CA Energy Commission Seeks to Regulate Television Use

cwall99

cwall99

Full Audioholic
You said:



Read this:



LINK

Dude, Google is you friend.

Also, why do you think they oppose increasing CAFE standards?
Ummmm, citing a source that is so blatantly biased as this one hardly constitutes research.
 
cwall99

cwall99

Full Audioholic
I have come to realize that environmentalism is not about saving the environment--it's a religion, which intent is the destruction of all modern technology. It is the manifestation of a hatred of the best within mankind--the desire to see mankind huddled in caves, not in magnificent skyscrapers. It is the manifestation of the Unforgiveable Sin: hatred of the good for being the good.
Death to environmentalists!
Wow! Them's pretty strong words. I'm not quite sure I understand the logic or the claims made on behalf of environmentalists by the poster.

I mean, most environmental initiatives are about pushing the limits of technology to find more efficient ways to get things done.

As for hatred of the best of mankind, you have some interesting thoughts there. I'm not sure I'd qualify the desire to preserve the health of the planet, our environment, for our children and grandchildren (and theirs and so on) as a sign of hatred for mankind. To me, it looks like love of mankind.

To me, environmentalism is about ensuring a longer term vision for the world so that the focus on short-term profits doesn't yield more burning rivers like the Cuyahoga or ecological near-disasters like Lake Erie was (both of these are examples of how a profit-driven economy does not always do what's best). It's about realizing that there's a limited supply of hydrocarbon-based fuels on the planet and that its wise to use efficiency to preserve it for as long as possible until viable replacements can be found.

It's also understanding that this search for viable replacements to a hydrocarbon fuel-based economy represents opportunities for new economic growth, and that nuclear energy, with all its risks, probably isn't a wise way to go, either.

I mean, just turning out the lights in rooms you're not using makes sense from both an economic sense as well as an environmental sense. I mean, if you know anything about Toyota's Lean manufacturing practices, you'll see that it's all about eliminating waste, and eliminating that waste is just like turning out the lights in a room you're not using. It saves time, energy, resources, and money. But it's pushed by a very capitalistic motivation.

Economic growth and environmentalism are, as the planet becomes more and more crowded, inextricably combined.

So, given that, I have to disagree with your presumption about what motivates environmentalists.

As for your sense of aesthetics.... I'd much rather look at a green space than a " magnificent skyscraper."
 
X

Xargos

Junior Audioholic
I'll SMOKE a Honda Fit in my Mustang, and look WAY cooler doing it. :D
I rather enjoy getting 35 MPG around town in my Yaris. Personally, I couldn't care less about having a fast car. I can still get from point A to point B without a problem.

I have come to realize that environmentalism is not about saving the environment--it's a religion, which intent is the destruction of all modern technology. It is the manifestation of a hatred of the best within mankind--the desire to see mankind huddled in caves, not in magnificent skyscrapers. It is the manifestation of the Unforgiveable Sin: hatred of the good for being the good.
Death to environmentalists!
Couldn't have made a statement farther from the truth if I tried!

Economic growth and environmentalism are, as the planet becomes more and more crowded, inextricably combined.
Bingo!
 
Last edited:
cwall99

cwall99

Full Audioholic
We'll keep an eye on GM. The US government is clearly the new owner and clearly dictating what can be manufactured. My very simple prediction is that business model, which is exactly the end result of arguing for government regulations, will crash and burn.
Um, GM has already crashed and burned.

They've been trending that way since the early 70s. Living in Michigan for the past 35 years has been like watching a slow-motion train wreck as far as the Big Three go.

This government intervention is an effort to perform CPR on a still warm corpse, see if it can't be revived to a state where it can be left on its own, and then for the government to get out.
 
MapleSyrup

MapleSyrup

Audioholic
cwall

Ummmm, citing a source that is so blatantly biased as this one hardly constitutes research.
LOL, that makes no sense whatsoever. I had no idea what the outcome of googling "honda opposes cafe standards" would be. I but I did so (radomnly picking "Honda" and a mere one minute after clicking enter I found the article I "baisely" linked to. Either Japanese manufacturers did or did not file a lawsuite against CAFE standards being raised.

