5 ms·
Industry groups are not happy about the imminent demise of Energy Star
- whatshisface 1y agoI wouldn't want to ascribe too much method to this madness, but the increases for defense, homeland security and immigration control in the 2026 budget request, combined with a desire to be seen as cutting the budget rather than increasing spending, could have set the extreme civilian costcutting requirements. What the administration is preparing for that requires raising defense spending to one trillion is beyond me. Actually it's not.
- tomrod 1y agoIt's not madness, it's political targeting in excess of good governance.
- squigz 1y ago> What the administration is preparing for that requires raising defense spending to one trillion is beyond me. Actually it's not. Why do you think America is suddenly 'preparing' for something? Hasn't defence spending steadily increased for quite a long time now?
- tomrod 1y agoThe Mad King Trump wants all the trappings of North Korea, with military parades and silencing of political dissent. Ignores Congress (impoundment), ignores SCOTUS (Abrego Garcia), corruptly enriches himself from his position (Meme coin), cuts social programs (numerous), encourages stochastic terrorism (numerous), and expresses sentiments fully divorced from reality or otherwise distracting from heinous and corrupt actions.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- blooalien 1y ago> ... "corruptly enriches himself from his position (Meme coin)" ... Hey, give the guy a break. This could very well be his last chance to enrich himself on the "Trump brand" before it all burns down around him. :P
- whatshisface 1y ago>Hasn't defence spending steadily increased for quite a long time now? Not as a percentage of GDP. https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/usa/united-states/military-spending-defense-budget https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/usa/uni... The administration has expressed a desire to destroy several other countries over the last year. Iran, Denmark's autonomous territory Greenland and Canada stand out for being explicitly named, and China for being a career target of important advisors. Iran out of all these is singled out by congressional support and a history of military action in the region. In conclusion, the administration most likely wants to invade Iran. https://www.reuters.com/world/trump-says-there-will-be-bombing-if-iran-does-not-make-nuclear-deal-2025-03-30/ https://www.reuters.com/world/trump-says-there-will-be-bombi...
- zahlman 1y ago>...expressed a desire to destroy several other countries... Canada stand out for being explicitly named A bit of banter about Canada being economically or political subordinate to the US is not even remotely in the same ballpark as expressing a desire to destroy Canada. Even the literal meaning of what was obviously a joke is not remotely in the same ballpark. This is the same kind of thing I've been hearing my entire life; it means no more than the old adage "when America sneezes, Canada catches a cold". I say this as a left-wing Canadian, btw. Regarding Iran, the headline of your source already contradicts you, as does the article. Bombing is not invasion, and a threat made to get what you actually want (a "nuclear deal") is not expressing desire to execute the threat (it is in fact explicitly saying that you want something else). Is this bad? Sure. Is it an unusual level of saber rattling (especially from someone who didn't come across as much of a military interventionist in his first term)? I suppose so. But it is not anything like "an expressed desire to destroy other countries". It is not warmongering. All the recent headlines about "not ruling out" various military actions are just decades-old MAD policy applied to conventional warfare. > Not as a percentage of GDP. Right, so by your own source: * Spending as a percentage of GDP recently peaked in 2010 (in the middle of Obama's first term); * Spending as a percentage of GDP recently bottomed out in 2017-2018 (in the middle of Trump's first term); * If we apply the 2010 percentage to 2022, the US would have already been at 1.25T in spending - while this thread is expressing concern because of approaching the 1T mark. Notwithstanding the import shock, US GDP has been recently growing rather impressively, too - see e.g. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP/ https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP/ .) Also, the implication of your phrasing is that an increase as a percentage of GDP is happening or will happen soon, but you left out any evidence for that. I very much don't like that the US spends this much on the military (about 3x as much as China, next on the leaderboard); but it's not historically out of line, nor does it look like an indication of trouble afoot.
- singleshot_ 1y agoI'd be a little more concerned about offense spending than defense spending with this guy.
- graemep 1y ago> What the administration is preparing for that requires raising defense spending to one trillion is beyond me. A cold war with China. Everything they are doing is based around that expectation.
- whatshisface 1y agoCutting national science foundation funding by 55% doesn't match with a cold war against a peer adversary, so I'm leaning towards Iran being the imagined target.
- bryanrasmussen 1y agoIran might be a sensible adversary in some reasoning, so that's out. How about exactly what they've said - a multi front war with Greenland, Panama and maybe Canada?
- graemep 1y agoFirstly, who said war with Greenland? They want to buy Greenland, This is not new and the US has proposed this many times and has considered it many more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_United_States_acquisition_of_Greenland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_United_States_acquisi... Leaving that aside, the US is hugely more powerful than Denmark, Panama and Canada combined. If could walk over all three right now - no need for increased military expenditure. Iran has been preparing to fight the US, and will probably have fanatics who will fight on after defeat of the military creating an Iraq like situation - but AFAIK the direction of expenditure is wrong for that as preparing for that would require spending on counter insurgency and boots on the ground. There would also be lots of support from other countries in the region for that. The ONLY country that is a peer rival to the US is China. Other nuclear powers are probably able to deter the US, but only China can actually fight it in a conventional war.
