Industry groups are not happy about the imminent demise of Energy Star(insideclimatenews.org)
insideclimatenews.org
Industry groups are not happy about the imminent demise of Energy Star
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/08052025/energy-star-program-could-be-eliminated-by-trump-administration/
114 comments
Energy star like CAFE for cars was well intentioned but ended up driving all sorts of undesirable design practices to hit the ratings. Manufacturers especially in the high end chase the highest rating and design appliances that do a poor job of cleaning to hit the low water use target. In the end we all end up eating a bunch of unwashed detergent to save a gallon of water or using 10 gallons to pre and post rinse.
That being said a lot of these problems could have been updated into the standard instead of killing it but industry groups didn’t allow that so now it’s going to die and everyone losses.
> but industry groups didn’t allow that so now it’s going to die and everyone losses.
The fact that "Industry groups" like a regulation is an indication that they have managed to turn it into a means to reduce competition.
The fact that "Industry groups" like a regulation is an indication that they have managed to turn it into a means to reduce competition.
My dishwasher from the 1990s dried much better than the one I got in 2021, which required rinsing each dish after washing to get rid of the soap taste. It then broke after only 1.5 years. My new one is better, but still leaves dishes pretty wet and I still have to rinse a lot of cups to get rid of the soap residue.
Nothing to do with energy star. Modern Bosch Dishwashers use less water, wash better, and dry better, than your old 1990s washers.
In the same way that people think low-flow toilets are why their sh1t doesn't flush, instead of the proliferation of multi-ply super-thick toilet paper that are almost as bad as paper towels. It doesn't matter how much flow you have, if you flush a wad of cellulose that won't instantly dissolve like single-ply or thin-two-ply, you'll need to break out the augur.
And really, if you don't have a Toto Washlet or Japanese toilet, you're missing out. You barely need any toilet paper at all, and don't walk around with fecal particles wiped against your skin all day.
In the same way that people think low-flow toilets are why their sh1t doesn't flush, instead of the proliferation of multi-ply super-thick toilet paper that are almost as bad as paper towels. It doesn't matter how much flow you have, if you flush a wad of cellulose that won't instantly dissolve like single-ply or thin-two-ply, you'll need to break out the augur.
And really, if you don't have a Toto Washlet or Japanese toilet, you're missing out. You barely need any toilet paper at all, and don't walk around with fecal particles wiped against your skin all day.
That is not related to energy star. This is the state of modern products. I have found that the price tier of well performing appliances usually has an above average price.
This is the dilemma: some things need regulation, but they need good regulation that evolves over time, and you can’t just throw money at that, you need good leadership to oversee it.
Deleting it is not a solution.
Deleting it is not a solution.
Part of it that allowing industries to essentially self regulate means consumer interest are never part of the regulation.
[citation needed]
I believe it; it's like the first decade or two of low-flow / flush toilets which were generally just terrible and ineffective.
Hopefully, like the toilets, a new standard rises that is based around how effective something is at it's primary job _first_, with efficiency in other areas then measured after completing the intended task.
Hopefully, like the toilets, a new standard rises that is based around how effective something is at it's primary job _first_, with efficiency in other areas then measured after completing the intended task.
The appliance industry found a hack to prevent or at least greatly delay consumers rejecting bad products by creating thousands of skus for nearly identical products that made identifying lemons nearly impossible. Similar to how Chinese brands on Amazon have the same name for 100 different nearly identical items.
> thousands of skus for nearly identical products that made identifying lemons nearly impossible
Also to prevent price-matching.
Also to prevent price-matching.
That too, tvs do that as well but at least it’s somewhat possible to compare and review them
That is where I expect care in product development. A standard is a number to hit and if a manufacturer takes care in their work the consumer should experience no degradation in quality.
This is a great microcosm example of this admin’s whole strategy.
There’s some issues with the current regulations. So instead of doing the work to fix the issues, they just abruptly cancel the entire program.
Baby. Bath water.
There’s some issues with the current regulations. So instead of doing the work to fix the issues, they just abruptly cancel the entire program.
Baby. Bath water.
