Should the government be allowed to restrict the sale of flat panel TVs?

A ban is not appropriate but a tax based on the energy usage is. Then direct all of the funds to the states already aggressive renewable energy plans.

Asking the gov’t to restrict sales of large screen flat panel TVs is comparable to parking the abulance at the bottom of the cliff instead of installing a guard rail on the cliff edge at the top. If one wants to save energy it can be implemented at the consumer level by exercising common sense. 1) Do not go off for more than 10 minutes and leave the TV on with nobody watching. 2) For those programs that do not require a large screen to get the information across, watch it on the old CRT TV or a smaller LCD (26″ or less). 3) Our home entertainment system is on a swichable outlet. We merely flip the switch on the way out the door.

If one wants to legislate energy use limits make the manufacturer’s provide an on/off switch for the standby mode. The standby mode consumes energy. When one goes to bed at night or leaves home for 2 hours or more turn off the standby mode. It may take longer for the TV to “boot up” but the energy savings will be substantial.

Why doesn’t the goverment fund research for better alternatives instead of restrictings current technology. OLED (organic light emmiting diodes) are a new but expensive technology that is a thinner and better quality picutre but with extremely low energy consumption. Encouraging innovation will prove to be much better in the long run than forced regulation.

Did our forefathers fight and die so we would have a government tell us what TV we are allowed to purchase? Who is John Galt?

California needs money. They can just impose an energy usage tax on the big-screen devices and other high energy usage devices, similar to the gas-guzzler taxes on cars. Might bring in some extra revenue. If people want to use these devices, let them pay for them.
Entertainment is more a luxury than a need. Regular television provides access to both entertainment, and information such as news and discussin programs, which is a bit more important. The super-sized displays are strictly a luxury item, not a true necessity. Let the people who want and can afford them pay for the extra cost of operation and the ifrastructure costs of providing the extra powr buden.

Instead of having the government restrict sales of any technology, have the government a) tax higher power consumption devices b) fund research into improving power consumption of devices c) fund research into lowering the cost of these more power efficient devices.

If there are restrictions placed on sales due to high energy consumption then it would follow that there would be market pressure to reduce that high consumption. The same thing occurs with the low emissions requirements for vehicles. If the market is large enough there will be someone who meets the demand.
– Don

Hell no! That last thing we need is another “Nanny State” edict. If you can afford it, buy it.

In this economy who can afford to buy one so why regulate it? I’d like to have one but certainly can find room for it in my budget.

Why target TV’s? Why not AC’s, refrigerators and driers? The answer to the problem lies not in restricting sales, but in finding ways to make the technology use less power.

I know what we should do: Let’s legislate that we can only watch TV 1/2 hour every day. We can save it up for the week to watch a movie or sporting event. Then they can set our bedtime and tell us when to go to bed. Of course, we must mandate that we eat our vegetables, too. And make it illegal to not turn off our lights, or even if we have too many lights on! We can save so much - if only the government will tell us what to do.

Does that mean that California will also impose a manufacturing restriction on Vehicles? How about a restriction on manufacturing Air Conditioners or Refrigerators? Not to mention Clothes Driers. I’m very glad I left California long, long time ago. Specially after I held a door open for a lady and she yelled at me that she wasn’t about to pay for the service. So much for being a gentlemen. I can’t wait till they start charging people by the liter for every gulp of air they take.

Give tax breaks for alternative energy, specifically solar cells. If every home and business in California had a solar cell array consumption would be drastically reduced. Banning TVs is not the answer.

Hell no!!! The market place will control the sales and energy consumption. The government and some environmentalists want to control everything we do. Welcome 1984!!

Energy useage by any appliance should be part of the labelling (like it is for refrigerators and “EnergyStar” appliances). With rising costs for electricity, consumers vote with their wallets for products that cost less to run. An added “luxury tax” on ineffecient automobiles and appliances would also help steer consumers, increasing demand for more efficient products.

Yes, but not just the flat panels (LCD or Plasma), rather TVs that use more than a certain amount (TBD) of energy. Forcing manufacturers to innovate and develop cheaper-to-run or more efficient products.

Also, more taxes are not the answer. They will be implimented with energy saving in mind and used for something totally unrelated. We have enough waste in government.

Let people buy all the TV’s they want. If you want to restrict something, restrict peak energy usage. If you want to watch your six widescreen TV’s you’ll need to watch them one at a time or shut off the washer and drier while you watch them.

I have an old CRT TV and when I turn it off, the filament in the CRT stays on and continues to use power. This extends its life by avoiding swings in temperature. An LCD display may draw more current when its on but when its off, its off, and draws no current. Has this been factored in to the discussion.

While there may be unintended consequences to the government restricting these sales, one positive consequence is that it may spur researchers and designers to come up with more efficient display technologies. Perhaps the government should consider restrictions on other devices for the same reason.

