ItFitzme:
My sentence;;
Why couldnt Underwriter's Laboratory (UL) do the certification?
Is not an observation that UL doesn't do Energy Efficiency certs. Never indicated that UL doesn't. I design electronic products for people.. I take their designs to UL for them..*
My phrase is literally a question.. As in why do we NEED Energy Star at DOE when this could be done in the marketplace. The answer is --- because there's a huge flow of tax benefits attached to the Energy Star cert..*
How it all came began with what I THOUGHT was you making those links to SUPPORT Govt programs that you loved and needed. Calm down.. Let's try something else..
Then you know what "self certification" is and that under FCC guidelines, a company can "self certify" their product. So when you say
as a question, my answer is
is literally an answer. *In fact, I put a question mark after it because I really was a bit confounded as to why you even asked.
So I apologize if I didn't catch your meaning. *But, I can only go on what you specifically write.
Perhaps you should calm down a bit and present your points more clearly as you do with;
Calming down also helps in being clear on the context of someone's presentation of just specific facts, details, like
because you take the time to read the previous posts that give it context. That way you don't go using the second person pronoun as in;
based on;
I would think, as an engineer, you would recognize the importance of being specific about the details.
I do understand, as an enginner, you have spent alot of time focused on things. So let me give you a hint.*
When you say things like;
it actually just pisses people off. Not me... but it's pretty common knowledge that it's a common reaction. It's so common that a comedian had her audience in stitches over it. (It especially pisses off women. Never say it to a women.)
And when you move the focus to the person, away from the object, by using the second person pronoun "you", followed by a statement that describes them, what you will get back is a defensive response. *The cause isn't that they were not calm. The cause is what preceeded, YOU using the word "YOU".
But, back to your point that
The answer is --- because there's a huge flow of tax benefits attached to the Energy Star cert..
You don't suppose that the idea is that the gov't discovered they were burning a s$&t load of energy with all these electrical and electronic devices that are always powered up, do you? I know some folks, quite conservative, that started unplugging all their appliances when not in use.*
They buy energy efficient appliances. Do you suppose, lacking some sort of certification, a sanctioned sticker like "Intel Inside", or "Energy Star" that some companies would cheat like they have with "Organic" and "Lite"?
Surely, as a designer, you understand that power is expensive and it adds up. *All those idle computers sitting on gov't workers desks must have been costing the tax payer a lot of money.
Surely cheeting isn't exclusive to just govt legislators. *Businesses cheat, private individuals cheat. *Why have safety regs? *Why have FCC regs? FDA regs? *Why not just let the market work all those out?
Or do you think the process was;
1) GE wanted tax benifits.
2) GE said, "we have a plan".
3) GE went to Fed regulators and said, *"If you give us a tax break, we'll design energy efficient devices."
4) Legislators thought, "Yeah, if we do this, it'll fool the public into thinking were working on their behalf and we will also get awesome contributioms from GE."
?
I'm just askin'. *I'm not implying I think it's one or the other. *
Problem is, the economy runs on money. *It's correlated with everything. *It buys political advertisements. *It funds campaigns. *Companies use it to buy supplies, labor, and equipment. *Everyone uses it to buy food. *It functions as an incentive. *It functions as a disincentive. *It is in all aspects of public, private and commercial life so it doesn't work as an indicator of any specific motivation.
For every change in $, there are costs and benefits. *For every alternative program, there are multiple costs qnd benefits. *It is foolish to look at just the benefit of one alternetive and then reach a conclusion. *It is all about the details and it is about all the details.
I was asking the previous poster to be specific. *S/he seemed to known what s/he was talking about. *Lacking that, I had to make my best guess as to what the exact details were, so I posted them.*
Is it a requirement? Or is it an incentive? *Is the government forcing the manufacturers to only manufacture CFLs? *Is it even really for the private market or is it actually motivated by the govt wanting its facilities to have and use them? *Is there a large public benefit to the gov saving energy dollars? *Is it motivated by the concept of the tragedy of the commons?
After all, if in the market place, selfish interests and pursuits benefit the many, why should it be any different in the competition betwee government, commercial, and consumer interests? *Just a thought.