Canceling is easier than fixing, it may turn out to be easier to rebuild during the next admin than it would have been to fix so that’s one ray of sunshine in an otherwise bleak outcome.
Yea, phoenix rising from the ashes or whatever. It's just kind of amazing how many people are convinced that "cancelling" is actually the "fix".
> during the next admin
During the what?
During the what?
Trump isn’t seeking another term, he’s also quite old. There will be a next administration even with the most pessimistic outlook
Can't seek. Banned by Constitution.
Many things that are currently happening are also banned by the constitution.
Such as? Curious about examples that aren't currently winding their way through court challenges (as the Constitution intended).
There's bad stuff happening, but it's also being vigorously legally challenged -- and will sure as hell be challenged by Congress if House and/or Senate changes hands in 2026.
There's bad stuff happening, but it's also being vigorously legally challenged -- and will sure as hell be challenged by Congress if House and/or Senate changes hands in 2026.
Deportations and indefinite imprisonment without due process comes to mind.
Disregarding SCOTUS decisions also.
Disregarding SCOTUS decisions also.
Both of which are currently the subject of ongoing court cases.
Or are you thinking about an example that isn't?
Or are you thinking about an example that isn't?
> Both of which are currently the subject of ongoing court cases.
That’s a relief. It’s a good thing that he follows court orders against him, otherwise this situation where he doesn’t follow court orders against him would be a problem.
That’s a relief. It’s a good thing that he follows court orders against him, otherwise this situation where he doesn’t follow court orders against him would be a problem.
Examples?
If you're specifically talking about Garcia, that case is still active: https://www.chicagotribune.com/2025/05/08/trump-administrati...
If you're specifically talking about Garcia, that case is still active: https://www.chicagotribune.com/2025/05/08/trump-administrati...
And Trump is ignoring the courts. So now what?
I wasn’t going to challenge the poster on that but yeah there are legal hurdles. They aren’t immutable since we’re willing to using state of emergency and war declaration to sidestep normal safeguards. Death and disability old age is at the moment immutable.
He literally has “Trump 2028” gear for sale on his official website and has explicitly said that he’s not joking about a third term.
> Trump isn’t seeking another term
Let’s look at it a different way—if he were seeking another term, would it look any different than what we are currently seeing him do?
Let’s look at it a different way—if he were seeking another term, would it look any different than what we are currently seeing him do?
I wouldn't want to ascribe too much method to this madness, but the increases for defense, homeland security and immigration control in the 2026 budget request, combined with a desire to be seen as cutting the budget rather than increasing spending, could have set the extreme civilian costcutting requirements.
What the administration is preparing for that requires raising defense spending to one trillion is beyond me. Actually it's not.
What the administration is preparing for that requires raising defense spending to one trillion is beyond me. Actually it's not.
> What the administration is preparing for that requires raising defense spending to one trillion is beyond me. Actually it's not.
Why do you think America is suddenly 'preparing' for something? Hasn't defence spending steadily increased for quite a long time now?
Why do you think America is suddenly 'preparing' for something? Hasn't defence spending steadily increased for quite a long time now?
>Hasn't defence spending steadily increased for quite a long time now?
Not as a percentage of GDP. https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/usa/uni...
The administration has expressed a desire to destroy several other countries over the last year. Iran, Denmark's autonomous territory Greenland and Canada stand out for being explicitly named, and China for being a career target of important advisors. Iran out of all these is singled out by congressional support and a history of military action in the region. In conclusion, the administration most likely wants to invade Iran.
https://www.reuters.com/world/trump-says-there-will-be-bombi...
Not as a percentage of GDP. https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/usa/uni...
The administration has expressed a desire to destroy several other countries over the last year. Iran, Denmark's autonomous territory Greenland and Canada stand out for being explicitly named, and China for being a career target of important advisors. Iran out of all these is singled out by congressional support and a history of military action in the region. In conclusion, the administration most likely wants to invade Iran.
https://www.reuters.com/world/trump-says-there-will-be-bombi...
