I've been trying to wrap my head about whether that's different than the negative response about any regulation in general (including the US one), and I feel like it is more negative; as for why, I would only be speculating.
But I have yet to see a person demanding less regulation for something who didn't change their mind when faced with a problem with that something which could have been solved by (some) regulation.
In the same time there are lots of weird regulations, for example in some US states you need to have a training and a professional license to be a florist. In my country I had to take a 1.5 year training for something that can be learned in 3 weeks; I also had to take 9 exams every 2 years just to extend my pilot license, something that does not happen in other EU countries. Or taking a training (classroom and flight time) to be allowed to fly with a passenger in a 2 seater plane, and only if you have at least 150 hours a Pilot In Command. There is nothing like this anywhere else, it's just typical stupid regulation.
Another weird regulation is flying in Bulgarian airspace, where the class G (free airspace below flight level 105) is anything but free.
I believed that once, but companies show over and over again that the lack of regulation comes at a greater cost than their gains, and the gains for the society - and I, as a tax payer, am not willing to see the shit I help to pay for getting abused.
For example, Peter Thiel idea for the monopoly argument makes sense, but he doesn't account for (or doesn't want to): government pressure and greed.
The idea that the monopoly is the dream for tech development keeps showing it's no dream at all in the end, it's a nightmare with massive costs: mental health, international policy, environment, cultural, etc.
Recent examples: it will be illegal to have voluntary firefighters. In the Netherlands, 80% of firefighers are volunteers. The current system works very well, and this is new regulation is likely to cause massive problems. It will be impossible the maintain current quality, because it is impossible to maintain a huge paid workforce just for occasional large incidents. For example, in a recent large fire there were over a hundred firefighters active, most of them volunteers. Moreover many volunteers do it for fun, or to contribute something to society, and do not want to be a paid firefighter, or would not be able to because of their main job. Thanks, EU.
Another one: EU wants to register every single chicken. Not just commercial chicken farms, every single chicken would have to be registered, even for hobbyists having a few chickens running around in their back yard.
Read the replies to your original post, there was no new regulation, whatever you read in the news was made up. In the british press there is a constant stream of fabricated stories about EU "regulations" that take a cursory google to disprove.
https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/euromyths-a-z-index/
No idea if there is a Netherlands equivalent.
1. I should have said "impossible" rather than illegal (although the consequence is still that it would be, well, illegal under EU law). That's the implication of what was reported in the Netherlands. For those who read Dutch, see e.g. https://www.ad.nl/binnenland/brandweer-dreigt-vrijwilligers-.... and https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/vrijwilligers-b....
2. I was mainly talking about about (the effect of) overregulation in general, I did not say there is a specific regulation re volunteer firefighters. But if the implied problems become reality, it would be because of interpretation of laws and regulations.
Yes, there was a lawsuit in Belgium. And no, that's not the main issue that was reported here. Lawyers conducted a study of the practice of Dutch firefighting on behalve of the Ministry of Justice and Security, and concluded that the way our system is set up contradicts EU law. The main issue is that volunteer firefighters do almost exactly the same work as paid firefighers.
3. That's point 1.
4. This is exactly my more general concern about the EU: unintended consequences are inevitable when you are centralizing laws and regulations to the most detailed levels for over two dozen countries with very different contexts. There are plenty of EU laws and regulations for which I think the intent is very sensible, but where implementation can be problematic, or problematic for specific subsets of the regulation, or specific countries/regions.
5. I never said they happened, I said "will". Perhaps I should have said "may" since the problem might still be addressed somehow. But even if it is adressed, in the case of the Netherlands a massive change would be necessary. According to lawyers and law professors who have studied the problem in the Dutch context.
So no, not misinformation. I just worded it somewhat imprecise.
The EU law states no worker can work more than X hours a week, for the health benefit of the citizens. A court ruled that the volunteer firefighters time counts as working time. So now we need to include that in how we make them work when we need.
Knowing my country (France), I'm sure it will be some sort of "the hours worked as voluntary firefighter are not due to their other employer, but will still be paid probably by the state or by the employer but with according tax deduction", something like this.
So now comes a choice; either we think it's unhealthy for people to work more than 42 hours a week (and we did since we voted this in), and then it makes sense. Or we don't, and then we're free to change the regulation. Or we think some form or work shouldn't count against that limit (such as public work for emergency services) and we can update the regulation.
Saying we shouldn't make regulation because sometime we may have to redefine more precisely some of its details when the situation arise makes very little sense to me.
> Saying we shouldn't make regulation because sometime we may have to redefine more precisely some of its details when the situation arise makes very little sense to me.
My concern is both practical and philosophical: our firefighting system will very likely be reorganized; this is going to cost a lot of money and time, volunteers are likely to quit if things are no longer easily combined with their job, quality would almost certainly drop (since it's already high), and then, hopefully, in the end we still have a functioning firefighting service. But all that work will not actually solve any problem, it's just for complying with regulations.
On the philosphical end: the complexity and the number of laws and regulations keeps growing, and so does the scale at which they're applied. I think such unintended consequences will keep coming up at the local level, far from where they originated centrally, and in the long run it will be increasingly difficult to solve these problems.
We have this law to avoid abusing "free" people as volunteer, which eg in France is important against lots of things like illegal immigrant ("I don't pay you but you can sleep there !"), and to ensure egality (in France we have an even stricter law which is basically "for the same work, same salary", to avoid discrimination against various ethnics, gender, age ... difference).