As for me, citing someone once said in a speech as inspiration and positioning one's opinions around what was said merely because it was said once by someone show far more bias than researching documented economic events. That may be just me. And I'll continue to show my blatant bias by linking to my source while some other will just cite "someone said something once that I liked...":D
 
MapleSyrup

MapleSyrup

Audioholic
cwall

Um, GM has already crashed and burned.

They've been trending that way since the early 70s. Living in Michigan for the past 35 years has been like watching a slow-motion train wreck as far as the Big Three go.

This government intervention is an effort to perform CPR on a still warm corpse, see if it can't be revived to a state where it can be left on its own, and then for the government to get out.
And I'm betting the CPR will crash and burn as well. You'll get no argument from me that tghe Big 3 were gravely mismanaged but another factor in the downfall of GM would definitely be their catering ot the union demands. During the mid 80s GM pushed to modernize their facilities with robots. Unions wouldn't stand for that. In order to compromise the "jobs bank" (I'm not linking anything so therefore there's no bias here) was created. In it a worker is guaranteed 90% of his or her pay and be on the top of the list to be offered a similar position to replace the position lost for whatever reason. As I recall those in the jobs bank had up to three years to pick a job. GM adminstrators must have been insane to have agreed to such a guaranteed jobs program. No one could sustain such a financial burden.

If GM would have been allowed to file bankrupcy as traditionally done they could have nullified all union contracts and start over. Instead, not the unions own the coporation. It will not survive. Again, (without links so it's without bias) they will not survive. Totyota wil bury GM in domestic sales. That has never been done before in the US.

Relate this to topic: Government regulation/management will further hurt ecomonic growth, not help it.
 
MapleSyrup

MapleSyrup

Audioholic
Xargos and cwall

#45;

The wentire world's population currently can live in a single home with a yard in the state of Texas. The limits of what the world can and does provide for the current population and future growth is theory only. But its theory has been taken as absolute fact by some (without bias, of course). This is nothing new. Government and media has predicted starvation and population disasters due to limited resources for centuries. merica, the land which ahs traditionally promoted individuals to be free to discover, develope, explore, and innovate, has benefited greatly from these principles. You do not excperience poverty unless you have lived outside the United States. Not that there isn't poverty here but, believe me, the most impoverished areas in the Us are still visibly better off economically than poverty-stricken areas throughout the world.

By and large, government regulations make those very problems worse.

It's the princles I cited above that allows solutions to be made for the problems presented to society.
 
MapleSyrup

MapleSyrup

Audioholic
cwall

It's about realizing that there's a limited supply of hydrocarbon-based fuels on the planet and that its wise to use efficiency to preserve it for as long as possible until viable replacements can be found.
Anything organic can be converted into carbon fuel.

Oil shale reserves: http://dailyreckoning.com/oil-shale-reserves/ ; http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/u_s__has_massive_oil.html

16 billion barrels of oil (10 billion mean) in ANWR: http://www.sibelle.info/orig/usgs.pdf

Obam funds oil prodction of newly discovered in Brazil (can't drill in the US though): http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/08/team-obama-funds-oil-drilling-project.html

About 200 billion barrels of oil in North Dakota: http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news2.13s.html

The pattern ("blatantly biased" as some may say) above is that there is an abundance of energy from the earth. The real trouble comes when government regulates the people to NOT use them. In each case, except in Brazil, the US government prohibits its use via regulation. Let people be free to develope energy and things would be a whole lot better. It's also the best path to develope clean energy.

There's even plenty of electricity to be made to power plasma televisions. Government regulation need not apply.
 
X

Xargos

Junior Audioholic
The pattern ("blatantly biased" as some may say) above is that there is an abundance of energy from the earth. The real trouble comes when government regulates the people to NOT use them. In each case, except in Brazil, the US government prohibits its use via regulation. Let people be free to develope energy and things would be a whole lot better. It's also the best path to develope clean energy.
Just because oil is available doesn't mean we should want to use it.

