This is why we should all leave the EU

[SirNick]

I really don't see how 'taking away the freedom to buy crappy products without warranty' is going to have a negative impact on my life.

That's a very ego centric view.  If I don't want to do X than I don't mind that the government will punish people that do X.

I often buy cheap, crappy no-warrantee Chinese stuff from ebay.  It's my choice.

Oh, the irony.  You're complaining that your freedoms are being stolen because you don't have the option to buy appliances that are inefficient and/or prone to failure.  (Equipment that is not at least one of the above won't be affected.)  Meanwhile, there are leagues of people being snowed by manufacturers who prey on the ignorance of the common consumer.  If that's not ego-centric, then I must confess my own ignorance -- because I apparently don't understand the meaning of that phrase.  (I'm going to be sorely disappointed if someone doesn't use this opening for a personal attack.  C'moonnnn.... you want to...)

In all honesty, I have an anti-authority streak as well.  So I get that people don't like being told they can't do something, even if they had no intention to do it anyway.  I felt the same way when my neighborhood was selected for mandatory recycling.  That pissed me off... until I realized I was upset about having to do something I believed in doing anyway.  Then I had a stern talk with myself, and learned what it means to "pick your battles."

For example: the whole financial crisis is due to the lack of regulation on financial markets and products.

This is such a perfect example of why this kind of legislation is necessary, I'm disappointed I didn't think of it first.

No, it doesn't work at all other than to line the pockets of some shysters with the small premium you pay and to allow you to try to bullshit anyone (including yourself) stupid enough to believe otherwise.

Brother... you seem to have misplaced anger flowing from deep down within your butt chakra.  You need to find Jesus, a six-pack of beer, and/or the rental room at the back of the bookstore down by the highway.

This legislation is nothing to do with ecology and gut-wrenching concern for our environment and 'climate change'; it is everything to do with authoritarianism, control and power.

Fuck the stupid legislation and the bureaucratic wankers who decreed it was somehow beneficial for mankind. I'm buying one of these and leaving it on 24/7:

I recently saw a video of people who intentionally modify their trucks to burn excess fuel in order to produce clouds of thick, black smoke.  Up until your comment, that was the dumbest form of protest I've ever heard of.  Congrats man!  You are one clever bloke.  High-five! 

[dannyf]

it is everything to do with authoritarianism, control and power.

And they deem that they know better than we do what is good for us. We are simply the ignorant piece of dirt, the stupid, the governed and the lesser human than the political elites.

[SirNick]

I guess, if you have an inferiority complex.

Or, you could see them as the governing body that (ideally) looks out for your broader interests.  Course corrections are and always will be necessary.  This is the job of the informed populace.  However, whining and moaning is not very effective -- especially if it occurs in response to every decision made by your governing body.

People (on both sides of this relationship) seem to forget that the government works for the people.  Don't like their choices?  Get involved in changing them then.

[zapta]

...  the government works for the people.

No, it does not. The government industry works for itself.

Don't like their choices?  Get involved in changing them then.

Not easy when we are outgun.

[zapta]

In all honesty, I have an anti-authority streak as well.  So I get that people don't like being told they can't do something, even if they had no intention to do it anyway.

You keep saying it all the time. It's a false argument, people buy cheap stuff from ebay and other sources all the time.  I understand that this specific law does not affect you personally but I suggest that you will read Martin Niemöller's eternal poem "First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Socialist.  ... "

Think freedom!

[SirNick]

Well, it's that or lie down and let it happen.

There are a lot of truly awful decisions being made these days.  The wattage rating on vacuum cleaners doesn't strike me as the top of that heap, however, maybe for some it's the straw that breaks the camel's back.  So be it.

In that case, I suggest this:  Dave made a pretty compelling point with his Solar Roadways video.  As such, it has shown up as a related video in the oddest of places.  If this is your line in the sand, research the proposals, gather the data, and post a video of your own.  Get the word out.  Can't guarantee that'll change anything, especially because I doubt that many folks are passionate about their canister vacs.  But hey.  Net-neutrality stirred a few pots, so can Hoover-gate.

There are a lot more of us than there are of them.  We're not out-gunned.  We're out-motivated.

