Slashdot Mirror
Energy Star Program For Homes And Appliances Is On Trump's Chopping Block (npr.org)
Appliance manufacturers and home builders are in Washington, D.C., today to celebrate a popular energy efficiency program, even as it's slated for elimination in President Trump's proposed budget. NPR adds: You probably know the program's little blue label with the star -- the Environmental Protection Agency says 90 percent of U.S. households do. [...] The 25-year-old Energy Star program appears to be targeted simply because it's run by the federal government. It's one of 50 EPA programs that would be axed under Trump's budget plan, which would shrink the agency's funding by more than 30 percent. Critics of Energy Star say the government should get involved in the marketplace only when absolutely necessary. But that argument doesn't hold sway for the program's legions of supporters, which span nonprofits, companies and trade groups.
I think the real issue here is that leftists are learning what happens when they push people too far: a backlash happens, and it's often more severe than they anticipated.
We've seen a lot of regulation pushed by leftist types over the past 50 years. Some of this has been good. But a lot of it has been excessive. When it hasn't been excessive regulation, it has often been inefficient or ineffective regulation that ends up being very costly to those who are subjected to it unwillingly.
One prominent example is minimum wage regulations. While the intent behind these may have been good, what they've ended up becoming are huge burdens to businesses that are already on the brink. It's not economically viable for a business to pay somebody far more than the value they're providing. What is the end result? Fewer jobs, and a lot more focus on automating away low-end jobs. This actually leaves people worse off than they were before the minimum wage regulations were put into place!
Affirmative action regulations are another example, where people who just aren't qualified to do a particular job end up getting the job anyway over much more qualified candidates. This results in a decease in service quality, if not more disastrous results.
There are other examples, of course.
The main thing to keep in mind is that the people subjected to all of these regulations finally have enough. The regulations are so stifling, often without any clear benefit, that people rebel against them. These victims of over-regulation and bad regulation end up voting for politicians who vow to get rid of regulation. And it's not at all difficult for these politicians to perhaps go overboard. They won't get rid of just certain problematic regulations. They'll get rid of as many regulations as possible!
None of this would have happened if leftists hadn't kept pushing more and more regulations, especially as they got more and more unreasonable about it. Most people are fine with sensible regulations. But when leftists take it overboard, it often ends up resulting in the repealing of all or nearly all regulations, regardless of whether they're good or bad.
Except for the regulations (OSHA has them) which require UL (technically, NRTL) approvals, placing government mandated standards into the hands of unelected, answerable-to-nobody, private organizations.
Even worse are the regulations, such as vehicle and electrical ones, which require compliance with privately created standards which are incorporated only by reference, and which cost big bucks to actually obtain (NEC and SAE), in which case "ignorance of the law" should definitely be an excuse.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
The big manufacturers sell their products world wide. This means that they need to make them comply with the various standards that exist in different parts of the world. The EU market is about the same size as the USA one. The EU has its own energy standards and labelling, if the EPA Energy Star goes away in the USA they could simply display the EU ones in the USA. USA consumers would quickly learn what it was about, the manufacturers would save costs by not having to have their stuff tested twice; everyone wins. Going for global standards is where we will probably end up sooner or later anyway.
Everything I can find that actually cites a source indicates that the President's proposal directs the EPA to look into the possibility of spinning it off to operate like Underwriters Laboratories (UL) operates - with actual testing, and self-funding rather than taxpayer funded and government run.
This is the type of government program I like to see. The government is not mandating which appliance to buy. They are making a measuring stick available, and mandating that you can't lie about it. The "founding father's" made the central government responsible for setting weights and measures for a good reason. A fair market is impossible without agreed upon measures.
I wish they'd taken the same approach with the FDA. Instead of saying, "Drug X may not be sold", or "Drug Y may only be used for this specific application.", technology would have advanced much quicker and cheaper if they published a registry saying, "We have determined that Drug X has shown efficacy for this application." I'd still need my doctor, but he (and the army of bureaucrats blocking him) wouldn't be the gateway to which drug I could buy.
If Trump wants to cut the budget, make the FDA follow the Energy Star Program. Make the Dept of Education an advisory board ("We have studied the problem, and found these remedies work in those situations. Now, localities can more intelligently work out your own education programs.").
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
> You really trust the government to not do that?
1. I don't trust corporations.
2. The government should (reasonably) regulate corporations, in the public interest.
3. The corporations now run the government. So according to (1) above, I can not trust the government.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Military spending is totally out of control yet you don't see that being cut (instead they increase spending). The money that could be saved by not buying military equipment that the military itself says it doesn't need could easily pay for the budget cuts proposed for the EPA (and many others).