Hey, keepontryin, I like the way that you worded your question - the standards will restrict INEFFICIENT large screens - the technology is already on the market that enables the TV to suck less energy.

I think it seems like a good idea, and another way in which California wields its population power to push manufacturers towards making sensible changes faster than they would otherwise. See, as examples, autos and refrigerators. (And, unlike autos and refrigerators, large screen TV's are nowhere near as necessary for day-to-day life.)

I don't always support California measures, but I'm glad to see they're taking some initiative on this matter.

(BTW, they won't be taking away any of our TV's, or forcing us to give them up - it only applies to future purchases!)

California appears poised to ban energy-guzzling big screen televisions. In response to protests from the usual suspects, energy Commissioner Julia Levin trots out the standard environmentalist boilerplate rhetoric, without noticing that it doesn't, er, apply:

"We would not propose TV efficiency standards if we thought there was any evidence in the record that they will hurt the economy," said Commissioner Julia Levin, who has been in charge of the two-year rule-making procedure. "This will actually save consumers money and help the California economy grow and create new clean, sustainable jobs."

Really? America hasn't manufactured televisions in a few decades. How exactly is this going to create new, clean, sustainable jobs? Will people be so depressed by their terrible picture quality that they'll finally get off the couch and invent that perpetual motion machine?

The California ban on large screen televisions is another example of government trying to effect change in the market place by legislation rather than allowing market demand to dictate the terms.

The market place is supposed to be directly affected by consumer choice in order to allow for a supply of products that are fresh, wanted by consumers and to spur new creativity that is profitable.

When production has to be created, not to meet actual consumer demand, but to meet with a narrow set of guide.lines established by government, overseen by some out of touch bureaucratic office; the power of innovation is turned away from consumer demand and is redirected towards satisfying government mandates. This causes new product innovations to suffer, profit margins drop with decreased demand, and corporate cost savings, perhaps in terms of even more overseas labor to take root.

The end result is , less choice for the consumer, less profits for the companies producing these goods, which results in less or lower paid jobs.

I believe that activist government should be defined as one that actively informs its citizens on perceived dangers and benefits of issues, not one that legislates to promote its own agenda and thus take the individual decision out of the equation.

I want a government that intelligently informs me, not one that prefers to wrap things in simplistic slogans and then makes the decisions for me under the guise that it is for my own good.

The proposed rules are good ones. The largest manufacturer, Visio, says it will have no problems complying. Corporations are designed, and required, to make as much money as they can. To achieve the many other important goals of society the government has to establish rules. Good rules provide a level playing field in which the corporations can compete. In the case of appliances and electricity the situation is analogous to cars and gas. The market demand is for performance and price; but, only the immediate price turns out to be considered by the consumers. Nor do the consumers consider import/export balance or the environment much. The manufactures of gas guzzling cars did it because the cost of those cars showed up elsewhere. 'They made cheaper cars at the cost of efficient design and engines because the consumers paid for the fuel separately. Similarly some TV manufacturers make inefficient TV's because the sticker price will be lower even though the customer eventually pays more through electric bills. The government's job in these situations is to insist on high standards for mpg, or in this case energy efficiency, and let competition solve the technical problems. The amount of electricity saved has been calculated to be significant because of the number and size of TV sets in California.

I do think it's "over the edge", as you say, but so are most California efficiency rules. Have you heard about the new proposed laws on energy-reflective glass for cars that will make convertibles with plastic windows illegal to sell? The free market is about convincing others and "selling" people on ideas, and it's frustrating that California is under no obligation to do that with their regulations.

"It takes a raindrop to make a waterfall"

I don't think it's over the edge at all as long as they aren't enforcing strict penalties to this one. (you don't belong in jail for a big screen lol)

I think we've been given ample chance to show we can handle not killing our planet one personal comfort at a time and failed miserably, perhaps now we need some guidance. It may seem a small gnat but it will get folks talking about energy and looking at what they do use. Did you know previously that inefficient large screen tvs accounted for 2% of California's energy use? Did you check the energy rating on your tv after reading about it?

There's the purpose.

dyes