[SirNick]

people buy cheap stuff from ebay and other sources all the time.

I don't.  I often look for the cheapest of otherwise comparable items, sure, but I'm not the guy that buys ICs and such on eBay.  (With one exception -- for a just-to-see-if-I-can project, where the original IC was NLA, and would probably be under NDA if it weren't.)  Typically, I vote with my money.  I could get a cheap TV for $200, I spent considerably more than that for something with a better pedigree.  I don't buy cheap tools.  I don't buy cheap socks.  I have my PCBs made somewhere between the cheapest and most expensive houses, where the quality is.  I don't eat fast food.  I don't go out of my way to waste money either, but there's certainly middle ground.

I understand that this specific law does not affect you personally but I suggest that you will read Martin Niemöller's eternal poem "First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Socialist.  ... "

I have, and that one resonates with me.  I do actually support putting your foot down.  I think fighting this particular cause is ridiculous, if not counter-productive, and so I argue on behalf of (what I consider) reason.  I have taken some cheap shots, for fun, but if someone was really truly fed up with giving up ground, I would respect their position.  I would not likely join them, because I disagree, but I would respect it for what very little that's worth.

[Tac Eht Xilef]

I have, and that one resonates with me.  I do actually support putting your foot down.  I think fighting this particular cause is ridiculous, if not counter-productive, and so I argue on behalf of (what I consider) reason.  I have taken some cheap shots, for fun, but if someone was really truly fed up with giving up ground, I would respect their position.  I would not likely join them, because I disagree, but I would respect it for what very little that's worth.

The thing is, before standing their ground they should really make sure they're standing somewhere solid.

The whole premise of this thread was build on some very shaky ground indeed...

[Rufus]

Or, you could see them as the governing body that (ideally) looks out for your broader interests.  Course corrections are and always will be necessary.  This is the job of the informed populace.

A job which the EU intentionally makes as difficult as possible.

The anti-referendum sentiment captures the key problem with the EU – that it is in essence a project designed to insulate national elites and political classes from the rough views of their electorates. Too often, right-wing commentators depict the EU as a conspiratorial enterprise dreamt up by power-crazed Germans and Frenchmen who long to tell all Europeans how curvy their bananas may be. In truth, the EU emanates from the crisis of legitimacy of all national governments in Europe, the powerful sense of disconnection from the public experienced by political classes everywhere from Britain to Italy to Poland, who bit by bit have sought refuge from their publics and from their crisis of authority in the new, far-removed institutions of Brussels. It is a clubbing together, not of the peoples of Europe, but of the elites of Europe seeking to escape their peoples. This is why all talk of granting national publics greater democratic authority over Brussels so freaks out those who back the EU project – because the EU project grew precisely out of the political elites’ sense of alienation from these national publics and their feeling of exhaustion with having to engage with or talk to us.

The full article is here http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/care_about_democracy_then_smash_the_eu/14525

[G7PSK]

[quote author

Of course that's not how it works. The fact is that I am willing to pay a little extra to buy electricity from clean sources to contribute back what I take out of the grid.
[/quote]

That's all very well but here in the UK you would be paying twice for the privilege of having "green electricity" as there is already a surcharge and tax on any electricity in the UK in order to subsidize green, eco or alternative power generation so then going and buying from a so called green power supplier means that they get paid twice for that electricity.
If the government really meant what they say green power would cost the user less as it already carries the subsidy.

   

[Galenbo]

You will have to show us the mains filter you installed that passes those green electrons and rejects the others.

Of course that's not how it works. The fact is that I am willing to pay a little extra to buy electricity from clean sources to contribute back what I take out of the grid.

Problem is that your propagandists have no clue about energy, only look at corporate social image, eyes closed for the enormous poison side effects of what is called "green enregy", selling good-life to naive noobs.

[Galenbo]

Not at all. Free people can make purchasing decisions that you deem bad. This is part of being free.

So only people who can afford to make the choice are free. Everyone else just has to buy unsafe or rip-off products. Doesn't sound very free to me.