If you / the NL people are saying this cause an issue, and the law should be changed to, for exemple, not include free work done for emergency public services, then it simply means we need to add a precision to the law to cover that specific case.
And if it isn't done, then it means "all those affected countries" either didn't push for it or failed to convince the whole of the EU to change the regulation.
EU regulation are done by EU MPs all coming from their respective EU countries to improve the situation there, they don't implement things randomly in a vacuum. If the regulation needs to be adapted, it's easy, given those who want it can make a case for it.
There are different blockers in the system so that a (slim) majority can't simply overrule a minority.
Most of that tends to be misinformation.
For example:
> it will be illegal to have voluntary firefighters
Nope. Not even close. A firefighter in Belgium sued because he said that on-call time is work, and the court decided in his favour. This caused concern that generalising this could cause problems. However, the EU was aware of these concerns and apparently this case cannot be generalised in this way:
https://www.ctif.org/news/die-eu-arbeitszeitrichtlinie-infor...
I don't know how it works in Belgium, but in Germany, the voluntary firefighters (which is almost all of them), simply continue to be paid by their main employers when active. The employer can then recover this from the responsible government organisation.
For this, the application of the working time directive changes...nothing. Also for standby times during working hours, for which the employee is working for his main employer, so again no change. I am guessing (but not sure) that the issue is on-call time when the employee is not working for his main employer.
People have raised concerns that this might have the potential to negatively affect volunteer firefighting. But as far as I know, nothing has actually happened, and apparently nothing will.
So as so often, almost complete misinformation:
1. The EU will not make it "illegal" to have volunteer firefighters.
2. It was actually a lawsuit, not a regulation.
3. It was about working time, not about making volunteer firefighters illegal.
4. So at most it would have been an unintended consequence of a good and necessary regulation.
5. However, these unintended consequences were only imaginary, they never happened.
6. The EU bodies were fully aware of the importance of volunteer firefighters.
7. Had there been unintended consequences, they would have mostly been of the formal variety that affect local authorities.
> every single chicken [..] registered, even for hobbyists having a few chickens
Also nope, only if you have 50 chickens or more.
https://www.tsk-bw.de/Melde_Beitragspflicht/Wer_muss_melden....
As for the chickens: you are linking to what look like current regulations in Germany. At issue is the Animal Health Regulation (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:L:201...) which will be in effect from 21 April 2021.
There is a statement that there should be exceptions for pet animals, but these exceptions did not make it into the regulation for chickens. The Netherlands argued for this but did not find support, and is currently trying to arrange for exceptions. It is not fake news.
If for some reason you believe "obligation of operators to register establishments" would apply to individual pet owners (I don't believe it does, as earlier in the document "pet keepers" are separate from "operators") - there's a clause to allow exceptions: "Member States may exempt from the registration requirement certain categories of establishments posing an insignificant risk"
The only thing in the entire document that applies to "pet keepers" is ... [to] be responsible for:
(i) the health of kept animals;
(ii) prudent and responsible use of veterinary medicines, without prejudice to the role and responsibility of veterinarians,
(iii) minimising the risk of the spread of diseases;
(iv) good animal husbandry;
There are some further restrictions to do with moving pet animals between member states
I'm trusting here that the Dutch minister of agriculture is being accurate in her letter to parliament describing ongoing issues [0].
0: https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/kst-28286-1062.html
"For example, holders who only have a few pieces of poultry must also comply with requirements for I&R and there will also be obligations for holders of animal species for which no requirements currently exist, such as bees, bumble bees and camel-like animals. The Netherlands has argued against these requirements when drafting these new regulations, but received little support from other member states and the EC. The EC indicated that it can allow Member States to grant exceptions to these obligations."
So it's up to member states if they want to require owners of pet chickens to register them
OK, so what's the problem? After all, this won't come into effect until about a year and a half from now and it seems that there is agreement that there should be exceptions.
Given that, what makes you certain that there won't be exceptions?
> is currently trying to arrange for exceptions
You seem to be certain that this will not succeed. Why?
> It is not fake news.
Hmm...it's not in effect, there seems to be some agreement that there should be exceptions and exceptions are being worked on. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I don't know what will happen, but this situation is concerning to many people. Also consider that the news plays a role in policy making (for better or worse), i.e. some added pressure from advocates may help to get the needed exceptions in place.
And neither is the regulation.
> this situation is concerning to many people.
That's not the same thing as there being an actual problem.
2. I was mainly talking about about (the effect of) overregulation in general, I did not say there is a specific regulation re volunteer firefighters. But if the implied problems become reality, it would be because of interpretation of laws and regulations.
Yes, there was a lawsuit in Belgium. And no, that's not the main issue that was reported here. Lawyers conducted a study of the practice of Dutch firefighting on behalve of the Ministry of Justice and Security, and concluded that the way our system is set up contradicts EU law. The main issue is that volunteer firefighters do almost exactly the same work as paid firefighers.
3. That's point 1.
4. This is exactly my more general concern about the EU: unintended consequences are inevitable when you are centralizing laws and regulations to the most detailed levels for over two dozen countries with very different contexts. There are plenty of EU laws and regulations for which I think the intent is very sensible, but where implementation can be problematic, or problematic for specific subsets of the regulation, or specific countries/regions.
5. I never said they happened, I said "will". Perhaps I should have said "may" since the problem might still be addressed somehow. But even if it is adressed, in the case of the Netherlands a massive change would be necessary. According to lawyers and law professors who have studied the problem in the Dutch context.