- concinds 1y agoTrump has embedded so many China hawks in analytical/natsec/fopo roles deep in the bureaucracy that even if he turned into a complete dove, the US would likely still enter a new Cold War through sheer institutional inertia alone. They’re cutting the NSF because they’re high on their own supply and misunderstand the causes of US dominance, it’s a poor indicator of their intentions.
- newsclues 1y agoIf it’s a valuable program someone else can do the work. Oh no, the government is not doing something… so someone can turn it into a business or start a nonprofit or academia can do something useful. And government resources can help other more critical projects.
- whatshisface 1y agoThe government has a couple of things that a startup doesn't: 1. The trust of the public. (This is essential for certifications.) 2. The ability to borrow at the lowest interest rate. (This is mainly due to the above.) That makes spending to organize or coordinate the industry and the public a natural government activity.
- trollbridge 1y agoI always chuckle when I boot up some old PC with a clone BIOS in 86Box and the Energy Star logo pops up.
- nothercastle 1y agoEnergy star like CAFE for cars was well intentioned but ended up driving all sorts of undesirable design practices to hit the ratings. Manufacturers especially in the high end chase the highest rating and design appliances that do a poor job of cleaning to hit the low water use target. In the end we all end up eating a bunch of unwashed detergent to save a gallon of water or using 10 gallons to pre and post rinse. That being said a lot of these problems could have been updated into the standard instead of killing it but industry groups didn’t allow that so now it’s going to die and everyone losses.
- prof-dr-ir 1y ago[citation needed]
- mjevans 1y agoI believe it; it's like the first decade or two of low-flow / flush toilets which were generally just terrible and ineffective. Hopefully, like the toilets, a new standard rises that is based around how effective something is at it's primary job _first_, with efficiency in other areas then measured after completing the intended task.
- detourdog 1y agoThat is where I expect care in product development. A standard is a number to hit and if a manufacturer takes care in their work the consumer should experience no degradation in quality.
- leereeves 1y agoWell said. I have one of those "low-flush" toilets. I have to flush it twice, so I end up using more water than a regular toilet.
- morsch 1y agoLooking at the averages, that's still less water.
- 1y ago
- phendrenad2 1y agoWho cares. Maybe now I can get a washing machine that actually washes my clothes. You'd think at the $1,100 price point, a washing machine should actually work, even with the strict Energy Star standards, but everyone on Reddit suggests switching to a LITERAL commercial washing machine (Speed Queen). Famously-liberal Reddit is suggesting switching to a LOUD, WASTEFUL washing machine because it actually works. I think that says a lot about the current state of things.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- WalterGR 1y agoCould you link to that Reddit discussion? I’d like to get a new washer for my mom. Edit: Probably this one: https://www.reddit.com/r/laundry/comments/1jco8a1/recommendations_for_a_washing_machine_that/ https://www.reddit.com/r/laundry/comments/1jco8a1/recommenda... . Speed Queen, Whirlpool, LG, and other brands are recommended. Reading the reviews after you’ve purchased something is always painful! Have you heard of Consumer Reports? They at least used to be pretty reliable.
- CoastalCoder 1y agoI've used Consumer Reports I'm that past, and found that their ratings poorly matched my experience. I don't doubt their integrity, but I no longer use them.
- cratermoon 1y agoCU has a bit of a weird scale. It seems to go for the intersection of good and cheap, which doesn't typically mean high quality. The best rated stuff is typically mid-range, lower cost-of-ownership, but nothing special.
- wildzzz 1y agoThey try to find what is going to cost the least amount of money for both now and in the future, likely within the warranty period. Mid-range and low cost of ownership is exactly what many people want. Consumer Reports' market isn't tech evangelists looking for washing machines with AI in them, they are normal users looking to replace an appliance in the least painful way possible. When you have a surprise expense like an appliance, you likely just want to spend as little as possible. Someone paying for consumer reports probably has enough money to afford paying a little more upfront for a mid-range model. If they wanted the cheapest model, they wouldn't be looking at reviews, they'd just buy the cheapest. If they were in the market for luxury models, they'd just go buy a matching set from a luxury brand, money isn't much of an issue so who cares how well it performs over time?
- ginko 1y agoThey could adopt the EU energy label instead.
- Kapura 1y ago“With this action, EPA is delivering organizational improvements to the personnel structure that will directly benefit the American people and better advance the agency’s core mission, while Powering the Great American Comeback.” the amount of doublespeak in this administration is unreal. Destruction of public institutions is announced as an improvement. The agency's "core mission" remains unstated so they don't need to square the circle on how destroying consumer info helps improve the environment.
- heisenbit 1y agoI wonder whether without this albeit flawed quality indicator we would see competition focused purely on price and margins would shrink.
- j45 1y agoMaybe a private non-profit can startup in it's place for the time being.
- ChrisArchitect 1y agoRelated from earlier in the week: EPA Plans to Shut Down the Energy Star Program https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43911252 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43911252