot and missing the “big picture.”
Posted by: Richard Deight | November 12, 2009 at 10:09 AM
now is a good time to refresh the stories about appalling e-waste dumps in India, China and elsewhere. and/or: why not a graph showing total energy consumption of every big-screen TV in the U.S.?
Posted by: Tara | November 11, 2009 at 11:50 PM