So no, not misinformation. I just worded it somewhat imprecise.
And that would have been still wrong, though with less hyperbole.
> So no, not misinformation. I just worded it somewhat imprecise.
From: there was an isolated case that, had it been generalisable, had the potential for making some aspects of voluntary fire brigades trickier if not addressed, but that actually wasn't generalisable and there was actually no problem at all to "it will be illegal to have voluntary firefighters" is not "somewhat imprecise", it is complete misinformation.
Pretty much the definition of misinformation, in fact.
Because this is exactly how a lot of the misinformation regarding the EU works: you take something highly technical, localised and actually benign, then take 2nd hand reports of people who misunderstood the implications/consequences, take those misunderstandings as fact, extrapolate from them and then ratchet up the hyperbole to 11.
And no, the fact that lawyers did a study doesn't really change any of this. The EU is a political body, and the largest member states have large or almost exclusively voluntary fire-departments. So even if the interpretation were correct, which from all I have seen it is absolutely not, it would simply (a) not be applied and/or (b) changed.
In particular: the working time directive is, as the name says, a directive. This means it just specifies some goal(s) to accomplish, and it is up to the member states to implement national legislation to accomplish those goals. So if they need to carve out exceptions for volunteer fire departments, they can do that.
So yes: "it will be illegal to have voluntary firefighters" is just wrong and not just a slight imprecision, but pure misinformation.
I reiterate that the isolated case you're referring to was not the motivation of experts saying the Dutch system will have to be reorganized. Why don't you acknowledge that maybe there is an actual problem here, which perhaps doesn't apply in other contexts? I.e. maybe the German and French volunteer firefighters are organized in such a way that there is no problem?
The original claim was "it will be illegal to have voluntary firefighters."
> maybe the German and French volunteer firefighters are organized in such a way that there is no problem?
I sincerely doubt it. Particularly because those concerns apparently were raised in both France and Germany. Anyway, if you can find some evidence that this is the case, please feel free to share.
(General principle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Chesterton's_fence)
It is also clear that no "regultation" is being planned.
[1] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-8-2019-00020...
On the other hand, one thing the EU is genuinely bad at is the "small operator" exemptions which UK law is generally good at. They very rarely exist in EU law.
The big thing that sticks out for me is mobile phones: before EU regs, every manufacturer and phone variant had a different charging cable and roaming charges were insane.
Likewise, for all the hate it got here, GDPR has been amazing from my perspective. It was rare before to have a website that actually let you delete anything, it was just "deactivate your account" where they kept all your data. Now most sites offer true deletion.
Meanwhile, the public got sold on Brexit with a consistent diet of rubbish articles from the Mail and friends about bent bananas being banned.
In the UK, it's hard to spend more than £20/month (for sim only at least)
Partly that could be explained by lower population density.
Also services like Visible started to appear. They offer unlimited talk and data for $40.
[1] https://www.vodafone.com.au/plans/state/sim/month-to-month/
Maybe "insane" was a bad word choice. But it's more than triple the price (£20 is $25, not $30, and $70 excludes tax)
I really don't think so. Look at e.g. Finland.
The simplest explanation is real competition via virtual operators.
Mint [1], is $20/mo for unlimited data (throttled after 8GB), using the T-Mobile network. You get a discount for committing to a time period such as 1 year.
Visible [2] is $40/mo for "unlimited everything" (data, calls, text). This is Verizon's low-cost product on their own network.
Simple [3] is $40/mo for 15 GB, also using T-Mobile. You're throttled to 2G after that, though.
These are MVNOs, which are resellers that don't own their own networks. Traffic is deprioritized compared to the parent network's "native" customers. In practice, you might not notice at all, depending on how you use it. Deprioritization really only happens during congestion. During rush hour on the NYC subway might be a time you'd be affected, for example.
The EU only steps in when corporations have already failed to regulate themselves.
Market can bring prices down if competing corporations in the same sector don't agree to set prices for the same range of services of products. That's it.
Self-regulation is conservative non-sense.
As a case study, take advertising in the UK.
The Advertising Standards Authority is a Big Deal. It can ban advertising on TV, in print, on billboards and online. Its decisions regularly make the headlines.[0]
It also has no statutory basis, it's a private limited liability company, and they receive no money from government.[1]
[0] An example from today, here's a news article about a ruling by the ASA concerning a tweet sent out by Burger King: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-49895800
- EU phone roaming makes travel much less stressful, independent of the cost factor, which at $0 is also great.
- EU immigration rules for 3rd country partners means it only requires about 3 or 4 hours work and 51 euros in total and only proof of 6 months co-habitation.
- EU mandated ESC and TPMS in cars means my bottom of the range Kia Rio had two really valuable features while maintaining a really low price.
On the other hand:
- I can't get a mortgage because my income is not denominated in euros because others have been burnt by cross currency loans
You gain real benefits but lose flexibility.
this isn't the correct thread to discuss this but i'll bite - it isn't that others were burnt, it's that the banks were stupid enough to actually loan out as much money in a currency that people hadn't had income in and when the inevitable came, it was the banks that had bigger problems. i don't want the bank to lose my money if you and a few thousand others suddenly default on their mortgage at the same time.
it's the audience of the website. Even though most people here seem to fall into the American liberal camp due to the fact that it's a tech site there's a strong "regulation=bad" undercurrent in the posting that's also been prevalent in the industry, in particular in SV for the last few decades.