>...expressed a desire to destroy several other countries... Canada stand out for being explicitly named
A bit of banter about Canada being economically or political subordinate to the US is not even remotely in the same ballpark as expressing a desire to destroy Canada. Even the literal meaning of what was obviously a joke is not remotely in the same ballpark. This is the same kind of thing I've been hearing my entire life; it means no more than the old adage "when America sneezes, Canada catches a cold".
I say this as a left-wing Canadian, btw.
Regarding Iran, the headline of your source already contradicts you, as does the article. Bombing is not invasion, and a threat made to get what you actually want (a "nuclear deal") is not expressing desire to execute the threat (it is in fact explicitly saying that you want something else).
Is this bad? Sure. Is it an unusual level of saber rattling (especially from someone who didn't come across as much of a military interventionist in his first term)? I suppose so. But it is not anything like "an expressed desire to destroy other countries". It is not warmongering.
All the recent headlines about "not ruling out" various military actions are just decades-old MAD policy applied to conventional warfare.
> Not as a percentage of GDP.
Right, so by your own source:
* Spending as a percentage of GDP recently peaked in 2010 (in the middle of Obama's first term);
* Spending as a percentage of GDP recently bottomed out in 2017-2018 (in the middle of Trump's first term);
* If we apply the 2010 percentage to 2022, the US would have already been at 1.25T in spending - while this thread is expressing concern because of approaching the 1T mark. Notwithstanding the import shock, US GDP has been recently growing rather impressively, too - see e.g. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP/ .)
Also, the implication of your phrasing is that an increase as a percentage of GDP is happening or will happen soon, but you left out any evidence for that.
I very much don't like that the US spends this much on the military (about 3x as much as China, next on the leaderboard); but it's not historically out of line, nor does it look like an indication of trouble afoot.
A bit of banter about Canada being economically or political subordinate to the US is not even remotely in the same ballpark as expressing a desire to destroy Canada. Even the literal meaning of what was obviously a joke is not remotely in the same ballpark. This is the same kind of thing I've been hearing my entire life; it means no more than the old adage "when America sneezes, Canada catches a cold".
I say this as a left-wing Canadian, btw.
Regarding Iran, the headline of your source already contradicts you, as does the article. Bombing is not invasion, and a threat made to get what you actually want (a "nuclear deal") is not expressing desire to execute the threat (it is in fact explicitly saying that you want something else).
Is this bad? Sure. Is it an unusual level of saber rattling (especially from someone who didn't come across as much of a military interventionist in his first term)? I suppose so. But it is not anything like "an expressed desire to destroy other countries". It is not warmongering.
All the recent headlines about "not ruling out" various military actions are just decades-old MAD policy applied to conventional warfare.
> Not as a percentage of GDP.
Right, so by your own source:
* Spending as a percentage of GDP recently peaked in 2010 (in the middle of Obama's first term);
* Spending as a percentage of GDP recently bottomed out in 2017-2018 (in the middle of Trump's first term);
* If we apply the 2010 percentage to 2022, the US would have already been at 1.25T in spending - while this thread is expressing concern because of approaching the 1T mark. Notwithstanding the import shock, US GDP has been recently growing rather impressively, too - see e.g. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP/ .)
Also, the implication of your phrasing is that an increase as a percentage of GDP is happening or will happen soon, but you left out any evidence for that.
I very much don't like that the US spends this much on the military (about 3x as much as China, next on the leaderboard); but it's not historically out of line, nor does it look like an indication of trouble afoot.
> Even the literal meaning of what was obviously a joke
He has stated repeatedly that it is not a joke. I’m not sure what it’ll take to get you to believe him.
> This is the same kind of thing I've been hearing my entire life
Previous Presidents have not repeatedly expressed the desire to make Canada a state.
He has stated repeatedly that it is not a joke. I’m not sure what it’ll take to get you to believe him.
> This is the same kind of thing I've been hearing my entire life
Previous Presidents have not repeatedly expressed the desire to make Canada a state.
Bombing isn't a contradiction to invasion. It's a step forward on the scale of escalation.
The Mad King Trump wants all the trappings of North Korea, with military parades and silencing of political dissent.
