California Energy Commission effectively
bans plasma TVs
Using a Bible passage as a political
slogan: I don't like it
Show No. 224-2009
Hour ONE • Click HERE to downloadOpening • Analysis: New rules on TVs in California • Rant: Why don't we build new powerplants? • Plasma vs. LCD • Audio: TV report on TV energy limits • Treehuggers love government oppression • LA Times editorial against the restrictions • How the rules will affect television availability • Who gets hurt? Retailers of course • Hotels and hospitals hindered as well • Two-Minute Warning™ shelved for now • Senate health care bill • Audio: Harry Reid's vague notions • AP devotes 11 reporters to 'fact check' Sarah Palin's book • Rant: In the coming elections, the left will be 'fact checking' conservatives like never before •
Hour TWO • Click HERE to download
Audio: Kennedy on KFI 640 AM talks about Sarah Palin • Palin on Reagan and Obama bowing • Audio: Portion of Palin on Limbaugh • Rant: Wealthy people talking about Americans hurting • Reading: Wall Street Journal on Palin's book • Rant: Rehashing the attacks on Sarah Palin • Audio: Obama on Fox News talks about jobs, deficits and debt • Bible passage used as a political slogan: I don't like it • Psalm 109:8 is followed by a dangerous insinuation • Audio: Frank Schaeffer with Rachel Maddow • Jesse Jackson says you can't be black and against government health care
Show Notes • Links • Audio/Video
• NY Times: California first imposes standard on flat panel TVs
• PE: Cloudy economic recovery forecast for Southern California
• YouTube: Commission OKs TV efficiency standards
• Treehugger.com: California gives the finger to the consumer electronics industry
• LA Times: Regulating TVs - who wins, who loses?
• LA Times: The darker side of California's new TV wattage limits
• The Politico: Senate bill weighs in at 2,074 pages
• Fox News: AP turns heads for devoting 11 reporters to Palin book 'fact check'
• Newsmax: Palin slams Obama for bowing, breaking promises
• Real Clear Politics: Sarah Palin discusses 'common sense conservative solutions' on Limbaugh
• WSJ: Palin's book; the overview
• YouTube: President Obama, Fox News interview in China with Major Garrett
• CS Monitor: Biblical anti-Obama slogan; Psalm 109:8
• Patriot Depot: Pray for Obama bumper sticker
• YouTube: Frank Schaeffer with Rachel Maddow
• Live Leak: Jesse Jackson; 'You can't vote against health care and call yourself a black man'
.......
Posts
8 comments:
Jimmy,
About banning those TV sets
Are you guys in Free America or
what? (says I, here in the bureaucratic EU!)
Governor Schwarzenegger is shooting himself in the foot!
1. Taxation, while itself unjustified, is better for everyone, if energy really needs to be saved.
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
The Bible verse Psalm 109:8...
I have heard it being used and have seen the bumper stickers since Obama got in office and agreed with it - I forgot about the next verse until now. That one verse alone sounds ok because you can interpret it to mean his days in office to be few, rather than his life. This is where the deception comes in and that is what is wrong with this picture. You are right to be upset about it.
I have even heard a minister use this verse alone to pray against Obama. The guy I sent you a clip of.
...and oh yes, there ARE Christians who wish him ill will... if he doesn't change that is. They consider him the enemy of God and liken themselves to the ancient Israelites when fighting God's enemies. The people writing this article don't understand that.
I do not believe we can take one verse without the context of the verses that precede and follow it. I have a bit of Chuck Smith, from Calvary Chapel, to play on this very chapter and verse. I think you will find it interesting.
I would not appreciate any pastor who took that verse out of context and used it to 'pray for' Obama. I'm not happy with the whole concept.
Jz
agreed... not a good thing to do. Folks need to know the Bible better than they do. I'm guilty. The Bible is our
Basic
Instructions
Before
Leaving
Earth
Calvary Chapel is a satanic organization under false messiahs. HEre is a person who attempts a political talk show yet cannot face the truth. He belittles those others online who have done decades of research with reams of documents to back it up. THere is nothing worse than ignorance coupled with arrogance. Do yourselves a favor and ignore Jimmy Z.
I almost rejected this comment, but determined that while it is hysterical and deranged, it's not uncivil. And then I thought, ok, it's a personal attack on your host. Maybe I should reject it. Then I thought, this might be a great example of the kinds of lunatics who hate God and those who follow Him. In any case, I'm posting it not because I like what was said, but because I'm happy that he or she is listening.
If you're listening, there is still hope for you. God bless you Kerville. And by the way, you linked yourself to a non-existent blog. That's not a very courageous thing to do.
--Jz
Jimmy saw your Treehugger comments
They wouldn't publish my supporting comments (no they weren't as long as the ones here!)
Ok
to rephrase it a bit...
Where there is a problem - deal with the problem
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.
If there was an energy shortage, its price rise would limit
people using it anyway.
No need to legislate for it.
It might sound great to
"Let everyone save energy and money by only allowing energy efficient products"
But, as said,
energy efficiency is only one advantage a product can have,
and mandating for energy efficiency unfortunately means that product features have to be sacrificed in other areas
- or the products would be energy efficient already.
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, with current TV legislation, big plasma TV screens have image contrast and other
advantages along with their large image sizes.
Conversely, using other examples:
Energy efficient lights may be slower to come on, bulkier, less bright, mercury containing.
Energy efficient buildings are often sealed buildings - not always what users want.
Energy efficient cars tend to be unsafe (light in build and weight) and slower
- and so on.
Also, imposing energy efficiency usually means increasing cost
or, as said, the products would be more energy efficient already.
There might therefore not be any total running cost savings either,
depending on how much such a cheaper product is used.
Other factors also contribute to a lack of savings:
If households use less energy as a result of the various bans,
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, using more energy, 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.
Emissions?
Do electrical products give out any CO2 gas?
Emissions (for all else they contain too) can be dealt with directly via energy substitution or emission processing
See http://www.ceolas.net/#cc1x
The argument that
"dealing directly with energy and emissions takes too long and costs too much"
does not hold up:
http://www.ceolas.net/#cc201x
- there is also the taxation alternative anyway (see above)
Post a Comment