Was anyone arguing that we oppose the EU because we don't trust the US? I don't understand how this statement ties into the comments that precede it.
> but there seems to be a reflexive (negative) response from many posters here regarding any new regulation that the EU produces.
There's no way someone's experience with states does not usually influence their opinions towards states, consciously or not.
Take gun control for example, fire arms wouldn't get you far if you're taking on the government (which was the original purpose of America's gun laws). However many individuals will use every excuse under the sun to argue that gun control encroaches their basic freedoms despite all the evidence suggesting gun control would benefit society greatly.
It's a bit like how the UK's referendum was decided on a matter of "sovereignty" with many UK citizens believing leaving the EU gave them their sovereignty back. It makes very little since when you actually break down what "sovereignty" actually means, the actual relationship the UK has with the EU and even the terms of which the UK prospered when it was considered a "great nation" (namely the exploitation of developing countries). Yet many "Brits" still believe independence is the way forward because they don't identify themselves as being European.
But let's see how it pans out. A good step in the right direction, not the goal everybody wants, but a good first step at least.
But maybe that's also what it feels like to become as relevant int he tech world as the US. There is no shortage of US-bashing in international tech discussions. As long as it stays good spirited, I don't mind.
I'm not sure that's entirely true. We're(1) a bunch of programmers. We are very sensitive to unintended consequences in complex systems. I think we just tend to be a little more careful with feel-good regulations that might produce these, along with being more evidence based in judging success.
(1) With all of the usual caveats about the monolithic "us".
The choice of which of these matters decides the politics.
That's like free printers with expensive ink cartridges.
But apparently I'm wrong?
Implementing it merely risks a minor decrease in economic efficiency for a few years. The potential reward can last for an unlimited time. And there's a guaranteed reward too: Gaining knowledge on what policies work. We should do it even if we expected it to fail (see also VCs).
No society ever collapsed due to policy on repairing washing machines. One could survive indefinitely in a sub-optimal policy regime on a topic of limited importance without collapsing.
ultra progressives tend to believe the Government is the only force who can safeguard workers. Many other forms of liberal believe that while the Government has a role to play in setting boundaries for capitalism and engaging in non-capitalist activity (welfare, public education, etc) that it does not always act in the interest of the people.
This is likely part of what you see as "HN being conservative on gender equality" (paraphrasing). Most HNers seem to hold belief in equality of opportunity (classical liberal) vs equality of outcome (ultra progressive). In other words, the debate can be seen as whether it's necessary to have 50% of a given field be women and 50% be men, or simply for there to be an absence of a gender based discrimination. (And ultra progressives would likely respond that anything can be gender based discrimination, whereas a classic liberal would be looking for intent)
(Leaving my attempts at a neutral point of view and going into my own beliefs) One of the flaws in ultra progressiveism is that it's reductionist (a person is defined as a mix of attributes such as political affiliation, gender or lack thereof, social class, etc) which encourages an "us vs them" mentality. The issue ultra progressives face is that "us" is becoming an ever shrinking circle which now excludes most of their other liberal allies.
My impression is that workers are pretty much the only disadvantaged group that ultra progressives do not care about. Apart from that, you're on point.
But when politics drives and runs with left/right mentality, they end up disenfranchising common sense more often than not and you end up politically with a seesaw effect - you get a controlling party that is one way, then after a while you end up with a party the other way to restore balance.
This is one of those wonderful moments in which the result is common sense on so many levels that we should (sure many do) see it for what it is - something wonderful.
But everybody has a bad day, political things of any form can bring out the worst in all of us, but decorum upon this forum, does a better job than most in regulating those aspects. For that, let us be thankful as I can only imagine the Twitter flavours of this very subject being played out and shudder.
But credit when it is due - thank you EU for this.
"Very conservative views" on gender equality would ask for a niqab, female education ban and a mandatory dowry. I doubt you'll find here a lot of people sharing these views.
I'm a big fan of regulation to maintain good markets / good practices.
I'm very sympathetic to the spirit of a lot of EU policies, but the actual laws seem a lot like "old man who doesn't understand internet writes law" and at best whiff entirely at the point.
Example, I think it is terribly misguided to think people care / read cookie banners and they're not helping / educating anyone.
I don't doubt there are a lot of conservative POVs regarding regulation on HN, but I propose that just as often folks are running into a sort of "narcissism of small differences" where I share a lot of the values those laws have .... but man it irks me to see them swing and miss so badly.
My understanding still is that cookie banners are a huge waste of time.
The GDPR doesn't say: "If you post an obnoxious banner on your site you are allowed to continue as before".
AFAIK, and no one here has proven me wrong so far it says something like:
- there needs to be a clear reason for why the customers data should stay with you or your partners
- except for health care, jail etc there needs to be clear voluntary opt in
They are already fining companies and I guess the reason not everyone is feeling it yet is because the wheels of justice grinds slowly.
Edit: that said, I see why it might look different as some companies are quite brazen in their noncompliance.
Voluntary opt in can work together with targeted ads:
- the customer can opt in to receive more relevant ads (hopefully). A note on the page with an explanation and a way to actively choose targeted would probably be OK with me and I guess some people would choose it.
- or the customer ignores the notice and get general or hopefully contextual ads
The current in-your-face-and-defaults-to-track-if-you-follow -the-defaults system however is not voluntary and not opt in IMO.
