The Price of Going Green in the Digital Age

For many people the argument that the switchover to all-digital broadcasting next month was reason enough to purchase a new LCD or Plasma flat screen in order to make sure that all future Football games or tv seasons would be in crystal clear depiction and gaming would be elevated to pristine levels. Of course what many of these same people won't tell you is that rather than spending thousands of dollars on a new TV you could get the same quality by purchasing a convertor box that would receive digital signals and then downgrade the image to your old CRT televisions. Sure you won't be able to see the beads of sweat trickling off the nose of the quarterback during the Super Bowl but the question is would you really want to?

Still many people have opted to upgrade to flat screens simply because it's the current wave that everyone is riding. They will talk about how the TV saves space since it isn't as bulky as big screens that had started to dominate the market. They talk about how much nicer the picture looks when you watch anything on it. They also talk about how upgrading is almost a law due to the act of Congress requiring all networks to switch over to all-digital broadcasting this year. But is this upgrade trend (real or implied) actually doing a disservice to what Congress and the world seems to be pushing for? What exactly am I trying to say? Well as you know everyone and their brother is jumping on the eco-friendly and 'going-green' bandwagon so is it any wonder then that some other people will take that dictum very seriously?

The state of California (led by the Governator -- Arnold Schwarzenegger) is contemplating the idea of banning certain types of LCD and plasma screen flat-screens. The rationale for such a decision? The fact that some of these televisions suck up more energy than normal televisions. In energy-starved California it's come down now that every precious kilowatt hour needs to be used judiciously. But in their efforts to help the environment there are concerns that it could affect the retail market as well. There are proposals being debated right now which would tax retailers on the sale of televisions that supposedly drain more energy than others and what retailers are concerned with is that consumers would then turn to online dealers to make their purchases rather than helping the local economy. This itself would turn out to be another blow to the economy of the state if it did happen.

Already there are concerns about the current state of the economy. Can you imagine what could happen if suddenly another part of the consumer market was drastically hit by changes in consumer spending. This past winter there was a fair amount of business in the flat-screen television market and although spending was down at times due to the market conditions, the number of empty LCD and plasma-screen TV boxes you see at curbside these days tells you that not everyone is holding back from making that one big purchase. When Congress and economic leaders are pointing to consumers and demanding they spend more to stimulate the economy; do we really need some sort of disincentive to make purchases?

That's the real question then I guess. Would the state be willing to sacrifice a bit of economic stability if it meant that the environment would be better? Go to Los Angeles and once you see the smog you'll understand why there are concerns over whether or not the environment there should be saved or not. Still, it always ends up being a question of what is more important at the moment than at the future. The economy needs people spending now but if we continue to erode the environment by buying up more plasma screens or other devices that are a drain on energy being produced by the state, we have to create more energy producing plants which will harm the environment more which in turn will lead to a damaged environment for future generations. It's funny how a simple desire to watch a football game in digital high definition can have such global consequences.