Ignores Congress (impoundment), ignores SCOTUS (Abrego Garcia), corruptly enriches himself from his position (Meme coin), cuts social programs (numerous), encourages stochastic terrorism (numerous), and expresses sentiments fully divorced from reality or otherwise distracting from heinous and corrupt actions.
Ignores Congress (impoundment), ignores SCOTUS (Abrego Garcia), corruptly enriches himself from his position (Meme coin), cuts social programs (numerous), encourages stochastic terrorism (numerous), and expresses sentiments fully divorced from reality or otherwise distracting from heinous and corrupt actions.
[deleted]
> ... "corruptly enriches himself from his position (Meme coin)" ...
Hey, give the guy a break. This could very well be his last chance to enrich himself on the "Trump brand" before it all burns down around him. :P
Hey, give the guy a break. This could very well be his last chance to enrich himself on the "Trump brand" before it all burns down around him. :P
I'd be a little more concerned about offense spending than defense spending with this guy.
It's not madness, it's political targeting in excess of good governance.
> What the administration is preparing for that requires raising defense spending to one trillion is beyond me.
A cold war with China. Everything they are doing is based around that expectation.
A cold war with China. Everything they are doing is based around that expectation.
Cutting national science foundation funding by 55% doesn't match with a cold war against a peer adversary, so I'm leaning towards Iran being the imagined target.
Iran might be a sensible adversary in some reasoning, so that's out. How about exactly what they've said - a multi front war with Greenland, Panama and maybe Canada?
Firstly, who said war with Greenland? They want to buy Greenland, This is not new and the US has proposed this many times and has considered it many more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_United_States_acquisi...
Leaving that aside, the US is hugely more powerful than Denmark, Panama and Canada combined. If could walk over all three right now - no need for increased military expenditure.
Iran has been preparing to fight the US, and will probably have fanatics who will fight on after defeat of the military creating an Iraq like situation - but AFAIK the direction of expenditure is wrong for that as preparing for that would require spending on counter insurgency and boots on the ground. There would also be lots of support from other countries in the region for that.
The ONLY country that is a peer rival to the US is China.
Other nuclear powers are probably able to deter the US, but only China can actually fight it in a conventional war.
Leaving that aside, the US is hugely more powerful than Denmark, Panama and Canada combined. If could walk over all three right now - no need for increased military expenditure.
Iran has been preparing to fight the US, and will probably have fanatics who will fight on after defeat of the military creating an Iraq like situation - but AFAIK the direction of expenditure is wrong for that as preparing for that would require spending on counter insurgency and boots on the ground. There would also be lots of support from other countries in the region for that.
The ONLY country that is a peer rival to the US is China.
Other nuclear powers are probably able to deter the US, but only China can actually fight it in a conventional war.
Trump has embedded so many China hawks in analytical/natsec/fopo roles deep in the bureaucracy that even if he turned into a complete dove, the US would likely still enter a new Cold War through sheer institutional inertia alone.
They’re cutting the NSF because they’re high on their own supply and misunderstand the causes of US dominance, it’s a poor indicator of their intentions.
They’re cutting the NSF because they’re high on their own supply and misunderstand the causes of US dominance, it’s a poor indicator of their intentions.
Who cares. Maybe now I can get a washing machine that actually washes my clothes. You'd think at the $1,100 price point, a washing machine should actually work, even with the strict Energy Star standards, but everyone on Reddit suggests switching to a LITERAL commercial washing machine (Speed Queen). Famously-liberal Reddit is suggesting switching to a LOUD, WASTEFUL washing machine because it actually works. I think that says a lot about the current state of things.
Most people have no trouble getting clean clothes from any washing machine that gets a high rating at Consumer Reports or Wirecutter.
The main reasons for going with a commercial Speed Queen for people other than the few who can't manage to get consumer washers to clean their clothes are:
• They last a lot longer and are usually easier and/or cheaper to repair if they do break.
• They have more models without internet and apps. A basic commercial model will often be like the washer you might remember your parents had: something with a simple interface that just had a few basic cycles and washed your clothes well for decades. (Their fancier commercial models aimed to bigger laundromats might have internet and cloud based management, which can be very useful commercially for managing a fleet of machines).