I generally don't think the banners educate or help anyone and folks are happy to hit accept and roll on. Not much has changed.
As for if people run a site based on add revenue or not is sort of an entirely different issue / I don't think folks would like the results.
My guess is: They are not happy. They accept it because a lot of effort is put in dark patterns to make it seem unavoidable.
Also a lot of effort seems to have been put into making the opt-in alternative the default - to the point where I'm not comfortable calling it opt-in any more.
> The GDPR doesn't say: "If you post an obnoxious banner on your site you are allowed to continue as before".
The cookie banners have nothing to do with GDPR. That stems from Article 5(3) of the ePrivacy directive: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX...
The old cookie banners where more static I think, only pointing out that they were using cookies instead of giving you any option at all.
But there have also been other events and developments that did (and do) help / educate people, and now the cookie banners help those people realise how utterly widespread the problem actually is.
It's slow, but awareness is growing, and even the ridiculous cookie banners play some part in it. Also, being ridiculous on the internet is not a failure state, there's quite a tradition of it.
1. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/11/boris-johns...
>Current regulations are seen to be outdated, with more than 55% of washing machines sold in the EU ranked A+++ on the label.
Regrading every year seems to be about the same as what I propose. I guess the actual numbers used for the current rating are based on actual efficiencies of the models on the market when the regulation was introduced.
In addition, many people hate highly-energy-efficient washing machines, as the washing cycles takes hours... efficient in energy, but inefficient in human life.
That's literally the reason for governments to regulate this kind of thing, though. When everyone looks at things through the lens of their own personal life... what's the big deal? Just one person using more energy. But when every person does it, it is a big deal. So government acts to force a level playing field for all. Everyone ignores the cumulative good and instead focuses on the inconvenience to their personal life.
That's obviously the wrong solution. The correct solution is to price things correctly. If energy is precious, increase energy prices. Some people will choose to fly, others will choose to have faster washing cycles...
And all will damage the climate? "Increase energy prices" just means that rich people will be able to continue to engage in undesirable behaviour while the poor will not. Why is that a desirable income? Why should a poor person have to pay more to heat their home in winter so that a rich person can wash their clothes more quickly? Not all energy use is equal.
That can be solved with tiered pricing. Your first N kWh a month are cheap and then the price ramps up quickly.
As long as we make them pay a significantly large enough multiple of the externality costs they're inflicting I'm OK with that, especially if that money then gets reinvested into further solving the problem.
I'm mainly just against the idea that shorter wash cycles are less desirable than airplane rides.
So let's price healthcare the right price for those who value good healthcare, like in the US, where the average Joe avoid going to the doctor, even when he is insured, or go bankrupt when he have to go to ER for a simple broken leg or die from diabetes because he can't pay the monthly 1300$ for medication and save on insuline shots.
Sure "Price Regulation" seems to be the solution.
Actually this can be a feature. Often enough I fill the machine in the morning, set it up to start in 3 or 4 or even 6 hours, go to work and when I come home the machine has just finished and I'm ready to put the clothes up for drying.
It's more a question of planning than anything else.
That's a kind of feature that I didn't know I wanted before I had it.
My baking oven has something like this, too. I still wonder how that is supposed to work, though: I have to dial in temperature etc. before, then set it to finish at a specific time. Seems impractical for rolls oder pizza, but maybe I'm missing something on that feature.
I don't know how common this is, but I've been taught to use dishwasher and washing machine only when I'm home myself.
My guess is they probably ran a study and found that the majority of people were better steered towards energy efficient appliances by a big A or A+ rating than they would have been by comparing kWh.
Energy ratings for washing machines are kind of stupid in the first place since they depend so strongly on how you use the machine and the efficiency of your hot water supply. The electricity used on the motor is fairly negligible.
Want to make a startup whose business model relies on the impossibility to repair? Have found a loophole that makes it possible? Well investors may evaluate the risk this loophole gets fixed and will not see the plan as particularly safe.
It is not just about changing the rules, it is about changing the ethics around them.
This is a good thing, and however you wish to view things - this is what is right, fair and it's core is to bring fairness to consumers - even if they don't want to liveridge this avenue now open too them. At least they have the choice and it is their choice.
So Bravo for this, it is something that needs to be done globally. The whole artificially obsoleting consumer products has and will be a serious concern as it drives waste, and waste is and never has been, good for the environment upon any level, whatever your perspective is upon that matter.
Let us not forget, many initiatives get driven by standards from one area and they can and do transpose upon other area in the end for the better of everybody. Let's see this for what it is - something wonderful and long overdue.
I will also add, a few decades back, self repair was far more accessible and less needed as appliances lasted, you could get spares, get them fixed. Yet the market and drive towards mass consumerism and product churn has created a monster, one in which we are going to be paying for as all that environmental credit debt we have built up, well, nature's debt collectors are a calling.
Consumers don't want to spend more for appliances. They want cheap. That's why manufacturers build the way they do (if you want quality over 20 years you're already free to buy a Miele)
It is rare for an appliance to break down when just out of warranty, and in any case it is not possible to completely avoid.
I am glad that the new rules do not go farther then they do because I don't think there is an issue that warrant drastic action and widespread price increases.
There are plenty of ways to source spare parts and individuals are simply not able to repair themselves in most cases (and let's not forget health & Safety regulations).
Edit: Thank you guys for killing off any discussion...
But there is not the consumer alone. The world, other people, the earth wants lasting appliances.