Investment in clean energy technology hasn't exactly been something companies have been doing much without being pushed to do so. It costs companies more right now to develop clean energy than to just keep polluting endlessly. Since these companies never seem to think of the long term, I say bring on the regulations to push them along!
 
darien87

darien87

Audioholic Spartan
I rather enjoy getting 35 MPG around town in my Yaris. Personally, I couldn't care less about having a fast car. I can still get from point A to point B without a problem.
I'm sure that your gas mileage is indeed nice. I just wish they could make a fuel efficient car that looked half way decent. Sorry, but I'd ride a bike before I drove a Prius, Yaris or Fit.

And my Mustang gets mileage in the 20's. So I think that's a pretty good compromise between fuel efficiency, speed and style. My Mustang isn't just a tool to get from point A to point B. It's part of my lifestyle. I open track it on occasion.
 
X

Xargos

Junior Audioholic
I'm sure that your gas mileage is indeed nice. I just wish they could make a fuel efficient car that looked half way decent. Sorry, but I'd ride a bike before I drove a Prius, Yaris or Fit.

And my Mustang gets mileage in the 20's. So I think that's a pretty good compromise between fuel efficiency, speed and style. My Mustang isn't just a tool to get from point A to point B. It's part of my lifestyle. I open track it on occasion.
There are plenty of people who disagree with your opinion on looks, myself inclulded. I happen to think that the Yaris is an attractive car, as are the Prius and the Fit.

The Mustang is pretty good looking too, but to me having a more powerful car is nothing more than a waste of fuel and an addition to the pollution problem. It goes along with why I don't have much interest in those 50+ inch televisions or 200+ watt per channel amps.
 
lsiberian

lsiberian

Audioholic Overlord
I'm sure that your gas mileage is indeed nice. I just wish they could make a fuel efficient car that looked half way decent. Sorry, but I'd ride a bike before I drove a Prius, Yaris or Fit.

And my Mustang gets mileage in the 20's. So I think that's a pretty good compromise between fuel efficiency, speed and style. My Mustang isn't just a tool to get from point A to point B. It's part of my lifestyle. I open track it on occasion.
Honestly a hyrbrid engine would smoke a mustang one if it were tuned to do so. We've all seen the electric vs gas contests.

Gas is very efficient at around 3000 rpm, but it sucks on the up and down swings. This is why hybrid technologies are effective.

For the record America is a very wasteful society. 1. Americans run their AC's too low. 2. Americans run their heaters too high. I've been around the world and found this to be one of our failings.

Wind and Solar power are ineffective solutions to our current crisis.

Nuclear is dangerous and produces the worst kind of waste. Despite the praises sung it's not the silver bullet it's often cracked up to be.

Conservation and usage must be cut. You can start by doing you're part.

Turn up your AC 2 degrees more and leave it there. You will adjust. Do this until you get up to 80.

In winter I run my heat at 50 degrees. My wife hates it so she'll probably demand higher, but that's why we have jackets people.

What's cleaner Poking a hole in the ground or blowing open a mountain?
 
basspig

basspig

Full Audioholic
Wow! Them's pretty strong words. I'm not quite sure I understand the logic or the claims made on behalf of environmentalists by the poster.

I mean, most environmental initiatives are about pushing the limits of technology to find more efficient ways to get things done.

As for hatred of the best of mankind, you have some interesting thoughts there. I'm not sure I'd qualify the desire to preserve the health of the planet, our environment, for our children and grandchildren (and theirs and so on) as a sign of hatred for mankind. To me, it looks like love of mankind.

To me, environmentalism is about ensuring a longer term vision for the world so that the focus on short-term profits doesn't yield more burning rivers like the Cuyahoga or ecological near-disasters like Lake Erie was (both of these are examples of how a profit-driven economy does not always do what's best). It's about realizing that there's a limited supply of hydrocarbon-based fuels on the planet and that its wise to use efficiency to preserve it for as long as possible until viable replacements can be found.