The main reasons for going with a commercial Speed Queen for people other than the few who can't manage to get consumer washers to clean their clothes are:
• They last a lot longer and are usually easier and/or cheaper to repair if they do break.
• They have more models without internet and apps. A basic commercial model will often be like the washer you might remember your parents had: something with a simple interface that just had a few basic cycles and washed your clothes well for decades. (Their fancier commercial models aimed to bigger laundromats might have internet and cloud based management, which can be very useful commercially for managing a fleet of machines).
That's weird. My LG front loader has been amazing for 6+ years now. Washes well, super quiet, and energy efficient enough that I ran a load while my house was operating on battery during a 4 day power outage. I would totally buy another one.
Not sure where you are or what washer you own.... But I bought a new Samsung last year and it's excellent. Uses very little energy, quick washes if needed and washes my filthy mechanic work clothes perfectly at low temperatures.
And it cost under £400
And it cost under £400
Could you link to that Reddit discussion? I’d like to get a new washer for my mom.
Edit: Probably this one: https://www.reddit.com/r/laundry/comments/1jco8a1/recommenda... . Speed Queen, Whirlpool, LG, and other brands are recommended. Reading the reviews after you’ve purchased something is always painful! Have you heard of Consumer Reports? They at least used to be pretty reliable.
Edit: Probably this one: https://www.reddit.com/r/laundry/comments/1jco8a1/recommenda... . Speed Queen, Whirlpool, LG, and other brands are recommended. Reading the reviews after you’ve purchased something is always painful! Have you heard of Consumer Reports? They at least used to be pretty reliable.
I spent some time today reading Reddit reviews and complaints about appliances, even the top-tier brands (LG, Samsung) seem to have frequent complaints. I'm also in the market for a new washing machine, so I'll probably just buy one of those and take my chances. Speed Queen is apparently really reliable and efficient, but is probably too loud for me.
It's almost as if people don't know how to wash their clothes.
If a machine is working for the vast majority of people then it isn't usually the machine.
Washing machines fall under the same umbrella as dishwashers for me. They work amazingly well but there will always be a decent chunk of people who claim they just never get dishes clean.
It has nothing to do with the dishwasher. It has to do with how people use them incorrectly.
If a machine is working for the vast majority of people then it isn't usually the machine.
Washing machines fall under the same umbrella as dishwashers for me. They work amazingly well but there will always be a decent chunk of people who claim they just never get dishes clean.
It has nothing to do with the dishwasher. It has to do with how people use them incorrectly.
shrug That's one possible explanation, but I think there's simplest explanation is that a lot of people are just not that picky about how "clean" is "clean".
I don't really buy that.
It sounds more like "i'm picky about a washing machine" has become a personality trait, or a sunk cost, so there's no abandoning it at this point.
Probably gonna find a decent washing machine, then 2 months later another issue crops up. "It doesn't tumble quite right, ugh my clothes aren't clean". It reminds me of old people who say "They don't make x like they used to. Can't buy a good one anymore!"
Again, if the vast majority of people are finding the machine to be adequate, then it's probably not the machine. It's probably the people who are struggling with it have unreasonable expectations.
Domestic chores are also rife with people who do things for no reason other than "i was taught this way". This means their expectations are, often, unreasonable. I'm not saying that's applicable here, but it's definitely something to consider in these areas. Lots of people do wild stuff with their clothes/dishes/cleaning and don't realize it until someone points it out to them.
It sounds more like "i'm picky about a washing machine" has become a personality trait, or a sunk cost, so there's no abandoning it at this point.
Probably gonna find a decent washing machine, then 2 months later another issue crops up. "It doesn't tumble quite right, ugh my clothes aren't clean". It reminds me of old people who say "They don't make x like they used to. Can't buy a good one anymore!"
Again, if the vast majority of people are finding the machine to be adequate, then it's probably not the machine. It's probably the people who are struggling with it have unreasonable expectations.
Domestic chores are also rife with people who do things for no reason other than "i was taught this way". This means their expectations are, often, unreasonable. I'm not saying that's applicable here, but it's definitely something to consider in these areas. Lots of people do wild stuff with their clothes/dishes/cleaning and don't realize it until someone points it out to them.