Where are the end to end stats that show that this is better than recycling an old appliance to replace it with a new one that is more energy and water efficient?
Where are the actual stats that show that breaking down just out of warranty with no parts available is a real issue?
Also, there are no "other people" we all are consumers of these appliances.
Fridges and Freezers are the only appliances I'm aware of where it works out like that though.
Edit: Here's a case study for those that don't believe me.
http://www.t2c.org.uk/chilling/new-case-study-of-20-yr-old-f...
I wonder whether this calculation holds once you account for the energy used to develop, construct, market and transport the new fridges that replace the older-but-working fridges. It's a genuine question - I haven't seen such calculation done. My current intuition is that the extra marginal energy used in manufacturing a new fridge dwarfs the energy savings of replacing the old one before it dies.
This [1] gives the embodied energy for a fridge as 5900 Mj which equals 1600 kwh.
So broadly speaking you new fridge 'pays' for itself in 2 years. I suspect its worse that, but even if its 5 years, my point still stands.
In Germany, legislation has been proposed that manufacturers must label the expected lifetime. I am opposed to this as it may lead to stuff breaking down shortly thereafter. On the other side I would be fond of two things: All parts must be serviceable and a minimum period of spare part availability.
Everything is already value engineered, designed for a specified lifetime, that's how we get those low prices and low material use. Labeling would just make it explicit. I work in an oil pipeline design group and even these things have expected lifetimes (30 years). So even megaprojects like bridges, skyscrappers, aircraft carriers, everything designed has an expected lifetime.
Think of a car that may have 3 years warranty but a service life of maybe 10 or more years.
If my kettle has a warranty and breaks down, it's on the manufacturer. If it's only within the design lifetime? What if 10% don't last the design lifetime, wheres the cut off if relevant? If I buy a kettle that lasts the design lifetime, but is deemed not to for the purposes of the law, do I get compensated?
These are genuine questions, I am in favour of publishing this kind of information, it occurs to me that poorly thought out rules would be useless though.
It's really funny to see the backlash on demanding such a basic premise of capitalism as information transparency in a forum like this.
Chapter?
But my point is, what is lying? If a kettle is designed to last 10 years, it's reasonable to expect that 100% won't last that long, so what percentage should we reasonably allow to break in that time, 10%? 20%? 50%?. If the manufacturer was found to be lying, do I with my still working kettle get compensated?
And your answer raises other concerns, who is this consumer advocacy group that's going to lead this? Is it reasonable to assume some proportion of people are going to direct their complaints there? This to me doesn't seem like an easy thing to police at all.
If there's reasonable doubt (ie a large number of complaints about the kettle failing), the manufacturer has to provide sales statistics and test results and will be judged accordingly. As for the consumer advocacy groups: it's pretty standard in Europe to have these (and they are the only ones to initiate something like class-action). As for the metrics: everything is measured, I'm sure, we can come up with a sensible metric?!
Depending on the law some EU countries already expect the manufacturer to be able to fix or replace products that failed due to hidden defects within the average service life. So a manufacturer has a vested interest in declaring realistic figures because they are expected to support them. The "1000 year kettle" would have to have spare parts available for the period.
In some EU countries the law mandates that manufacturers clearly state the warranty period and the average service life (where you can use the product reasonably within the original parameters). So the manufacturer must be able to fix/replace (not necessarily for free) the product if hidden flaws caused it to fail within the average lifetime period. This means only manufacturers who are certain their product is up to the task will declare a longer life and charge a premium but also guarantee that period of support.
Most products have warranties that are far shorter than their expected service life. Clothes may have as little as 30 days warranty but the reasonable expectation is for a far longer expected lifetime.
And parallel to that there are also companies adverting their 10,15 or 25 year warranty[1]. Now you can choose who you want to give your money to.
That being said I have no problem per se with forcing companies to offer long warranties.
[1] a further thing to look at is of course what these warranties actually cover and how likely you are to actually get help when your appliance breaks 17 years after you buy it. A 25 year warranty is useless (and should probably be illegal to advertise) if it's so full of loopholes and caveats that no one can practically make any claims against it.
What products that have extended warranties usually have in common is that they are expensive and represent significant investments for the average buyer. If you buy a car, a fridge, a washing machines, etc, you want a guarantee that you will be able to amortise that investment over as long a time as possible.
No one stops a manufacturer from offering a product with a 5 year warranty, and in fact they do. Shop for products made for businesses and you will find 5 year warranties. However, they cost much more, and consumers are choosing not to pay more for the products with 5 year warranties, and instead choosing to go with the 1 year warranty.
Miele was known for making very durable products, however, even they over the years had to acknowledge that consumers were opting to purchase cheaper products from competitors, so they had to do the same to stay in business.
[1] Unless you have some reason to believe the insurance is priced too low.
Insurance is usually provided by a regulated entity and implicitly backed by the government in the even that the insurer fails. Their regulators also provide redress for consumers against unfair treatment without the need to resort to the courts and the terms usually have to be fair too.
Warranties are typically provided by the vendor who may well be financially unsound and willing to treat a customer less fairly, contain significant legal loopholes and require redress through the courts or perhaps a binding arbitration tribunal.
And most machines probably do work for many years, just not sufficiently enough to offer a longer warranty. Which is fine for most homes, since you're not running a mission critical operation and a few days to pick out a new washer isn't going to kill you. A business that needs machines to work might find it worth shelling out more for a quality product that rarely quits or can be fixed on site.
