Ads cause carbon?

[Coeloptera]

TV ads cause carbon carnage | NEWS.com.au

"AUSTRALIAN television advertising is producing as much as 57 tonnes of carbon dioxide per hour, and thirty second ad breaks are among the worst offenders, according to audit figures from pitch consultants TrinityP3."

"TrinityP3 managing director Darren Woolley said emissions are calculated by measuring a broadcasters’ power consumption and that of a consumer watching an ad on television in their home, B&T Magazine reports."

Okay...wait. I'm pretty up on my sciences, and I don't comprehend this.

How can an ad break be any different in terms of power consumption than the rest of the program? Broadcasting is broadcasting. Same power output so long as a signal is being sent, same output to power the receiver, regardless of what image you get. My TV draws the same power whether I'm watching a show, Playstation, or static.

Anyone have any idea how this is supposed to work or are they blowing smoke?

- Coeloptera

[TXplt]

The whole carbon thing is blowing smoke, Coel. It's arbitrary and unsubstantiated (but I'm too weary to recap previous posts ). Assertions don't translate into facts. Power is power, but I guess the footprint could depend on nuclear or coal, and the thermal efficiency of the plant. They often do boost the sound volume during ads (my folks thought I was a smart kid because I'd look at the TV during all the commercials--little did they know it was just a response to a difference in sound). This higher modulation would consume some but not significant power. You do consume somewhat more power while the processor is running--playing a video game--vs. idling. The switching of the transistors dissipates some energy in the form of heat. Yes, it's nothing to write home about. And think of how much less wasted energy on electronics now--I remember well the days of electron tubes.

I think that they're saying, by boosting ratings, more people watch TV which requires an electrical power source. This translates into more energy consumed. In typical socialist fashion, we need to penalize success (i.e. getting better ratings).

Maybe I could get a subsidy from the Oz government to limit my flatulence, or even free natural gas to heat my home (probably better to burn the evil methane to create the less evil CO2.....).

To answer your question, I believe it to be pre-positioning to impose a tax on advertisers. Canada's already implemented their "carbon" tax--it's going into a general fund and political black hole, not creating more energy sources....

[Coeloptera]

Well, the reason the system draws more power when playing a game is because another machine is active. The TV itself undergoes no changes.

I wish I could see how they're even attempting to explain this.

- Coeloptera

[GlockMeister]

All they have to do is plant the possibility or thought of it and people themselves as with anything will run with it. Look at Global warming. Once it got a little attention many jumped on board. I'm not saying it isn't possible, real or even true, I'm just using it as an example of how hysteria gets started.

[.22guy]

God, I am sick to death of hearing this kind of SH#T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Shaun]

Al Gore's mouth is our biggest problem

[AKHunter]

Your watching a program, ad comes on, you leave the room thus turning on a light in the bathroom while in there. You decide you want a snack or a drink, you go to the kitchen, turn on another light, open the fridge, nothing looks good. You decide to make popcorn. Etc. etc.

That, I think is their angle. It has become so tiring listening to all this "go green" , global warming, carbon footprint BS. I appreciate the environment more than most people I know but this bellyaching hypocracy has got to stop.

[Deersniper]

Al Gore and his cronies are smoking the good stuff obviously. This is all about a global tax which I ain't paying.

[nathangdad]

sometimes geared to greater volume and broadcast intensity of signal
to blast into living rooms beyond what the show does. This can cause a surge in power use depending on the sophistication of the broadcaster.

In a nation like Australia this statement is not without merit due to the vast distances a broadcaster must cover. Also, you have antenna reception in many areas which is very sensitive to the power of the transmission.

I can see it as a realistic scenario in a nation without natural gas and/or much (if any) nuclear power generation.

Sad, what lengths the world goes to for the delivery of paid advertising.

[Seabeescotty]

Sounds like more PC BS to me, to borrow from another thread!

[Coeloptera]

Originally Posted by nathangdad

sometimes geared to greater volume and broadcast intensity of signal
to blast into living rooms beyond what the show does. This can cause a surge in power use depending on the sophistication of the broadcaster.

In a nation like Australia this statement is not without merit due to the vast distances a broadcaster must cover. Also, you have antenna reception in many areas which is very sensitive to the power of the transmission.

I can see it as a realistic scenario in a nation without natural gas and/or much (if any) nuclear power generation.

Sad, what lengths the world goes to for the delivery of paid advertising.

Ah-hah...now this I didn't know. Probably because I record almost all the TV I watch so I tend to blow past commercials.

- Coeloptera