Apparently you think it is a good idea for some bureaucrats in Brussel to regulate power consumption of vacuums - if you believe that, fine with me, your opinion.
But its not "fake news" or FUD. Its real.
Boiling down what you have actually said in this thread I'm left with "but the EU spends money on things that _I_ wouldn't have". Is that the gist of what you are trying to convey here? Or are you opposed to EU as a concept?
So, cucumber regulation seems very silly indeed. Hopefully we have gotten to the stuff that matters now.
Don't get me wrong, you have the right to express that opinion - but everyone has the right to form an opinion about you based on it.
- opinions are never the equivalent of spreading FUD
- classifying an opinion as FUD is a slippery slope that will lead to an Orwellian dystropy
Here's an opinion:
- Linux is a terrible operating system, because it is open-source. Open-source software does not allow you to capitalize on the work you put down. Anarchy will arise when all software is open-source.
Just like cameras had a megapixel war, vacuums had a power war. In reading electricity consumption without increasing actual air throughput.
At its height there were 3500W vacuums with less than 10% effectivity. Billions of euros every year were wasted on electricity for this.
Just like the laws encouraging LEDs, the vacuum laws had a major effect, manufacturers could easily switch to brushless motors and did.
I have a vacuum from before and after the regulation here.
2400W vs 900W.
The 900W one creates a stronger vacuum than the 2400W one.
The regulation has not just been necessary, it's also been an amazing success.
Every European saves money on electricity, the environment is damaged less and we have more efficient and powerful vacuums.
And similar with the incandescent light ban. It led manufacturers to new innovation, which in turn meant LEDs quickly became popular and over the years better.
By now 1200lm 8W E27 leds are in every IKEA for 10€.
As a result of these two policies electricity usage could be significantly reduced, helping the environment and your electricity costs.
There's absolutely no way you can declare these policies a failure.
Just like the cucumber regulation, which, after it ended, stores started enforcing on their own, because they need that regulation.
You may recall that they banned some conventional wolfram based light bulbs and instead tried to force compact fluorescent lamps (CFL) to the consumer, not LEDs. This has actually lead to a huge recycling problem. The CFLs contain mercury, the plastic parts are hard to recycle and the glass can not be recycled because it is contaminated.
Its not EU regulation that made the LEDs popular, it was consumer demand.
They actually did the most sensible thing possible. They set a target efficiency, and let the manufacturers figure out which technology to use in order to meet those requirements. The alternative would have been to make a specific energy-efficient technology mandatory, which would have unfairly benefited manufacturers focusing on that specific technology, and would have made the law outdated when a better technology inevitably comes along.
Nobody forced CFLs on people. They were simply the best option at that time, until LED bulbs improved.
It was absolutely possible.