Companies have to sell and they have to survive. Thus they have to build products that people will buy and make a profit out of it.
Those cuts take time to filter down into public consciousness, because companies are incapable of measuring the value of quality
Did you contact Miele about your just out of warranty breakage? Their reaction to that would be interesting.
But for Miele prices I don't want to be at their mercy. I want a lasting product. When waiting for the repair I looked around. Many competitors have similar offerings (functionality) with a 5 year warranty at 2/3 of the price point (or even less).
That's good? As far as it goes, it's a good smell at least.
I'm not of a view that a warranty guarantees no faults. To my mind it is the manufacturer saying they will stand by their product for the warranty period, that they expect no faults, and putting their money on the line to prove it. So I'm not particularly in favour of castigating companies for any unreliability, if they handle it correctly.
Having said all this, I did just check what Miele's warranty is, I was expecting 5+ years, but it's only 2 years, so your point about competitors is a good one.
I suppose it highlights a good point about what we as consumers should do. Should we go with Miele that everyone knows is good quality, but only offers a 2 year warranty. Or should we go with the competitor with the 5 year warranty? I suspect most of us would take the first option, when we should really be taking the 2nd.
Edited to add: Miele offers a 10 year warranty extension, at roughly 20% of the original price. It is left as an exercise for the reader what such a premium means for the expected failure rate...
The consumer cannot easily distinguish between $400(dies after 10 years) and $300 (dies after 4).
Without a tilt sensor they needed to use metal bearing because an out of balance load would break plastic bearings. But now with the tilt sensor plastic ones could be used.
While it might be true that a higher price doesn't necessarily entail higher quality, it seems to me that higher quality almost always entails a higher price.
If you want to know whether a product has an high chance to work in 2-3 year time you are out of luck, especially with SKUs changing all the time.
When I was born, my parents had a hoover twin-tub. It was still working 20 years later when I left home.
The first washing machine I bought lasted twelve years (the control panel had to be replaced once). I think I eventually replaced it because I had moved house, and it didn't fir in the new kitchen. Nowadays it doesn't seem to be possible to buy dishwashers and washing machines that last longer than 4 years. I threw out my "old" dishwasher after just one year; it had broken down 5 times since I bought it brand-new, each time for the same reason: failed heater. Each time I had to wait several weeks for the mechanic to show (manufacturer's warranty, contracted out to a service company). Each time, I asked the mechanic if he could recommend a make/model that would be more reliable. And each time I was told that I might as well buy a cheap one, they all break down as quickly as one another.
These mechanics are seeing what I am seeing: machines that break down much sooner than they used to 15 years ago. Well, that's a market failure; it's what government regulation was invented for.
In the 80s and 90s the distinction and spread across the market was real. The buyouts and takeovers hadn't consolidated into just a few mega groups. The expensive fridge or washing machine was built, and lasted very differently.
Now we have Samsung et al building £1,500 premium fridge freezers and £800 washing machines that are just as unrepairable as the cheap crap.
It goes far wider than just appliances though.
If I were you, I would rely less on my mechanic to recommend me a product, and more on something like Consumer Report, which has a much more methodical and rigorous approach to assessing and comparing the quality of the products they test.
[1] https://blog.yaleappliance.com/most-reliable-front-load-wash...
Further complicated because whilst there are companies that build reputations on quality, that reputation can stick around long after the quality has gone down, so there's a constant temptation to cheap out for short term profits.
I suppose the classic example of this is Mercedes Benz in the 90s.
For example, these are washers made to last and be fixable:
https://speedqueen.com/products/home-products/front-load-was...
I can't classify pricing with 9s to be a "trick". No one is being tricked, the price is right there.
This is the problem that needs to be addressed. The right to repair is not only about quality, price or durability. It is also a philosophical and strategic standpoint?
I don't think the customers are a big force here, from my experience is the same part that breaks first but is there a strong enough incentive for the producer to investigate the issue and make that part stronger? If the customer will buy a new product or a new part that is extremely expensive then the producer is encouraged to engineer that part to break exactly when the warranty is over.
I have a question, maybe someone here knows the answer, why are everyone make a new model each year that most of the time seems to be a redesign that brings nothing new, As an example I use same keyboard model and each time I buy a replacement it has changed a bit in design and internals, making them almost incompatible for salvaging components from one and fixing other)
Of course they are. Customers are not stupid, they know what they are doing. They know that a cheap appliance will last long enough and that "in 10 years I'll want to buy a new one anyway".
> why are everyone make a new model each year that most of the time seems to be a redesign that brings nothing new
Because that's what sells. You need 'new' to convince people to buy it, certainly to buy it at the same price it was last year.
I like the microsoft natural 2000 keyboard, it has a soft rest place that it scratches and in max 2 years it gets destroyed and the cable where it enters the case gets bent and used. So I now have 3 or 4 models that I bought over the years, there is no actual improvement, all the complaints in the reviews like noisy space bar were not addressed, just some small visual changes. So I am wondering why they did a new design,it probably costs a lot, did they found a way to gut 1$ worth of plastic?
If we think at the environment and not at profits for the keyboard case there are 2 imediate things you could do:
- sell the soft rest parts, there are easy to change if compatibility is not broken (i done it myself no special tools were needed but I transplanted them from a different one)
- make the cable easy to replace (like you have with HDMI screens) so if I destroy the cable I can buy and just replace it rather then open the keyboard and find a different keyboard and grab the cable from that.