That's it. The ones who do effort can choose what they want if they have the luck to live in a developed country.
Unfortunately, there are many people in Afrika without elektricity. they have less problems with electrically unsafe products.

[Galenbo]

... The EU is getting us the information we need to make an informed decision,...

I do not need unelected bureaucrats, lawyers and bankers to breanwash me an off-the-shelf solution about energy. I went to school to get that information from scientists.

So please limit your indoctrination to yourself. You need them, you want them, and you repeat what they say.

[Galenbo]

I bought a 120W hedge trimmer, it was useless, took ages to get the job done as it cut so bad. Then i found a battered 200W one in my out building that was abandoned by the previous house owner. Stuck a plug on it and gave it a go. I flogged the "new" 120W trimmer that was useless and kept the beaten up old 200W one and get the job done in under 1/2 the time. Tell me which trimmer is "greener"

Your anecdote is worthless. It does not demonstrate a trend. On the other hand the EU has done significant research into the issue and demonstrated that the opposite to what you are implying is true. Motor power is not the important factor, quality and technique are.

I am sure you never trimmed the hedge with that 120W trimmer.

[Galenbo]

While I'm here I might as well debunk your nonsense about electric cars too: http://www.nextgreencar.com/electric-cars/environmental-benefits.php

That's a good one, trying to change someone's view with fundamentalist propaganda.

- Even compared to the most fuel efficient ICE cars an EV in the UK is about 25% better on CO2

No it's not. Time for you to turn off your PC screen, and take a walk into a company that uses electric vehicles for 30 years.
And first turn off your overactive dream machine.

Like indoor load lifting machines. And then you look at the batteries, and look how the liquid smells, and what it does to the driving chassis. Then you ask how often they have to be replaced and why, then you measure how much energy they need to charge, how long they can drive. Then you look at the minimum temperature they need, and ask someone how long it will remain charged, when nobody drives it. and so on.

I'm sure you won't. You are too much a breanwashed dreamer about futuristic batteries that never will exist, with colored promotion campaigns that lie about more than half the specs, showing "optimized" results that never will occur.

[nctnico]

...  the government works for the people.

No, it does not. The government industry works for itself.

In the US: definitely yes because it is a pseudo democracy. Having a choice between only two parties can never be a democracy. The political system in the US dates back from the 1700's.

Also many people don't care to vote for their local authorities as well. A local authority also has a voice higher up towards the central government. I've read some background information about the riots in Ferguson. It turns out the people who are on the streets yelling for more influence belong to the group that votes the least

[zapta]

[Let Mr explain how the grid works. Generators put energy in, consumers take it out. Consumers pay energy companies to manage the supply to them and to pay the generators. I have a contract that says the money I pay will only ever be allocated to clean generators, even if that costs about 1% more. The money I pay is proportional to the amount I consume.

Can you explain how this is a shyster scam please?

It's not a scam. If some people are willing to pay extra to deal with their global warming phobias it's their prerogative, as long as they don't force it on others.

[zapta]

You went to school for information... Provided by the government you hate so much, using textbooks and a syllabus selected for you by those people. Worst of all, it didn't work and you don't seem to understand the science at work here.

It's not about science or engineering, it's about personal liberty. The fact that X is electrically more efficient than Y doesn't give the government  the right to punish people that do Y.

[Rasz]

I see it as a positive thing. Engineers thrive on limitations. It will only fuel innovation.

[Excavatoree]

I asked this earlier in the thread, but my question was obscured by another argument.

Why pay the electric company more for the same power in the name of "Green energy" when you can simply donate that money to a "green cause" instead?   Would a focused donation to an environmental group, or even a political campaign for a politician that will enact "green" policies be a better use of that money than simply paying the electric company more  for the same energy that the  people who aren't paying the "Green fee" are getting?

Because everyone is connected to the same wires, the "green power fee" is essentially a donation to green causes.   I suppose I'm asking if paying extra to the electric utility is as effective as other ways to spend money to further environmental causes.

I realize this may vary by country.  In the US, most power is generated by  private companies who sell it to a hodge podge of private utility companies, non-profit cooperatives, and public utilities which serve the customers.   Some of them I'd trust with extra "green money", many of whom I would not. 

