What would "No Deal" mean for you?

[Ttaskmaster]

I didn't want to talk about anything particular with yourself as i know what trying to have a mature discussion with yourself is like

No you don't.
You only know what it's like when you start clamouring for formal methods of debate in an obviously informal discussion, not only when such methods do not apply in the first place, but especially since you do not apply them properly and primarily use them ad hominem to evade the points raised... which is pretty immature and pedantic.

I was simply pointing that you had quoted out of context, as is typical for you, when you decided to truncate a sentence.

Not at all. The context was irrelevant, as it was the statement itself I was addressing, hence truncating the sentence down to just that.
Whether the whole sentence is present or not does not change the statement itself, nor my response to it.
My point stands.

Make of that what you will as i just wanted to highlight your duplicity.

Duplicity, now?
In what way are you deceived by my pretty open and forthright words, here? What possible underhanded, nefarious doings are you imagining from such plain speech?

People buy a TV on the basis of features and image quality, I don't think I have met a person yet who chose on energy rating.

Perhaps of equal importance, people also buy things on price, the cheaper end of which often features older, less efficient technology.

[Corky34]

My understanding is the environmental benefits are not as clear cut as the articles claim, as no attempt is made to examine the problem holistically. Low wattage appliances in hign wattage applications typically break down sooner. Considering the electricity consumed during manufacture, packaging, shipping, disposal, the most electrically efficient appliance is often the one that does not need replacing.

The article was more about debunking the myth perpetrated by British newspapers that the EU is coming to take our vacuum cleaners away, the blog post and actual legislation it links to provide far more details and in the later they do say the following..

The environmental aspects of the products covered, identified as significant for the purposes of this Regurubbishlation, are energy consumption in the use phase, dust pick-up, dust re-emission, noise (sound power level) and durability.

And...

In particular, the benefits of reducing energy consumption during the use phase should more than offset any additional environmental impacts during the production phase and the disposal.

So it seem they've done a fairly thorough job.

One thing i do find odd though is that no ones mentioned why it was necessary to setup a page dedicated to debunking myths perpetrated by British media and not any other countries, especially when British newspapers are among the least trusted in society with only British politicians scoring lower.

I would like to add that manufacturers have adapted to the challenge by creating a trend toward battery operation, so there is the inefficiency of the charger, recycling of batteries and the overspill of another source of lithium-polymer into land fill. Still, hoovers are so much smaller and quieter these days (!)

That's true, although i can't speak of how good they are as the last time i uses a battery operated one was when the first dust busters came out.

Also if the EU is apparently oppressive with their regulations and stifling peoples choices it probably won't be long before there's a regulation covering batteries and all that stuff.

Not that I've seen.

TV power use has I believe gone up. TV's used to use lots of power as they were CRT based, then we went to energy efficient flat panels *but* we also went from 25" to 55" screen size so the efficiency per square inch is lost vs the increased area. Then we got LED backlighting, with another reduction in power usage. The EU's input into all this? I would estimate it around zero. The efficiency improvements meant TV's could become lighter and thinner which makes them both more desirable and cheaper to manufacture so they were happening anyway. People buy a TV on the basis of features and image quality, I don't think I have met a person yet who chose on energy rating.

I didn't buy a high rated tumble dryer as vented driers seemed nicer to use.

A better example of regulation would be car engines. Particulate and NOX output is increasingly tightened, and clearly without intervention that wouldn't have happened (though with Euro 6 it could be argued it goes too far with it effectively stopping diesel engine development as being too hard rather than promoting improvements).

As you can imagine I've not had the time to look into TV's as well.

Having said that isn't it better to place some controls on what the environmental impact of the goods that we buy, it's not like the manufactures or, from what i can tell, our own government cares much about that sort of thing, i mean surely that where being in a union has an advantage as you can force people motivated by nothing more than capitalism to act in a more environmentally conscious manner.

So yeah, there's not really a 'no deal' situation, unless you think politicians will allow us to cripple ourselves as a country.

Have you seen our politicians.

[DanceswithUnix]

Perhaps of equal importance, people also buy things on price, the cheaper end of which often features older, less efficient technology.

