Recently, Oregon Democratic candidate for governor Bill Bradbury announced his support for a proposed California regulation on big screen TVs:
"'In California, the energy commission just adopted a rule on energy consumption for these 42 inch flat-panel HDTVs,' he said. 'They use two to three times the electricity of an old-fashioned tube television, and in California they just made a new rule that says we need to reduce their energy consumption by 50% by 2013.' 'There's a company called Viseo that produces flat screen TVs that already meet that standard,' Bradbury continued. 'It's not true that it can't be done, it's just that Sony and Panasonic have chosen not to meet the standard. So I think we should follow California's lead there, just as we have on tighter pollution standards.'"
Manmade global burning (warming sounds too comforting) is real and something needs to be done about it. As well, the notion that the economy and the environment are at odds with one another is false. Certain policies that try to save the environment can be at odds with the economy, but we can have policies that protect the environment that also help the economy.
As I mentioned in my article, Carbon Tax is the Better Solution, the reason we even have calls for such regulations is because people are overconsuming carbon. Why? Because part of the cost of carbon is put on third parties through pollution, making carbon less expensive to the users than its true cost. The solution, therefore, is to make carbon users pay the full cost, and a carbon tax is a way to do that.
A carbon tax would be the government steering instead of rowing. Regulations such as this one with TVs, on the other hand, are the government trying to row, or figure out how we are going to reduce carbon emissions. When the government steers, it sets the incentives correctly, and lets individuals decide the logistics (row), or how. For example, with a carbon tax, not only will people use less carbon, but they will demand products that let them use less carbon. The entrepreneurial spirit and innovation in the private sector will then come up with ways to meet this demand, or row. The private sector has far more minds and ideas than the public sector. If we set the incentives for the private sector correctly, we have no limit on what individuals will think of and create to reduce carbon emissions. As well, government can mandate companies disclose carbon usage for each of their products. If we want to get to our destination, government needs to give up on figuring out how we are going to get there, and just make sure they are leading us in the right direction.
Comments
Hi Ben --
Of course, we at the Carbon Tax Center agree that "Carbon Tax is the Better Solution," as you aptly put it. And it's good to see our site high up in your list of links. Thank you!
But we disagree with you on the new California TV rule. We're glad that California enacted standards to ensure that TV's achieve at least a modicum of energy efficiency. Hey, even the carbon taxes you and we advocate won't ensure that all cost-effective energy efficiency steps get taken. And the California Energy Commission (which conceived the new rule) has an enviable track record in balancing energy rules with the need to protect innovation.
I could write more California's excellence in "EE" and the need for efficiency standards to supplement a carbon tax, but I'm out of room (and time). What do you think?
Best,
Charles, co-direct
Charles,
I respectfully disagree. I used to support such regulations, but I've come around to the view that the solution is to internalize the costs (thereby correcting the incentives), and let individuals make decisions. As mentioned, the private sector is far more innovative and entrepreneurial than government, and I can't wrap my head around the idea that the government somehow knows the right amount of MPG for cars, or energy usage for TVs, etc... If the carbon tax is high enough, people will have the incentive to either use these things less or buy more efficient things. Mandated disclosure will help them make these decisions.
If somebody doesn't reduce energy use with this new tax, they are at least paying the full cost. But, as we know, demand goes down when taxes go up. If some don't switch to the efficient TVs, they are either 1. using their TV less 2. cutting equivalent energy usage elsewhere. How they reduce their energy usage should be their choice.
Thank you very much for your post, by the way
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!