[Excavatoree]

I see it as a positive thing. Engineers thrive on limitations. It will only fuel innovation.

Very true.  Honestly, if the US EPA had not decided that off-road equipment must meet the same emission standards as on-road equipment, I would most likely be out of work.  Most of the engineering time spent at Excavatoree-co has been to implement the new engines, with all of their ancillary equipment.

My co-worker and I speculate that the jobs preserved or created by the sudden workload increase was one goal of the US government.  Without that, our economy would be even worse than it is. 


EDIT - sorry, I realize that wasn't quite the point Rasz was making, but it is close.

[dannyf]

Why pay the electric company more for the same power in the name of "Green energy" when you can simply donate that money to a "green cause" instead? 

For the people who already donate to the green causes, no.

For the people who don't donate to the green causes, taxing via electricity consumption is infinitely more efficient in funding such green causes, and for the politicians who mandate such funding - that is actually why they are called "green" causes: it is green for the politicians and interest groups, not necessarily for the environment.

[G7PSK]

That's all very well but here in the UK you would be paying twice for the privilege of having "green electricity" as there is already a surcharge and tax on any electricity in the UK in order to subsidize green, eco or alternative power generation so then going and buying from a so called green power supplier means that they get paid twice for that electricity.
If the government really meant what they say green power would cost the user less as it already carries the subsidy.

 

I regularly check comparison sites and being 100% green costs me about 1-2% more a year compared to a similar standard tariff.

Yes 1% on top of the tax and levies that are on all energy bill in the UK. So you pay someone extra for what the government has already taxed and levied and passed at least some on to the green energy generators. Buy green energy and pay twice as the tax and levy is on all bills and not just the non green power suppliers.

[Rufus]

Very true.  Honestly, if the US EPA had not decided that off-road equipment must meet the same emission standards as on-road equipment, I would most likely be out of work.  Most of the engineering time spent at Excavatoree-co has been to implement the new engines, with all of their ancillary equipment.

My co-worker and I speculate that the jobs preserved or created by the sudden workload increase was one goal of the US government.  Without that, our economy would be even worse than it is.

While it obviously has a beneficial effect on you personally the notion that finding new more expensive ways of doing what is already being done somehow strengthens an economy and will lead to a new golden age of prosperity is ridiculous.

You might look up Frederic Bastiat's broken window fallacy the gist of which is a kid breaking a window leads to a glazier being employed to fix it which is a boost for the economy and prosperity. A similar fallacy is often used to make expensive green policies look more palatable.

[Excavatoree]

Very true.  Honestly, if the US EPA had not decided that off-road equipment must meet the same emission standards as on-road equipment, I would most likely be out of work.  Most of the engineering time spent at Excavatoree-co has been to implement the new engines, with all of their ancillary equipment.

My co-worker and I speculate that the jobs preserved or created by the sudden workload increase was one goal of the US government.  Without that, our economy would be even worse than it is.

While it obviously has a beneficial effect on you personally the notion that finding new more expensive ways of doing what is already being done somehow strengthens an economy and will lead to a new golden age of prosperity is ridiculous.

You might look up Frederic Bastiat's broken window fallacy the gist of which is a kid breaking a window leads to a glazier being employed to fix it which is a boost for the economy and prosperity. A similar fallacy is often used to make expensive green policies look more palatable.

I don't disagree with you.

I've often said given the relatively low volume of off-road engines, requiring US T4A or T4B is silly and ridiculous.  T3 or even T2 depending on location would be more than adequate.

Seing how there's little "state of the art" in earthmoving equipment, after all moving dirt now is the same as moving dirt 50 years go,  the only real change has been the computer controls, and that's farmed out anyway, and takes up so little room on the machine.   If it weren't for having to add the new engines, and shoehorn all the extra stuff (DOC, SCR, DEF (AD BLUE) tank, etc.) the company wouldn't need all the engineers.

My personal opinion, subject to civil disagreement is the government has better things it could have been doing.  Your analogy is a good one.  It's essentially a government regulation requiring companies to hire or retain engineers - just what we in the US say we don't like.  (Similar to being against vacuum cleaner power limits)