Energy efficiency is a quality metric. Come on, I shouldn't need to explain this.
Even if you disagree with that for some reason, it doesn't really affect my point. It's a tradeoff and they want different rules about what options on the tradeoff curve are valid.
> It has nothing to do with quality tradeoff curves.
So do you think the claim that it's cheaper to build to looser standards is a lie, or do you think cheaper appliances did not play any role in motivating this order and only came up after the fact?
I'm pretty sure at least one of those has to be true for your claim to be true, and I'm quite skeptical of both.
(If you said it was mostly about climate change spite I'd be a lot more likely to believe you.)
> > It has nothing to do with quality tradeoff curves.
>
> So do you think the claim that it's cheaper to build to looser standards is a lie, or do you think cheaper appliances did not play any role in motivating this order and only came up after the fact?
That's not what the government title claimed though. They claim cheaper prices. You likely know, cheaper production prices don't necessarily lead to cheaper consumer prices. Moreover, often reduced quality/efficiency actually results in higher lifetime costs, something which is often difficult to ascertain for consumers (one reason for regulations).
It _may_ be cheaper to build to lower energy efficiency depending on the product and the supply chain. This _may_ result in lower prices.
I do think the promise of cheaper appliances in indeed a cover for the primary target: rolling back climate change related regulation. Remember Trump’s first term? He spent a lot of effort trying to undo whatever Obama had done , not because of the benefits but just because. You cannot underestimate how retaliatory Trump is.
But more specifically Trump has repeatedly made clear his disdain for climate change measures and climate science. What do you think “drill baby drill” is all about? Cheaper gas? Petroleum (coming out of the ground) is already about as cheap as it can get to profitable pump.
Check this out from today’s NYT:
> One discipline that has been targeted more specifically is climate science. President Trump has long downplayed the threats from human-caused global warming. At the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, staff members have been ordered to comb their research awards for terms including “climate science,” “climate crisis,” “clean energy” and “pollution.”
Even if you disagree with that for some reason, it doesn't really affect my point. It's a tradeoff and they want different rules about what options on the tradeoff curve are valid.