Power consumption is a single design parameter of many that make up the design of large screen TV. Until California, not near the top of the list in the compromise mix. What sells is big, bright, fast, high contrast, loud, cost……. Define where we need to be on power input and it will happen. The evolution of Plasa to LCD to Oled to what is waiting in the Labs is a dynamic process. Let the process work.

For the government to be involved in this is COMMUNISM!

There should be no government restriction on such sales.
However, forcing display of an honest energy-use estimation on each unit (akin to the yellow “Energy Use” tags on appliances) would be a significant step in the right direction. Display of both “power-on” and “power-off” energy consumptions would allow consumers to make an informed choice based on anticipated usage.

This seems like an attempt to ration electricity consumption. The next step will be to restrict use of air conditioning/ heating etc. The solution to California’s energy issues needs to be answered by developing more sources of power and beefing up the transmission and distribution system. Turn the entrepreneurs loose and create a team of Government and private enterprise to focus on the issues. This is a National issue. To focus on restrictions of how people use the end products is seriously shortsighted.

I think it is important for California to limit electrical power consumption in every way possible to give all of its residents the ability to recharge their electric vehicles!

Are you kidding? What is next? Restrict households to one clock, limit the size of one’s house, get rid of pets, etc…Absolutely no.

This is a great opportunity for the new administration to ‘create new jobs’! Plasma screen police - how else could this be enforced? The power company should only be allowed to charge for the power sold - enough said. Maybe there could be an actual luxury tax placed on these items, but beyond that, this is a slippery slope directly to how many children we can have per household, and every other communism flavored piece of legislation that could be drafted behind this one - this cannot be allowed to happen.

Hey Big Brother Government,

Keep your nose out of my business.

First get the facts straight. The TV manufacturers intentionally set the screens up to a higher than necessary power level because it increases the intensity of the image in the stores. Proper balancing of the color (white balance) significantly reduces power consumption which also makes the flat screen last longer. Currently this adjustment costs the consumer after the sale. If something is to be regulated do it at the manufacturer or sales point not on the consumer. People will still buy the TV’s but at power levels that are more like the CRT technology.

Force people to save money by preventing them from acting on their own judgment, vs. whether this is a good time to harm retailers. Is that really the choice? What about individual rights, and the right of each person to decide based on their own lives and best judgment? The government should behave rationally, stop crippling California’s power infrastructure, and get out of the way of the energy producers so they can provide for the needs of their customers. It should not be arguing about who is to be the next victim to support doing the wrong thing.

Without fail, everytime the government takes the reins, the horse either dies or runs off a cliff.

To restrict the sale of large flat-panel TVs in the name of energy consumption sounds like a lobbyist at work.
If you really need to manage power demand, limit the amount of power a household/business can use. Or be less draconic and just make the tiered power rates exponential. The excessive users would provide enough money to improve the infrastructure while letting the average consumer avoid paying through the nose.

The USA is a free country. Government should stay out of people’s lives. If energy becomes short in supply & expensive, people will stop buying them. That’s the free market system. Works on Money…supply & demand…..remember?
The government is trying to scare people into believing the gov. should dictate the solutions, when we all know they caused the problems. As far as I can poll, nobody believes the government can solve any problems, except for the government. Adding new taxes to everything that consumes a lot of power would be rediculous. Again, go against big brother & pay the price in tax. Just another excuse for over-regulation & excessive taxation required to grow government bigger yet.

If anything needs to be restricted then I suggest the big energy suckers first, like big pick-ups and SUV’s, or private swimming pools.
Or how about excessive Christmas light displays?
Even at 43% higher power rate a big screen TV alone is not a big power consumer if operated normally (just turn it on when you watch, not 24/7), it consumes as much as 3 to 4 60Watt lightbulbs.

If this is such a big issue, then the Govt should levy a “luxury tax” on the flat panel TVs. Those who must have them will have to pay more for them.

Information on Sony TVs ( Representative)

KDL-32XBR6 - LCD
Power Consumption (in Operation) : 160W in use

KV-32FV300
Power Consumption 230W in use

Where is the 43% percent savings.

More CA legislature psudeoscience!
From the granola bunch.

No more Government interference in our lives! This is just a scam in Psuedoscience and junk numbers being used to come up with more taxes to solve non-problems.
If CA needs more power there are plenty of hydro, wind, clean coal, and nuclear options - but the state and personnel still insist on the “not in our yard” policies that got CA in the bind it is today.
The price of running the device should be prominently displayed for consumer information just like food (calories), Cars (standard MPG) and refrigerators (E-star rating).

Look out America. California just leads the push toward the “Nanny” state - government control of more and more aspects of your life. Red left turn arrows on almost every corner to keep you from turning in front of oncomming traffic at 2AM when you’re the only car for miles, no smoking in bars and niteclubs, MUST add MTBE to gasoline (OOOPS, that causes cancer, but still required by law), and it just keeps getting worse.

In the new spirit of our country we would have an Energy Tax on purchase of power-guzzling non-essentials, which would supposedly pay for development of more efficient TV displays as well as the increased energy requirement. Naturally, there would be the usual new layers of government bureaucrats to administer this tax (which will pay their salaries), but Hey, that’s where the new jobs are going to be anyway, right? Your bailout dollars at work.

