4 ms·

The EU keep pumping out these absolutely ridiculous green policies that have crippling effects locally. Recently they brought out a new energy efficiency direct

The EU keep pumping out these absolutely ridiculous green policies that have crippling effects locally. Recently they brought out a new energy efficiency directive which could cause up to 50% (!) of Finnish flats & houses to require sizeable renovations. Brussels have been very effective in transforming a useful economic union into a centrally managed dystopian nightmare that a lot of people will soon be willing to burn down regardless of consequence - myself included.

smcg 4y ago
They can only make never-effective fig leaf policies because actual good green policies would upset the applecart.
- bitwize 4y ago
  Indeed. If you really wanted to implement effective green policies, they would involve reducing the global population to around half a billion max and keeping them at pre-industrial levels of technological development.
  - bambam3000 4y ago
    Is this sarcasm?
    - bitwize 4y ago
      No, straight up, that's what needs to be done. I think that the current population-management fantasy supported by the WEF and quite a few on Hackernews -- building enormous arcologies in which to warehouse much of the world's citizenry -- is going to run into technical challenges that threaten the entire project, before they even get to the massive "people hate living there" problems. We can get to actually zero carbon emissions if we adopt simple living without any industrial technology, but we lose the capacity to feed eight billion people without Green Revolution style agtech, so we will have to make do with fewer people. We have to face up to the reality that industrial civilization is widely regarded, by people with deep understanding of the issues, as a bad move.
      - Vecr 4y ago
        Do you think building thousands of nuclear reactors would be a good idea to do before trying that?
Joeri 4y ago
Most of the criticism of those policies is false or misleading. You always need to be careful to research the actual policy instead of the media soundbite as the two usually diverge quite a bit. There are perverse incentives at work. When the EU does something right the national politicians usually take credit (when they convert a EU directive to local law), and when a national politician is struggling with a local problem, often of their own creation, they will blame the EU. It was generally perceived as harmless to use the EU as the scapegoat, but since Brexit showed there are real harms some of the politicians have dialed it back. Not all though. Which is not to say the EU does nothing wrong, but I find the standard of policymaking at the EU level usually exceeds that at the local level.
- spiderfarmer 4y ago
  Balkenende warned the EU the Natura 2000 guidelines would bring all economic activity in The Netherlands to a halt. Because there is no way we will reach the goals that were stated there. The EU commissioner basically laughed and told him to deal with it. Lots of politicians saw the writing on the wall. Nobody had the balls to tackle the real issue and change the guidelines at the EU level. It will be interesting to see how this will pan out.
tfourb 4y ago
This is a negotiating position (!) by the EU Parliament, not a finished regulation or decree. Regarding the actual content: If adopted as proposed (which is unlikely), it would force owners of the 30% of least energy efficient houses (compared to the national, not EU-wide, housing stock) to upgrade their houses to come in line with the next higher energy efficiency class – by 2033, so ten years from now. I own several buildings, both quite old (1960s), as well as brand new (net-positive energy). Improving an existing building in the worst energy efficiency class to come in line with the proposed standards is in most cases an expense in the low five figures, which (at least in Germany) will be subsidized with up to 50% of the costs. Lower energy consumption will in most cases pay for the renovation within a few years. Many of the measures (i.e. new heating source and radiators, new windows) would have to be done on those houses anyway, because the old systems reach their end of life. So what are people complaining about, exactly?
- sfvisser 4y ago
  > I own several buildings > expense in the low five figures > So what are people complaining about, exactly? This is an incredible take. Many people don’t have the luxury to just spend five figures on a mandatory house renovation.
  - bojan 4y ago
    It will be heavily subsidized. Nobody will get into trouble for not being able to afford insulation. That's not how the law in European countries works.
    - tfourb 4y ago
      Just to underline how property law works in many EU countries: I have a tenant who is actively destroying the apartment he lives in. It is still practically impossible to dissolve my rent agreement with him, because the courts see it as likely that he would end up homeless. There is simply no conceivable reality in which our current system of laws would force a cash-strapped, 80 year old house owner out of his property simply because they can't follow up on EU energy regulations. We have plenty of legal safeguards to weigh social outcomes against the impact of laws and regulations.