It's also understanding that this search for viable replacements to a hydrocarbon fuel-based economy represents opportunities for new economic growth, and that nuclear energy, with all its risks, probably isn't a wise way to go, either.

I mean, just turning out the lights in rooms you're not using makes sense from both an economic sense as well as an environmental sense. I mean, if you know anything about Toyota's Lean manufacturing practices, you'll see that it's all about eliminating waste, and eliminating that waste is just like turning out the lights in a room you're not using. It saves time, energy, resources, and money. But it's pushed by a very capitalistic motivation.

Economic growth and environmentalism are, as the planet becomes more and more crowded, inextricably combined.

So, given that, I have to disagree with your presumption about what motivates environmentalists.

As for your sense of aesthetics.... I'd much rather look at a green space than a " magnificent skyscraper."

The following quote erased any doubt that I had about what environmentalism is all about (besides a government-mandated spending spree for "green startups":

While it is not necessary to question the good intentions and sincerity of the overwhelming majority of the members of the environmental or ecology movement, it is vital that the public realize that in this seemingly lofty and noble movement itself can be found more than a little evidence of the most profound toxicity. Consider, for example, the following quotation from David M. Graber, a research biologist with the National Park Service, in his prominently featured Los Angeles Times book review of Bill McKibben's The End of Nature:

"This [man's "remaking the earth by degrees"] makes what is happening no less tragic for those of us who value wildness for its own sake, not for what value it confers upon mankind. I, for one, cannot wish upon either my children or the rest of Earth's biota a tame planet, be it monstrous or--however unlikely--benign. McKibben is a biocentrist, and so am I. We are not interested in the utility of a particular species or free-flowing river, or ecosystem, to mankind. They have intrinsic value, more value--to me--than another human body, or a billion of them.

"Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet. I know social scientists who remind me that people are part of nature, but it isn't true. Somewhere along the line--at about a billion years ago, maybe half that--we quit the contract and became a cancer. We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth.

"It is cosmically unlikely that the developed world will choose to end its orgy of fossil-energy consumption, and the Third World its suicidal consumption of landscape. Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along."

That was a quote from an environmentalist with the National Parks Service.
 
MapleSyrup

MapleSyrup

Audioholic
Xargos #51

W-H-A-T???

So with the abundance of energy we should NOT want to use it? That defies any logic I can conjure up, let alone contrive.

Impede the development and use of the energy we have now and you will automatically impede the development of future energy. This includes wind and solar. The best ideas are developed in an environement where people are free to think, express, and invest. The dirtiest countries in the world are those with high government regulations. You cannot cite me anywhere domesticaly or foreign how government regulations have lead a nation to develope collectively. Beyond specified isolated successes, societies with heavy government regulations is non existent.
 
MapleSyrup

MapleSyrup

Audioholic
Isiberian

I like your personal responsibility approach. But, honestly, if one sets their A/C to 75 instead of 80, who cares? What harm is done? If the resident pays his electric bill, let him use as much juice as he wants. It's really that simple.

Nuclear energy is dangerous? We have nuclear reactors across our land and floating across the world's seas. France has far more than us in terms of percentage of energy produced per their consumption. Besides Russia that is, you know, where government regulated the country's entire economy when chernobyl melted down, who's been hurt, killed or injured by them?
 
lsiberian

lsiberian

Audioholic Overlord
I like your personal responsibility approach. But, honestly, if one sets their A/C to 75 instead of 80, who cares? What harm is done? If the resident pays his electric bill, let him use as much juice as he wants. It's really that simple.

Nuclear energy is dangerous? We have nuclear reactors across our land and floating across the world's seas. France has far more than us in terms of percentage of energy produced per their consumption. Besides Russia that is, you know, where government regulated the country's entire economy when chernobyl melted down, who's been hurt, killed or injured by them?
Arguments against nuclear.

