There are things that consume more energy . . . but the state legislature and its bureaucrats will never shut itself down for an extended period. (It’s only a shame that there isn’t a way to convert politicians’ hot air into energy, like geothermal steam can be.)
Maybe they should legislate an interlock system into toasters sold in the state, so that they will only stay on long enough in any 24 hour period to toast 2 slices. This will save energy and keep people from consuming too many empty calories. Such technology could be used on the TVs to limit viewing to 2.5 hours per day. That will save even more energy, and promote reading books which everyone knows is preferable to watching TV. Then they can do away with soda and beer because those are bad for you, and replace it with organic fruit juices because that is good for you. Fast food should be made illegal because it makes people fat, and we all know that is bad. Raze the fast food restaurants, and replace them with organic salad huts supplied by local farmers. The population might not like it at first, but they’ll get used to it. Then everyone will be happy in Cali.
While I’m sure some in CA would appreciate your suggestions, VMS, we must be careful to ensure that none of the books your mention are potentially dangerous under the CPSIA, that the organic fruit juices are not served in nalgene bottles, styrofoam, or any other container that might in some way be alleged to be hazardous to the environment. Oh yes, and someone will need to subsidize the local farmers to support their compliance with the new food tracking and safety laws on the legislative horizon. If would be very bad indeed in John Q Public’s fat free salad contained undisclosed leafy greens from Farmer Jim’s field as well as Farmer Jeb’s, or was perhaps grown from a bioengineered crop…
(By the way, you should perhaps suggest mandating that the patrons walk to the local stand, because cars are apparently so bad for us, and we can’t run the risk that some child somewhere might decide the lead in a bike tire valve stam was a tasty snack…)
I miss the days when the law considered me adult enough to go out and do something (deliberately or accidentally) profoundly stupid, and I was allowed to be wholly responsible for my own actions.
Whether or not this is a wise policy, it isn’t paternalism. Do you know what paternalism means? The intention of this policy is not to protect individual consumers from a danger from which they arguably do not need protection, which would be paternalism. Rather, it is to reduce unnecessary energy consumption, a public purpose.
I suppose you’re right that “sumptuary” would be the apter word. One of the rationales, however, I think does count as paternalistic, namely sparing the TV owners themselves the cost of high future outlays on electric bills (an issue to which they are supposedly inattentive when shopping for a set). Whether that motivation or the sumptuary motivation is a less attractive one, I leave to the reader.
11 Comments
Perhaps what they really mean is that energy is too cheap…
Would that include the large displays at most sporting and event venues? Because that would be fantastic.
Seems like just another way to drive purchases out of state. As if the sales tax weren’t enough.
Oh wait, “This is the TV Inspection Service, open up!”
And there aren’t other things that consume way more energy than a television? Sometimes people just make me shake my head in wonder.
There are things that consume more energy . . . but the state legislature and its bureaucrats will never shut itself down for an extended period. (It’s only a shame that there isn’t a way to convert politicians’ hot air into energy, like geothermal steam can be.)
Maybe they should legislate an interlock system into toasters sold in the state, so that they will only stay on long enough in any 24 hour period to toast 2 slices. This will save energy and keep people from consuming too many empty calories. Such technology could be used on the TVs to limit viewing to 2.5 hours per day. That will save even more energy, and promote reading books which everyone knows is preferable to watching TV. Then they can do away with soda and beer because those are bad for you, and replace it with organic fruit juices because that is good for you. Fast food should be made illegal because it makes people fat, and we all know that is bad. Raze the fast food restaurants, and replace them with organic salad huts supplied by local farmers. The population might not like it at first, but they’ll get used to it. Then everyone will be happy in Cali.
While I’m sure some in CA would appreciate your suggestions, VMS, we must be careful to ensure that none of the books your mention are potentially dangerous under the CPSIA, that the organic fruit juices are not served in nalgene bottles, styrofoam, or any other container that might in some way be alleged to be hazardous to the environment. Oh yes, and someone will need to subsidize the local farmers to support their compliance with the new food tracking and safety laws on the legislative horizon. If would be very bad indeed in John Q Public’s fat free salad contained undisclosed leafy greens from Farmer Jim’s field as well as Farmer Jeb’s, or was perhaps grown from a bioengineered crop…
(By the way, you should perhaps suggest mandating that the patrons walk to the local stand, because cars are apparently so bad for us, and we can’t run the risk that some child somewhere might decide the lead in a bike tire valve stam was a tasty snack…)
I miss the days when the law considered me adult enough to go out and do something (deliberately or accidentally) profoundly stupid, and I was allowed to be wholly responsible for my own actions.
And don’t forget that Nanny Pelosi and Precautionary Waxman will make sure that everyone has to abide by California law.
To all of the above: Do not forget the previous administration shredded the constitution…
Whether or not this is a wise policy, it isn’t paternalism. Do you know what paternalism means? The intention of this policy is not to protect individual consumers from a danger from which they arguably do not need protection, which would be paternalism. Rather, it is to reduce unnecessary energy consumption, a public purpose.
I suppose you’re right that “sumptuary” would be the apter word. One of the rationales, however, I think does count as paternalistic, namely sparing the TV owners themselves the cost of high future outlays on electric bills (an issue to which they are supposedly inattentive when shopping for a set). Whether that motivation or the sumptuary motivation is a less attractive one, I leave to the reader.