I did say that the modern technology has made TV's cheaper to manufacture. LEDs are easier to drive and cheaper than CFL as well as lasting longer, they make the panel thinner and hence use less material. The last CRT TV I bought was a Sony 27" with Nicam stereo and it took two people to comfortably lift it. The TV my son got last year is 43" smart TV with 4K, HDR and wifi and satellite input and yet was cheaper. Allowing for inflation, much cheaper.

The only downside is that cheap panels mean people are going 65", hence they use more power than the 24" CRT they would have once owned.

Having said that isn't it better to place some controls on what the environmental impact of the goods that we buy,

Yes, but you have to control the bad effects and not build in assumptions on how you get there. Politicians aren't engineers and they can't predict the future. So, for example with car engines you know that particulates and NOX cause health problems, so those should be limited. Part of that is because technologies that improve fuel economy can drive up those emissions. They got this horribly wrong in the past, legislation was passed that pretty much could only be met with catalytic converters. That put on hold a swathe of engine development on lean burn which are hard to make work with cat converters.

So it's fine to say that vacuum cleaners should include HEPA filters as that improves air quality and health at minimal cost. It is fine to measure efficiency, though again the well documented car mpg ratings show that such measurements are hard but worth trying to do. But power consumption is a variable for the engineers to play with on the path to efficiency, it is an awful thing to include in the legislation.

[adidan]

@Galant Wow if Tony Abbott is used as a cheerleader we're in trouble.

Edit: There appears to be several walls of text re vacuums and tvs. Have i missed the reason people voted to leave?

This is exactly why we're a Parliamentaey Democracy and not one based on referenda and plebiscites. Usually.

[peterb]

Edit: There appears to be several walls of text re vacuums and tvs. Have i missed the reason people voted to leave?

This is exactly why we're a Parliamentaey Democracy and not one based on referenda and plebiscites. Usually.

It was cited as an example of oppressive EU regulation - and indirectly the 'one size fits all' mentality of the Eurocrats

[Corky34]

Yes, but you have to control the bad effects and not build in assumptions on how you get there. Politicians aren't engineers and they can't predict the future. So, for example with car engines you know that particulates and NOX cause health problems, so those should be limited. Part of that is because technologies that improve fuel economy can drive up those emissions. They got this horribly wrong in the past, legislation was passed that pretty much could only be met with catalytic converters. That put on hold a swathe of engine development on lean burn which are hard to make work with cat converters.

So it's fine to say that vacuum cleaners should include HEPA filters as that improves air quality and health at minimal cost. It is fine to measure efficiency, though again the well documented car mpg ratings show that such measurements are hard but worth trying to do. But power consumption is a variable for the engineers to play with on the path to efficiency, it is an awful thing to include in the legislation.

But isn't that what they're doing, they're not saying you must do X, Y, or Z as in your example of a catalytic converter, they're saying you must do more with less, you must suck up this amount of dust and you must do it with only X amount of energy, how they get there is being left to them, in a similar manner as getting more MPG.

I don't see power consumption as being one of the variables that engineers should be playing with on a path to efficiency, it's only when setting limits on things like power usage, weight, MPG, etc, etc, when engineers design their way out of a problem, when they come up with different, sometime radical ideas on how to solve a problem. We've seen what happens when companies are given free-reign, they normally go down the cheapest route and that often involves shifting the cost onto the consumer, bigger motors, more electricity, more petrol, more powwar...

It's only by saying you have to get these instruments that currently weight 500Kg into space but you only have a payload capacity of 250Kg that you get real innovation, engineers do after all love to solve problems.

Edit: There appears to be several walls of text re vacuums and tvs. Have i missed the reason people voted to leave?

Sorry, that's probably my fault, I'll try to refrain from now on.

[Galant]

@Galant Wow if Tony Abbott is used as a cheerleader we're in trouble.

Edit: There appears to be several walls of text re vacuums and tvs. Have i missed the reason people voted to leave?

This is exactly why we're a Parliamentaey Democracy and not one based on referenda and plebiscites. Usually.

I have to confess I'm not massively familiar with Abbott, or Australian politics in general. I've had a quick look around to see if there was anything obviously bizarre or controversial about him and I didn't find a great deal. Is there something particularly significant about him that might concern people?