1. See Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan.

2. So you wouldn't mind if we used your backyard for the nuclear waste?

3. How do you feel about Iran's usage of Nuclear Energy?

Nuclear incidents:

December 12, 1952

A partial meltdown of a reactor's uranium core at the Chalk River plant near Ottawa, Canada, resulted after the accidental removal of four control rods. Although millions of gallons of radioactive water poured into the reactor, there were no injuries.
October 1957

Fire destroyed the core of a plutonium-producing reactor at Britain's Windscale nuclear complex - since renamed Sellafield - sending clouds of radioactivity into the atmosphere. An official report said the leaked radiation could have caused dozens of cancer deaths in the vicinity of Liverpool.
Winter 1957-'58

A serious accident occurred during the winter of 1957-58 near the town of Kyshtym in the Urals. A Russian scientist who first reported the disaster estimated that hundreds died from radiation sickness.
January 3, 1961

Three technicians died at a U.S. plant in Idaho Falls in an accident at an experimental reactor.
July 4, 1961

The captain and seven crew members died when radiation spread through the Soviet Union's first nuclear-powered submarine. A pipe in the control system of one of the two reactors had ruptured.
October 5, 1966

The core of an experimental reactor near Detroit, Mich., melted partially when a sodium cooling system failed.
January 21, 1969

A coolant malfunction from an experimental underground reactor at Lucens Vad, Switzerland, releases a large amount of radiation into a cave, which was then sealed.
December 7, 1975

At the Lubmin nuclear power complex on the Baltic coast in the former East Germany, a short-circuit caused by an electrician's mistake started a fire. Some news reports said there was almost a meltdown of the reactor core.
March 28, 1979

Near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, America's worst nuclear accident occurred. A partial meltdown of one of the reactors forced the evacuation of the residents after radioactive gas escaped into the atmosphere.
February 11, 1981

Eight workers are contaminated when more than 100,000 gallons of radioactive coolant fluid leaks into the contaminant building of the Tennessee Valley Authority's Sequoyah 1 plant in Tennessee.
April 25, 1981

Officials said around 45 workers were exposed to radioactivity during repairs to a plant at Tsuruga, Japan.
April 26, 1986

The world's worst nuclear accident occurred after an explosion and fire at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. It released radiation over much of Europe. Thirty-one people died iin the immediate aftermath of the explosion. Hundreds of thousands of residents were moved from the area and a similar number are belived to have suffered from the effects of radiation exposure.
March 24, 1992

At the Sosnovy Bor station near St. Petersburg, Russia, radioactive iodine escaped into the atmosphere. A loss of pressure in a reactor channel was the source of the accident.
November 1992

In France's most serious nuclear accident, three workers were contaminated after entering a nuclear particle accelerator in Forbach without protective clothing. Executives were jailed in 1993 for failing to take proper safety measures.
November 1995

Japan's Monju prototype fast-breeder nuclear reactor leaked two to three tons of sodium from the reactor's secondary cooling system.
March 1997

The state-run Power Reactor and Nuclear Fuel Development Corporation reprocessing plant at Tokaimura, Japan, contaminated at least 35 workers with minor radiation after a fire and explosion occurred.
September 30, 1999

Another accident at the uranium processing plant at Tokaimura, Japan, plant exposed fifty-five workers to radiation. More than 300,000 people living near the plant were ordered to stay indoors. Workers had been mixing uranium with nitric acid to make nuclear fuel, but had used too much uranium and set off the accidental uncontrolled reaction.
 
darien87

darien87

Audioholic Spartan
There are plenty of people who disagree with your opinion on looks, myself inclulded. I happen to think that the Yaris is an attractive car, as are the Prius and the Fit.

The Mustang is pretty good looking too, but to me having a more powerful car is nothing more than a waste of fuel and an addition to the pollution problem. It goes along with why I don't have much interest in those 50+ inch televisions or 200+ watt per channel amps.
Well, at least in this great country of ours, we are free to have our different opinions. I think the Prius, Yaris and Fit look like silly little toys that would look better on a Matchbox track than on a public road.