Since when have Americans allowed their government to dictate electricity usage to them? What is this, the USSA?

Americans have the right to use whatever amount of electricity for which they are willing to pay. Whatever happened to this being the “Land of the Free”?

Uncle Sam makes a terrible mother and I’m perfectly happy with the one God blessed me with thank you very much.

No, this is the wrong approach. If the true concern is energy usage, then it would make more sense to apply a tax to the energy itself rather than than a device using it.

This sounds more like a move to take advantage of the green movement and levy another form of tax while the public is feeling guilty about any consumption of energy that could be remotely considered excessive.

Consumers already are paying for the energy they use and our government is already taxing the power companies for their income. We don’t need the government to be double dipping. Let the cost of the energy and the fiancial capabilities of the consumers be the factors that balance energy consumption and availability.

Just sell an exercise bike with an alternator, battery and inverter so the viewer can make up the difference between what the government would allow and what the viewer wants. Kill two birds with one stone.

Perhaps even better to sell the TV with a connector that cannot access the grid, would have to have an exercise bike arrangement.

If those restrictions are based solely on energy consumption, then sales of such devices should indeed be regulated. It needs to be understood that due to the precarious energy situation in California, over-consumption of power by the few will be at the expense of all. Everyone is impacted equally when a brownout or blackout occurs. We have standards for energy conservation in building codes, so why not for appliances as well?

Should the government get involved and tell you that you can’t build a 10,000 sq. ft. house if it will need to be heated or cooled? Does building a large house consume too many resources? Where does the regulation end? Should we outlaw motor homes, race cars?

Display manufacturers know that power consumption is a problem and are moving to LED backlights for LCDs in high end laptops and TVs. This trend will accelerate as LEDs drop in cost. Next, you’ll see dynamic backlights for LCDs that provide more significant power savings and improved contrast ratio. Later, the LCD color filters will be eliminated by field sequential color operation to further lower the power consumption. In the meantime, posting the power consumption next to the price will be sufficient.

Chris C is partially correct–LED backlight TVs were all over CES in LV earlier this month. LEDs produce better color gamut than CCFL, allow a thinner chassis, won’t break from mechanical shock, don’t require a HV power supply, and dim very nicely–all reasons that the mfrs are headed that way. And they will lower the overall energy use, though most of the mfrs don’t really have that as a high priority.

The California initiative is pretty stupid–it completely ignores these tech advancements that will kick in before 2011. The sets that will be the worst offenders will be the ones that are already in use.

iT IS REASONABLE TO RESTRICT SALES OF THESE NOT BY SIZE, BUT BY ENERGY USAGE. RESTRICTION SHOULD BE BY ADDING AN ENERGY FEE THAT WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK TO RESEARCH RELATED TO ENERGY.

Federal government = no way. The Feds are expressly forbidden to do things like this and it would be against the law for them to do so (it woukld be struck down in Court). But, the States have the right to regulate things such as this, and whether they should is a question for the voters and inhabitants of those States. If calif does it, expect much more of the present exodus of taxpaying citizens from that sad place to more free, prosperous, and better managed States. Instead of taking Americans freedoms away by tyranical rules like this proposal, why not generate more power? Much, much more power.

Lot’s of posts here recommend that the government impose higher taxes for those who use more energy. We’ve had that tax in Kalifornia for at least 8 years, when I started looking at my electric bill. In Kalifornia, the price for electricity is regulated. When I go above the baseline, I pay 20% higher rates. George Orwell’s book, “1984″ was dated about 30 years ahead of it’s time.

Could it be that LCD TVs consume 43 percent more power than cathode ray TVs because they are 43% larger? When compared on a watt per square inch basis, and with brightness and sound set at the same levels, I don’t think you will see much difference in power consumption.

We don’t need more government taxes on energy. And it is not the government’s business to decide what we use our kilowatt hours for. How about mandating more efficient air conditioners, refrigerators, and other equipment where the kilowatt hours add up fast.

Preggo Abuse

Big Boobs In Your Face

All Rough Sex

Gay No Limit

Amy Virgin

Mari Possa

Trixy Potter

Kelly Shore

Pure Dee

Shorty MacAdventures

Sasha Blonde

Ragazze Possedute

Old Chicks

Busty Britain

Black Booty Cam

Adult Video Access

Drunk Gays

Anal Acrobats

Hot Sexy Plumpers

Fatty Blowjobs

Exotic Asian Beauties

Samantha Gauge

Jenny Juggs

Audrey Lamore

In Bed With Faith

West Coast Pimp

Sex And Submission

Candi Love Doll

Curvy Carrie

Blow My Dick Now

Bone Smokin

Angelina Valentine

Cartoon Fornication

Gay Movie Source

Brazzers Network

Porn Mega Pass

Alice Wonder Bang

FYrekjIb