I've used Consumer Reports I'm that past, and found that their ratings poorly matched my experience.
I don't doubt their integrity, but I no longer use them.
I don't doubt their integrity, but I no longer use them.
CU has a bit of a weird scale.
It seems to go for the intersection of good and cheap,
which doesn't typically mean high quality.
The best rated stuff is typically mid-range,
lower cost-of-ownership,
but nothing special.
They try to find what is going to cost the least amount of money for both now and in the future, likely within the warranty period. Mid-range and low cost of ownership is exactly what many people want. Consumer Reports' market isn't tech evangelists looking for washing machines with AI in them, they are normal users looking to replace an appliance in the least painful way possible. When you have a surprise expense like an appliance, you likely just want to spend as little as possible. Someone paying for consumer reports probably has enough money to afford paying a little more upfront for a mid-range model. If they wanted the cheapest model, they wouldn't be looking at reviews, they'd just buy the cheapest. If they were in the market for luxury models, they'd just go buy a matching set from a luxury brand, money isn't much of an issue so who cares how well it performs over time?
Your experience matches mine. I also found that their coverage of products was simply too thin to be meaningful for me.
If you can't find a washer that "actually washes" your clothes today, you probably won't be able to now either. It's not the washer.
(It's probably not your clothes, either).
(It's probably not your clothes, either).
Whose fault is it then, if dirty clothes placed in the washer remain dirty after a "wash" cycle?
It may be a simple case of overloading the washer. Assuming a front loading washer (common these days), if the clothes can’t “tumble”, they’re not going to come out clean.
Exactly why my grandma couldn't use modern front loading machine and still used her antique until she passed. Couldn't make her understand that packing it as much as she did was a mistake.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Energy Star is entirely voluntary.
Manufacturers make energy-efficient appliances because consumers prefer them over less efficient appliances, not because the government is forcing them.
Manufacturers make energy-efficient appliances because consumers prefer them over less efficient appliances, not because the government is forcing them.
If that is the case, then there should be no need for Energy Star, because manufacturers already have an incentive to increase efficiency due to customer demand.
I'm highly dubious of the $500b this program has claimed to save consumers. Almost without fail, efficiency improvements in home appliances has greatly increased complexity (less reliable), reduced common components across brands (higher cost to fix), increase purchase price, and compromised actual performance.
I'm highly dubious of the $500b this program has claimed to save consumers. Almost without fail, efficiency improvements in home appliances has greatly increased complexity (less reliable), reduced common components across brands (higher cost to fix), increase purchase price, and compromised actual performance.
> If that is the case, then there should be no need for Energy Star, because manufacturers already have an incentive to increase efficiency due to customer demand.
Energy Star is handy because it's a known quality with set standards. If there was no standard companies could start doing all sorts of marketing BS with meaningless numbers. With ES you know what you're getting and it's a apples-apples comparison.
Same with dishwasher: Energy Star means some specific, and if a unit has a sticker than it's at (at least) the same level as another unit with the sticker. An OEM has now go above and beyond that in features.
Contrast that with the MaP Test, which is voluntary in the toilet industry, which most manufacturers use if those it is voluntary:
* https://map-testing.com/
If there was an ES-equivalent standard for laundry then perhaps Energy Star itself would not be needed at that point.
Energy Star is handy because it's a known quality with set standards. If there was no standard companies could start doing all sorts of marketing BS with meaningless numbers. With ES you know what you're getting and it's a apples-apples comparison.
Same with dishwasher: Energy Star means some specific, and if a unit has a sticker than it's at (at least) the same level as another unit with the sticker. An OEM has now go above and beyond that in features.
Contrast that with the MaP Test, which is voluntary in the toilet industry, which most manufacturers use if those it is voluntary:
* https://map-testing.com/
If there was an ES-equivalent standard for laundry then perhaps Energy Star itself would not be needed at that point.
Lol are you serious? We know companies make worse versions of products on purpose.
Free market evangelist people are out of touch with reality.
Free market evangelist people are out of touch with reality.
