Summary
Politicians don’t object to energy efficiency as it sounds too good to
be true. It is.

– The Consumer Side
Product Performance — Construction and Appearance
Price Increase — Lack of Expected Savings: Money, Energy or Emissions.
Choice and Quality affected

– The Manufacturer Side
Meeting Consumer Demand — Green Technology — Green Marketing

– The Energy Side
Energy Supply — Energy Security — Cars and Oil Dependence

– The Emission Side
Buildings — Industry — Power Stations — Light Bulbs and other
electrical products

Never thought about half of those.

While advice for people how they can save energy is useful,
energy efficiency regulations (or even the current obsession in pushing people to save energy) are however in my view unnecessary and wrong
- also in an overall environmental perspective….

1.
Where there is a problem – deal with the problem

Energy:
There is no energy shortage
(given renewable/nuclear development possibilities, with set emission limits)
and consumers – not politicians – pay for energy and how they wish to use it.
Notice: If there was an energy shortage, its price rise would limit
people using it anyway.
No need to legislate for it.

It might sound great to
“Let everyone save energy and money by only allowing energy efficient products”

However:
Energy efficiency is only ONE advantage a product can have,
and mandating for energy efficiency unfortunately means that product features have to be sacrificed in other areas
- or the products would be energy efficient already.

Products that use more energy can have performance,
appearance and construction advantages
Examples (using cars, buildings, dishwashers, TV sets, light bulbs etc):
http://ceolas.net/#cc211x
For example, with current California TV legislation, big plasma TV screens have image contrast and other
advantages along with their large image sizes.
Conversely, using other examples:

Energy efficient lights may be slower to come on, bulkier, less bright, mercury containing.
Energy efficient buildings are often sealed buildings – not always what users want.
Energy efficient cars tend to be unsafe (light in build and weight) and slower
– and so on.

Also, imposing energy efficiency usually means increasing cost
or, as said, the products would be more energy efficient already.
There might therefore not be any total running cost savings either,
depending on how much such a cheaper product is used.

Other factors also contribute to a lack of savings:

If households use less energy as a result of the various bans,
then utility companies make less money,
and will just raise electricity prices to cover their costs.
So people don’t save as much money as they thought.

Conversely,
energy efficiency in effect means cheaper energy,
so people just leave TV sets etc on more, using more energy, knowing that energy bills are lower,
as also shown by Scottish and Cambridge research
ceolas.net/#cc214x

Either way, supposed energy – or money – savings aren’t there.

Emissions?
Do electrical products give out any CO2 gas?
Emissions (for all else they contain too) can be dealt with directly via energy substitution or emission processing
See ceolas.net/#cc1x

The argument that
“dealing directly with energy and emissions takes too long and costs too much”
does not hold up:
ceolas.net/#cc201x

– there is also the taxation alternative……

2.
The Taxation alternative
While still wrong, taxation is better than bans for all concerned.

Bans on TVs, light bulbs etc are not like a ban on dangerous lead paint!
They are simply bans to (supposedly) reduce electricity consumption.
TV set taxation based on energy efficiency – unlike bans – gives
governments income on the reduced sales, while consumers keep choice.
This also applies generally,
to cars, buildings, dishwashers, light bulbs etc,
where politicians instead keep trying to define what people can or can’t use,
which unfortunately alienates many from more important environmental cooperation.

The tax money raised can be used to fund home energy/insulation
schemes, renewable projects etc that lower energy use and emissions
more than remaining product use raises them.
Energy efficient products can have any sales taxes lowered, making
them cheaper than today.
People are not just hit by taxes, they don’t have to buy the higher
taxed products – and at least they CAN still buy them.

Of course, to avoid smuggling, bans (and to a lesser extent taxes) have to be applied internationally.
Both bans and taxes are in any case unjustified, taxes just being a comparably better option.

Never thought about half of those.