Let's see, 50+ inch TV? Check. 200 watt per channel amp? Check. Gas guzzling car? Check. Man you must really hate me. :D

But if it makes you feel any better, I started "hyper-miling" when gas got to be about $5 a year or so ago and now it's a habit for me. I always shut my car off when I'm sitting at stoplights. My wife thinks I'm nuts. I think everyone should do it, but I know that I'm in the minority. The other day though, I did hear someone else starting their car at the same stoplight I was at.

It makes me feel better though. At least I'm doing something to reduce fuel consumption.
 
darien87

darien87

Audioholic Spartan
The following quote erased any doubt that I had about what environmentalism is all about (besides a government-mandated spending spree for "green startups":

While it is not necessary to question the good intentions and sincerity of the overwhelming majority of the members of the environmental or ecology movement, it is vital that the public realize that in this seemingly lofty and noble movement itself can be found more than a little evidence of the most profound toxicity. Consider, for example, the following quotation from David M. Graber, a research biologist with the National Park Service, in his prominently featured Los Angeles Times book review of Bill McKibben's The End of Nature:

"This [man's "remaking the earth by degrees"] makes what is happening no less tragic for those of us who value wildness for its own sake, not for what value it confers upon mankind. I, for one, cannot wish upon either my children or the rest of Earth's biota a tame planet, be it monstrous or--however unlikely--benign. McKibben is a biocentrist, and so am I. We are not interested in the utility of a particular species or free-flowing river, or ecosystem, to mankind. They have intrinsic value, more value--to me--than another human body, or a billion of them.

"Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet. I know social scientists who remind me that people are part of nature, but it isn't true. Somewhere along the line--at about a billion years ago, maybe half that--we quit the contract and became a cancer. We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth.

"It is cosmically unlikely that the developed world will choose to end its orgy of fossil-energy consumption, and the Third World its suicidal consumption of landscape. Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along."

That was a quote from an environmentalist with the National Parks Service.
OK, so you take the ravings of one wacko and make the assumption that all people that care about the environment are crazy? That's quite a leap.

By the way, that speech sounds like something Poison Ivy would say out of a Batman comic book.
 
cwall99

cwall99

Full Audioholic
OK, so you take the ravings of one wacko and make the assumption that all people that care about the environment are crazy? That's quite a leap.

By the way, that speech sounds like something Poison Ivy would say out of a Batman comic book.
I'm with you Darien. BassPig commits a fallacy of accident (if you're not used to applying logic to arguments, committing this type fallacy essentially results from overgeneralizing (and under-thinking the complexity of an issue - it'd be as ludicrous as saying, "I hate Germans because all Germans are Nazis" - for the record, I'm half German and my wife is fully German, so please don't take that as a statement of my actual personal belief). But clearly, the person quoted in BassPig's post, is, as you so eloquently put it, a wacko who, I presume, falls well outside mainstream environmentalism.

Committing logical fallacies is significant, though, because it essentially indicates that the side of the argument committing the error has either has no merit or is based more on emotion than on reason. In either case committing fallacies like these reflects poorly on the person committing them.

I'm with Isiberian on the notion of, "Well, if you're all for nuclear power, then we should be able to put nuclear waste in your back yard." And if you're not willing to put a barrel of screaming hot nuke waste back there, you may want to reconsider your desire for nuclear power.

But I have to admit that I find BassPig's statement, "Death to environmentalists!" to be excessively extreme and unfortunate. What if there's a nut job out there who fails to see his wry sense of irony? Statements like these are unnecessarily inflammatory and make it tough to resolve tough issues.
 
MapleSyrup

MapleSyrup

Audioholic
darien

Let's see, 50+ inch TV? Check. 200 watt per channel amp? Check. Gas guzzling car? Check. Man you must really hate me.
I do!!! :p

Also, as with opinion, freedom is the key to the success in our country. Let people be free to pursue excellence. Don't restrict them with regulation after regulation after regulation, etc.
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top