The goal of the program is to reduce the tragedy of the commons that causes the municipal water supply to run out, making it so that nobody's Speed Queen works anymore. Given the contrast, I would prefer a slightly derpy washing machine to no access to running water.
That said, your complaints about HE side loaders are not misplaced, they aren't very good.
That said, your complaints about HE side loaders are not misplaced, they aren't very good.
[deleted]
Huh. My clothes always get clean just fine in my middle-of-the-road residential machine.
Maybe the tree huggers at Reddit are spending a lot of time hugging pine trees. Pine sap is hard to get out.
Maybe the tree huggers at Reddit are spending a lot of time hugging pine trees. Pine sap is hard to get out.
you talk a lot in your comments about wanting to avoid politics but almost all of your comments mention politics
My washing machine works just fine??
My nibling in needs, have you heard the gospel of Speed Queen?
I always chuckle when I boot up some old PC with a clone BIOS in 86Box and the Energy Star logo pops up.
Related from earlier in the week:
EPA Plans to Shut Down the Energy Star Program
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43911252
EPA Plans to Shut Down the Energy Star Program
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43911252
I wonder whether without this albeit flawed quality indicator we would see competition focused purely on price and margins would shrink.
They could adopt the EU energy label instead.
Maybe a private non-profit can startup in it's place for the time being.
If it’s a valuable program someone else can do the work.
Oh no, the government is not doing something… so someone can turn it into a business or start a nonprofit or academia can do something useful.
And government resources can help other more critical projects.
Oh no, the government is not doing something… so someone can turn it into a business or start a nonprofit or academia can do something useful.
And government resources can help other more critical projects.
The government has a couple of things that a startup doesn't:
1. The trust of the public. (This is essential for certifications.)
2. The ability to borrow at the lowest interest rate. (This is mainly due to the above.)
That makes spending to organize or coordinate the industry and the public a natural government activity.
1. The trust of the public. (This is essential for certifications.)
2. The ability to borrow at the lowest interest rate. (This is mainly due to the above.)
That makes spending to organize or coordinate the industry and the public a natural government activity.
The government does not have the trust of the public. Presidential approval ratings in recent administrations have been under 50% on both sides of the aisle and Congress is even lower than that.
If anything, distrust of government is nearly a core value inherent to being an American, again - regardless of which side you're on. Stonewall, George Floyd Protests, and Jan 6 were all protests against government, and they're all progress compared to the past, when these tensions would have instead started armed conflicts, like the anti-government sentiment that started both the revolutionary war and the civil war.
If anything, distrust of government is nearly a core value inherent to being an American, again - regardless of which side you're on. Stonewall, George Floyd Protests, and Jan 6 were all protests against government, and they're all progress compared to the past, when these tensions would have instead started armed conflicts, like the anti-government sentiment that started both the revolutionary war and the civil war.
Presidential approval ratings have little to do with the public's approval of the bureaucracy that sits in the background, quietly making their lives better
You're of the opinion that the public's approval of the bureaucracy is higher, rather than lower? president > congress > nameless, faceless bureaucracy
Also, provision of public goods.
Our New England town hall has on display the weights and scales that were used to regulate our local trade. Measuring energy usage seems like a natural expansion of this role.
Even the empire had Imperial Bureau of Standards.
Even the empire had Imperial Bureau of Standards.
Energy Star didn't only measure energy usage, it restricted freedom of trade between what were otherwise two parties voluntarily engaging in trade with no fraud, coercion, or deceit.
Poor analogy.
Poor analogy.
Energy Star is an entirely voluntary program. It restricted nothing.
The trust is the energy star brand, not the organization that owns it. Also parts of the public do not trust government.
Not sure why a long running and effective program needs government to borrow money, especially if industry finds the program valuable (enough to fund).
I’m fine with government starting programs like this, but think they should eventually be divested and run as self sufficient organizations and not constantly be a drain on the taxpayer.
Not sure why a long running and effective program needs government to borrow money, especially if industry finds the program valuable (enough to fund).
I’m fine with government starting programs like this, but think they should eventually be divested and run as self sufficient organizations and not constantly be a drain on the taxpayer.
Why would anyone trust the EnergyStar trademark if it had been sold to an entity that was not trusted?