Either way, I posted the piece having just found it and since it provided a few specific steps in terms of a plan forward for people to comment on. A lot of extreme generalisation gets thrown out about 'No Deal' but whenever I've heard or read anything about a plan for pursuing it it's generally shown that there are very reasonable options. On the negative side I've rarely heard specifics, and that doesn't fly well with me. Don't tell me you hate something, or that something is horrible, tell me why and for what reason. This thread seems aimed at some personal specifics, so I thought that something with some steps towards moving would be worth while discussion fodder.

[Smudger]

It was cited as an example of oppressive EU regulation - and indirectly the 'one size fits all' mentality of the Eurocrats

Oppressive EU regulation that we - our MEPs and government - had a large role in bringing to fruition. This is what annoys me, the attitude seems to be that the EU imposes loads of rules on us - the fact is we helped shape these rules, our MEPs voted on them (I think adidan quoted how many times we were on the 'winning' side, ie we agreed with the rules). The fact is these Euro rules are no different from laws handed down by our own parliament. We elect our MEPs - by PR, not FPTP, they go and vote on rules, they come into force. You could argue it's more democratic, because no one entity has a majority, so can't force through rules/laws.

[Ttaskmaster]

I did say that the modern technology has made TV's cheaper to manufacture.

But many appliances are still made cheaper by using old tech.

But power consumption is a variable for the engineers to play with on the path to efficiency, it is an awful thing to include in the legislation.

There can still be limits for them to work to, though, and we still have to deal with TRIAD seasons.
Many of our sites have various limits, not just power usage but things like odour, light, noise and so on. Same for all the FLIPs and private pumping stations we put in customers' properties - They have to use as little power as possible, especially where we pick up the bill for them.

[adidan]

I have to confess I'm not massively familiar with Abbott, or Australian politics in general. I've had a quick look around to see if there was anything obviously bizarre or controversial about him and I didn't find a great deal. Is there something particularly significant about him that might concern people?

Maybe I should give you my Aussie mate's number

Mind you the Aussies like to change their PM ever other week so none of them have really had chance to make any significant impact.

Well, I guess he did abolish the Carbon Tax... Oh and said this was the biggest thing his government had did for women, you know what with them being focussed on the household budget and all :/

[adidan]

It was cited as an example of oppressive EU regulation - and indirectly the 'one size fits all' mentality of the Eurocrats

Yeah, you're looking in the wrong place. Look at the UK voting history in the EU.

[Ttaskmaster]

Mind you the Aussies like to change their PM ever other week so none of them have really had chance to make any significant impact.

And all because they never elected Paul Hogan to the role!!

[jimbouk]

Oppressive EU regulation that we - our MEPs and government - had a large role in bringing to fruition. This is what annoys me, the attitude seems to be that the EU imposes loads of rules on us - the fact is we helped shape these rules, our MEPs voted on them (I think adidan quoted how many times we were on the 'winning' side, ie we agreed with the rules). The fact is these Euro rules are no different from laws handed down by our own parliament. We elect our MEPs - by PR, not FPTP, they go and vote on rules, they come into force. You could argue it's more democratic, because no one entity has a majority, so can't force through rules/laws.

This. Simply this. If we went back and replaced "the EU" with "our" then we're closer to reality. To misquote various people:

Our directive on restricting the power of vacuum cleaners - completely unnecessary.

I was personally affected by the our cookie law

I mean we didn't personally vote on the issue, but we put the people in power who did. And for all the "other countries have votes as well which we don't control", it wasn't in my interest to spend a shed load of money on Crossrail (Bristol underground would have been much better ), but I only voted for my local representative. Damn this democratic system!

[adidan]

And all because they never elected Paul Hogan to the role!!

In other news, I see the kiddies are playing in the Parliament sandpit again. God help us all.

[Smudger]

In other news, I see the kiddies are playing in the Parliament sandpit again. God help us all.

Has there ever been a worse bunch of venal, hypocritical, selfish, incompetent, self-serving MPs than we have now?

To quote the yout of today: Worst MPs EVAH!

[Corky34]

At least they get a nice three week break over Christmas, i guess we could all do with a respite from what seems like constant demagoguery, it's not like anything important is going on.