smcg 4y ago

They can only make never-effective fig leaf policies because actual good green policies would upset the applecart.

bitwize 4y ago
Indeed. If you really wanted to implement effective green policies, they would involve reducing the global population to around half a billion max and keeping them at pre-industrial levels of technological development.
- bambam3000 4y ago
  Is this sarcasm?
  - bitwize 4y ago
    No, straight up, that's what needs to be done. I think that the current population-management fantasy supported by the WEF and quite a few on Hackernews -- building enormous arcologies in which to warehouse much of the world's citizenry -- is going to run into technical challenges that threaten the entire project, before they even get to the massive "people hate living there" problems. We can get to actually zero carbon emissions if we adopt simple living without any industrial technology, but we lose the capacity to feed eight billion people without Green Revolution style agtech, so we will have to make do with fewer people. We have to face up to the reality that industrial civilization is widely regarded, by people with deep understanding of the issues, as a bad move.
    - Vecr 4y ago
      Do you think building thousands of nuclear reactors would be a good idea to do before trying that?

Joeri 4y ago

Most of the criticism of those policies is false or misleading. You always need to be careful to research the actual policy instead of the media soundbite as the two usually diverge quite a bit. There are perverse incentives at work. When the EU does something right the national politicians usually take credit (when they convert a EU directive to local law), and when a national politician is struggling with a local problem, often of their own creation, they will blame the EU. It was generally perceived as harmless to use the EU as the scapegoat, but since Brexit showed there are real harms some of the politicians have dialed it back. Not all though. Which is not to say the EU does nothing wrong, but I find the standard of policymaking at the EU level usually exceeds that at the local level.

spiderfarmer 4y ago
Balkenende warned the EU the Natura 2000 guidelines would bring all economic activity in The Netherlands to a halt. Because there is no way we will reach the goals that were stated there. The EU commissioner basically laughed and told him to deal with it. Lots of politicians saw the writing on the wall. Nobody had the balls to tackle the real issue and change the guidelines at the EU level. It will be interesting to see how this will pan out.

tfourb 4y ago

This is a negotiating position (!) by the EU Parliament, not a finished regulation or decree. Regarding the actual content: If adopted as proposed (which is unlikely), it would force owners of the 30% of least energy efficient houses (compared to the national, not EU-wide, housing stock) to upgrade their houses to come in line with the next higher energy efficiency class – by 2033, so ten years from now. I own several buildings, both quite old (1960s), as well as brand new (net-positive energy). Improving an existing building in the worst energy efficiency class to come in line with the proposed standards is in most cases an expense in the low five figures, which (at least in Germany) will be subsidized with up to 50% of the costs. Lower energy consumption will in most cases pay for the renovation within a few years. Many of the measures (i.e. new heating source and radiators, new windows) would have to be done on those houses anyway, because the old systems reach their end of life. So what are people complaining about, exactly?

sfvisser 4y ago
> I own several buildings > expense in the low five figures > So what are people complaining about, exactly? This is an incredible take. Many people don’t have the luxury to just spend five figures on a mandatory house renovation.
- bojan 4y ago
  It will be heavily subsidized. Nobody will get into trouble for not being able to afford insulation. That's not how the law in European countries works.
  - tfourb 4y ago
    Just to underline how property law works in many EU countries: I have a tenant who is actively destroying the apartment he lives in. It is still practically impossible to dissolve my rent agreement with him, because the courts see it as likely that he would end up homeless. There is simply no conceivable reality in which our current system of laws would force a cash-strapped, 80 year old house owner out of his property simply because they can't follow up on EU energy regulations. We have plenty of legal safeguards to weigh social outcomes against the impact of laws and regulations.