Every dollar spent on Energy Star yielded about $340 of consumer savings. How is this a "drain"?
Does your argument equally apply to things like food standards and safety? I'm curious where your cutoff for this is, or if you genuinely believe the government should provide no services at all.
The problem is industry is under capitalism. They have all the incentive to start their own programs, numerous multiples of that are completely misleading and unfair to one up each other on marketing.
Instead of their being one central neutral auditor.
Instead of their being one central neutral auditor.
If your claim is the problem is capitalism, and that industry is beholden to it, your argument fails to consider the government’s relationship with capitalism.
It’s not perfectly transitive.
Three things that can all be true:
1. Industry has no incentive to improve per-unit efficiency if it impacts price
2. Government is largely beholden to industry, especially in oligarch America.
3. A government efficiency mandate can be better than nothing.
Three things that can all be true:
1. Industry has no incentive to improve per-unit efficiency if it impacts price
2. Government is largely beholden to industry, especially in oligarch America.
3. A government efficiency mandate can be better than nothing.
If your claim is the problem is the government and/or it's relationship with capitalism, your argument fails to consider capitalism
I don't know why you get down voted for saying something so sensible.
You are exactly right. Industry can create their own certification scheme with some independent entity, which sets the certification standards. Energy star is not safety relevant, which is the one thing which government arguably should have oversight over.
You are exactly right. Industry can create their own certification scheme with some independent entity, which sets the certification standards. Energy star is not safety relevant, which is the one thing which government arguably should have oversight over.
Why should the government have oversight over safety? If it's so critical, then the industry can create their own independent entity and safety scheme.
>Why should the government have oversight over safety?
Because the additional cost is worth it when lives are at stake.
Cost doesn't mean just mean money. Government oversight creates significant friction and there needs to be a very good reason to accept that friction into an industry. Risk to human lives is one of the few things where it is sensible to introduce that friction.
Because the additional cost is worth it when lives are at stake.
Cost doesn't mean just mean money. Government oversight creates significant friction and there needs to be a very good reason to accept that friction into an industry. Risk to human lives is one of the few things where it is sensible to introduce that friction.
Can you help me remember what was the standard for charging small devices until a government took the reins and forced the industry to cooperate? Was it more or less friction for everyone?
Government are there to prevent friction for its citizens, not for faceless entities.
Government are there to prevent friction for its citizens, not for faceless entities.
How is mandating standards in any way relevant to the discussion?
>Government are there to prevent friction for its citizens, not for faceless entities.
Have you ever tried to get a safety critical system certified by a government authority?
>Government are there to prevent friction for its citizens, not for faceless entities.
Have you ever tried to get a safety critical system certified by a government authority?
I filled the technical part of a certification to host personal health data for my first company (bunch of ISO certifications plus background checks, authorization to come at my place to take any storage device, including phone and computer, and also a bunch of columns to fill). Friction was strong for like 6 month, and present for two, but our customers never felt it hopefully.
Because it is an externality. Capitalism works when there are property rights. Even educated libertarians admit that that which is not able to be given property rights must be subject to government oversight.
Public safety is an externality. The air and water are externalities.
Private industry can't effectively compete to optimize a cost which is not "priced in". That's the whole point. If you can pollute, damage public safety, et al, it amounts to a free subsidy, you are externalizing costs which should show up in your balance sheet.
It's like people read Ayn Rand, or some cliff notes version of free market capitalism, but don't read any of the deep philosophical economic arguments in the literature, and then parrot slogans around.
Public safety is an externality. The air and water are externalities.
Private industry can't effectively compete to optimize a cost which is not "priced in". That's the whole point. If you can pollute, damage public safety, et al, it amounts to a free subsidy, you are externalizing costs which should show up in your balance sheet.
It's like people read Ayn Rand, or some cliff notes version of free market capitalism, but don't read any of the deep philosophical economic arguments in the literature, and then parrot slogans around.
the amount of doublespeak in this administration is unreal. Destruction of public institutions is announced as an improvement. The agency's "core mission" remains unstated so they don't need to square the circle on how destroying consumer info helps improve the environment.