Slashdot Mirror
Efficiency Gains Could Prove Proposed Plasma Ban Shortsighted
hihopes writes "As the EU calls for a ban on plasma TVs, a leading Harvey Norman executive said that the issue should be left to vendors, who at the recent CES Show in the USA showed an array of low-powered TV display screens."
I'm no free market radical, but this does seem like a good example of something that is best left to the market.
There is a direct and increasing incentive for consumers to buy lower energy use products. Therefore there is a direct incentive to reduce the energy use in these panels. Therefore the market is likely to either produce lower energy use plasmas, or LCDs or other similar technologies which have plasma-like quality.
The time and money no doubt involved in this regulatory process might be better spent on improving the level of mandatory information disclosed in relation to all electrical products so that consumers can (voluntarily) make an informed decision.
Read Pynchon.
Why energy hungry industries argue for tax exemptions is, that they still need to compete with companies in countries, where energy is not taxed as heavily.
> They could make laws to make power-consumption more visible in advertizing.
My suggestion would be, that the total costs of a device for an average use over a fixed time (say 10 years) must be displayed including energy, water, expected repair- and replacement costs for an common average use. Preferably at the same font size as the nominal price.
"Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
Can't resist tucking in a bit of the old sour grapes, eh? :)
I'm glad as hell I moved to Europe. Clean streets, low crime, affordable health care, and there's a nice pension waiting for me when I get old. And people are generally much more inclined NOT to try to mind my personal affairs or beliefs than in the so-called "Land of the Free".
You couldn't get me to move back to the US if you paid me. And people have offered to.
In this case, people are notoriously bad at figuring long term expenses that are sustained and slightly elevated. People will tend to pay $10,000 over the life of a car for a "cheaper" model that costs $4,000 less. They'll tend to buy the plasma TV that costs $300 less than the $2000 LED TV that lasts twice as long and uses 30% less electricity.
The reason for this isn't necessarily because of being bad at figuring out expenses, it's because of a lack of information. People generally don't know power consumption values, and let's face it... power is not that expensive.
And this affects the commons because power is increasingly a rare resource being squandered to provide a 5' wide screen typically viewed 15 feet back that provides the same viewing aspect ratio as a 19" TV at 4 feet at 11x the power. Power that isn't then available for running manufacturing plants, hospitals, and other things that generate real wealth, and require a tax-funded power plant to compensate for.
Ah, a tax-funded power plant? Does this mean the "real cost" of power is being hidden from consumers? One of the problems with so-called "progressive taxation" is that, when people in higher tax brackets pay a greater portion of the service, it distorts the cost of the service. What may, without shifting the tax burden to some other group (or even just disguising it by taking it through taxes) something may appear cheaper than it really is, resulting in people being less concerned over how much they use it.
For example, my university recently rolled out a "free" newspaper program where a card swipe opens up a dispenser that students can take newspapers out of, providing us with 3 choices--take the local one, US today, or New York times, or any combination of the three, it doesn't matter. Now, those newspapers are presumably not being given to the university for free, so students, unaware of the hidden cost, now grab them when they wouldn't have bought them at their news stand price in the first place.
You want people to be concerned about power usage? Make them pay the full cost directly, no shifting the fees to the evil nasty rich people, no disguising in through taxes, or anything of the sort. Or you can add a hefty tax to power, but that's obviously not exactly what I would do.
The people that buy the 300 dollar less TV are probably still going to save money in the long run than the 300 dollar more TV that saves 30% less energy. And, of course, people may need that 300 dollars NOW more than they need it LATER. And I don't even need to get into how fast it'll be obsolete.
And as for this:
But one thing that many of the "free market everywhere" people miss completely is the idea of the tragedy of the commons. I don't need to try to explain it [wikipedia.org] as it's already explained well elsewhere. But it's one concept that the "free market" Libertarian types completely ignore, at their own peril.
Tragedy of the commons is trotted out to libertarians so often they probably have heard more about it than you have. Actually, they get a chance to use the argument, too: when the government owns something, and thus, theoretically everyone and no one owns it, they tend to take less care of it. Take the famous example of a field shared by a bunch of herders--they will all deplete the vegetable life by all trying to maximize grazing. However, if that land was to be split up among the herders, they would each have an incentive to prevent overgrazing as they are only allotted a particular plot of land.
What's worse is when other lazy journalists pick up on the headlines and make further embellishments, without checking any of the source material. Even when these stories are categorically denied, the lasting impression - from the "drip, drip" effect is to produce an anti-EU sentiment, which suits a few (usually foreign) media owners, to further their own goals.
In the end, we get the media we deserve - but boy, do we pay for it!
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Because not all products offer cheaper alternatives. You'd effectively be raising the price 25% on things where there is no other option.
One example is that I have a heated greenhouse here in the UK, it's heated because I grow exotic plants, including cultivation of species that are critically endangered in the wild which I sell on cheaply to help discourage sales of habitat collected plants which I can undercut because the risk of smuggling carries a higher price than the price I can charge growing in bulk and transferring legally (well, at least in Europe, stupid CITES regulation does more harm than good outside Europe in this respect).
I already use an electric heater, I already use solar power where possible but the only alternative is to simply fall back to mains throughout October - March. There really is no cheaper alternative, natural gas is more expensive due to the fact you have to leave a gas burner on all the time, whilst electric heaters only need to come on when the temperature drops below a set level so electricity is the cheapest, most efficient option.
What you're proposing would act as a 25% increase in cost for something I'm doing that is already about as environmentally friendly as you can get. It would have the side effect of ultimately forcing me to raise prices due to the increased cost of electricity and then lowering the attractiveness of my plants over those that are collected from habitat for species that are on the very verge of extinction. I do not make a profit from this hobby, it's not as if I can cut that.
10 years? Without lead solder I doubt they will last that long. Going after standby power seems more productive.