While advice for people how they can save energy is useful,
energy efficiency regulations (or even the current obsession in pushing people to save energy) are however in my view unnecessary and wrong
- also in an overall environmental perspective….

1.
Where there is a problem – deal with the problem

Energy:
There is no energy shortage
(given renewable/nuclear development possibilities, with set emission limits)
and consumers – not politicians – pay for energy and how they wish to use it.
Notice: If there was an energy shortage, its price rise would limit
people using it anyway.
No need to legislate for it.

It might sound great to
“Let everyone save energy and money by only allowing energy efficient products”

However:
Energy efficiency is only ONE advantage a product can have,
and mandating for energy efficiency unfortunately means that product features have to be sacrificed in other areas
- or the products would be energy efficient already.

Products that use more energy can have performance,
appearance and construction advantages
Examples (using cars, buildings, dishwashers, TV sets, light bulbs etc):
http://ceolas.net/#cc211x
For example, with current California TV legislation, big plasma TV screens have image contrast and other
advantages along with their large image sizes.
Conversely, using other examples:

Energy efficient lights may be slower to come on, bulkier, less bright, mercury containing.
Energy efficient buildings are often sealed buildings – not always what users want.
Energy efficient cars tend to be unsafe (light in build and weight) and slower
– and so on.

Also, imposing energy efficiency usually means increasing cost
or, as said, the products would be more energy efficient already.
There might therefore not be any total running cost savings either,
depending on how much such a cheaper product is used.

Other factors also contribute to a lack of savings:

If households use less energy as a result of the various bans,
then utility companies make less money,
and will just raise electricity prices to cover their costs.
So people don’t save as much money as they thought.

Conversely,
energy efficiency in effect means cheaper energy,
so people just leave TV sets etc on more, using more energy, knowing that energy bills are lower,
as also shown by Scottish and Cambridge research
ceolas.net/#cc214x

Either way, supposed energy – or money – savings aren’t there.

Emissions?
Do electrical products give out any CO2 gas?
Emissions (for all else they contain too) can be dealt with directly via energy substitution or emission processing
ceolas.net/#cc1x

The argument that
“dealing directly with energy and emissions takes too long and costs too much”
does not hold up:
ceolas.net/#cc201x

– there is also the taxation alternative……

2.
The Taxation alternative
While still wrong, taxation is better than bans for all concerned.

Bans on TVs, light bulbs etc are not like a ban on dangerous lead paint!
They are simply bans to (supposedly) reduce electricity consumption.
TV set taxation based on energy efficiency – unlike bans – gives
governments income on the reduced sales, while consumers keep choice.
This also applies generally,
to cars, buildings, dishwashers, light bulbs etc,
where politicians instead keep trying to define what people can or can’t use,
which unfortunately alienates many from more important environmental cooperation.

The tax money raised can be used to fund home energy/insulation
schemes, renewable projects etc that lower energy use and emissions
more than remaining product use raises them.
Energy efficient products can have any sales taxes lowered, making
them cheaper than today.
People are not just hit by taxes, they don’t have to buy the higher
taxed products – and at least they CAN still buy them.

Of course, to avoid smuggling, bans (and to a lesser extent taxes) have to be applied internationally.
Both bans and taxes are in any case unjustified, taxes just being a comparably better option.

___________________________________

Why all energy efficiency regulations are wrong,
whether you are for or against energy and emission conservation
http://ceolas.net/#cc2x

Summary
Politicians don’t object to energy efficiency as it sounds too good to
be true. It is.

– The Consumer Side
Product Performance — Construction and Appearance
Price Increase — Lack of Expected Savings: Money, Energy or Emissions.
Choice and Quality affected

– The Manufacturer Side
Meeting Consumer Demand — Green Technology — Green Marketing

– The Energy Side
Energy Supply — Energy Security — Cars and Oil Dependence

– The Emission Side
Buildings — Industry — Power Stations — Light Bulbs and other
electrical products