[nullc]

I hope this means a move away from standards that result in serious usability impacts for moderate improvements.

Examples I've personally experienced is that many/most driers now available require multiple attempts to get clothes actually try. Then there was the debacle of fedora enabling aggressive power saving in a difficult to disable way in updates, claiming it was mandated-- resulting in nonsense like remote hands incidents to unsuspend servers and users using TV as monitors perpetually needing to turn the TV on and off every use because TV's won't wake and the power saving functionality wasn't disclosed (if you could even figure out that this was WHY the screen kept failing-- and did so without sending a display to the landfill first).

Energy efficiency when it comes at no impact to functionality is good (at least if it pays for its own landfill burden-- many home devices have more embodied energy in their manufacture than they'll ever use) but when it has a usability impact it really ought to have a good justification or even just not happen at all because people are capable of choosing more efficient devices when it actually makes sense to do so.

(like the efficiency impact of a device run for 10 minutes a month is very very different from something that runs 24/7 and usually only the owner of the device knows the usage).

Intrusive requirements also set back environmental causes by enlisting opposition by members of the public that are harmed by them-- which could easily have a greater long term impact than the benefit of the standard. (and if it's argued that these changes have gone too far, then I'd say it's likely an example of exactly that).

[AnthonyMouse]

This is a common problem with regulatory agencies. They're created to address some real problem, but then they address it, and they still exist, so what are they supposed to do now?

Meanwhile the original rules were the low-hanging fruit. Originally some products were only 50% efficient, but the modern products are 90% efficient. Energy consumption fell from 300 W to 167 W. If you ask them to trim off another 133 watts, that's a violation of the laws of physics. If you ask them for the last 17 watts that are theoretically physically possible, that's not really a thing either. At best you can trim off another 5 W by making some onerous design trade offs that aren't worth five watts.

But what are they going to do if their job is to make new rules?

[sebazzz]

> Examples I've personally experienced is that many/most driers now available require multiple attempts to get clothes actually try.

You used so many heat pump dryers? They are fairly new. It sounds like you're generalising. A Indesit we had was crappy, our current Bosch 6 is fine but harder to clean the heat exchanger which had been improved in newer versions.

[userbinator]

No kidding. This stupid "climate change" BS is finally getting the cut it deserves.

[nullc]

Well I think you might kind of be making my point-- not because I agree with you: I don't, I think man's ongoing impact on the atmosphere and climate is an important issue. And collectivist humanity is smart enough and wealthy enough to spare some resources on protecting our own future. But it's not an issue we're going to move the needle on with any amount of mandatory no-flow showerheads.

Intrusive regulation makes environmental concerns into people's enemy.

Because stuff costs money everyone already has an incentive to conserve. We can enhance that though lower impact methods like disclosure, monitoring, optional eco modes that can easily be disabled.

I suspect that considering the long term impact if there is virtually any public backlash these efforts are ultimately net negative.