IF the above would be costly to implement then maybe they can address the problem and make an improved design.
Other example, I have a water pump, it has inside it a plastic/rubber balloon thing. This balloon will break every few months. I am wondering that they could make it 2 times more expensive and last 2 times more and it would be great because of the time and comfort lost when you have to replace it. But my waster time and confort plust he fact the old plastic thing goes into garbage is not factored in the producer calculations. So after this thing broke for the n-the time on me I would pay 10 times more and have it last 10 times more, I don't want cheap and bad but I do not have a choice.
I admit there is a small chance that it is impossible to make this component stronger but this change is extremely small, probably the current one is the perfect balance for the producers and is at the threshold where the users won't give up and buy a new pump(you have no idea if a different model does not have same issue)
Many consumers are smart enough to understand that 'cheap' is a property calculated over the lifetime of the product.
Europe is very densely populated and well developed with much less developed neighbours which makes Europe very suspectable to environmental issues. If something bad happens in or nearby the continent, people in Paris or Rome can feel it through rent increase, a saturation of health services, an influx of people who somehow should be dealt with. If bombs go off in Syria things happen in Hungary. The place is very interconnected.
EU has to deal with the protection of the environment just like any other issue that can cause large migrant movemenets. Throwing away things when you don't have to, inefficient appliances etc. are all stuff that must be addressed to preserve the peace in the continent. Europe's contemporary way of life is quite fragile.
Three years ago the main bearing in my washing machine broke down. Found a detailed video on Youtube for repairing the exact same machine, started disassembly. 45 minutes in, I discovered that in my machine that was a couple years newer than the tutorial, Bosch had plastic welded shut the drum, so you had to replace the entire thing. Replacement part cost went from $20 to $180 IIRC.
Adding insult to injury, the flange in question had the bolt holes and locating features for the gasket still present.
Often, making things easy to fully take apart increases manufacturing costs. So there needs to be a trade off.
Because of competition on prices, prices points, the fact the break downs are relatively rare. the priority is often to squeeze manufacturing costs.
The question is that of marketing.
Can we make a marketing page that shows an easy to repair washing machine - and shows us that over 10 years, if we do the repairs ourselves - we'll save some money ? And the hassle of replacing to a new machine often ?
At least some segment of the population, the DIY'ers may buy such machines.
The Youtube videos were a great help, but even though the part I needed was available, all the steps along the way to getting the part and fixing the machine made it clear that this was not a process aimed at consumers with the ability to repair such a machine. The manufacturer chose representatives in each country it sold machines in were you had to buy the part (at €100 with shipping not cheap, but acceptable), but the serial numbers never really matched exactly, and the model I had always had one extra letter left unexplained, making buying the part a gamble.
The part fitted and the repair did work perfectly, even though I had to order the stainless bolts I needed to replace the worn originals from somewhere else (a web shop with a sensible interface).
This device was seemingly designed to be repaired (or at least not prevent it), but documentation and lack of sensible part numbers made it harder then it needed to be. Interesting experience though, it feels good to extend the life of the machine by a few years this way.
> the flange in question had the bolt holes and locating features for the gasket still present.
That sounds like classic cost-savings methodology. They found a cheaper way to attach two parts while keeping the same tooling and reducing parts-count.
What would have been suspicious is if they had kept the expensive features and welded it shut.
Cheap is often not maintainable as a side-effect. That doesn't mean it was the primary goal.
I don't necessarily agree with downvoting your post, but your argument _is_ poorly constructed. It seems to come from a place of reflexively opposing regulation, rather than thinking about whether this makes sense. In other words, I think people downvote because it doesn't seem to be in good faith, but ideologically driven.
My argument isn't poorly constructed, I commented to promote discussion not to be lynched. You are trying to second guess what I wrote too much. It seems very common here for people to try to see implied meaning everywhere instead of reading what is actually written.
The sad reality is that it is not possible to think critically and to dissent on many topics these days. It is already decided what the correct opinion is, facts are irrelevant. Look at my comments in this thread: There are no reasoned replies to any of them...
You literally said "Greta Thunberg is not always there to tell you what to think"
Great, so hopefully we can have a substantial discussion on the topic at hand.
It's easy to stomp into a discussion and demand "stats", and then accuse people of irrational thinking when they don't immediately produce them. I'm sure someone has put together some statistics about repair costs, but I'd have no idea how to find them. The companies have no interest in helping compile numbers on their own service and parts, so good luck.
What I do have is lots of experience. As a property manager I've dealt with a hundred appliances. I work with a dozen dealers and repair people. I can get my old washers and fridges fixed easily; parts are everywhere, and every repairman knows how to change out a compressor on an old whirlpool compressor, or the tensioner on an old Maytag washer.
In contrast, my 15 year old Dacor range is a prime target for right-to-repair laws. It's built to last forever, but Dacor doesn't sell parts, and only makes schematics and repair manuals available to "certified" repair shops. There is only one in my city, and they wanted $500 dollars to replace my control board. Luckily I managed to find a used control board on ebay for $80 and did it myself. Took me a couple hours to do a job that would have taken minutes if only I'd had the manual. Easy stuff, should be totally accessible to owners and every repair shop, but Dacor likes to restrict the manuals to dealers so they can try to sell you a new one.
Then consider the nightmare of LG fridges. When the compressor went bad on my 2012 LG fridge, the cheapest repair estimate I could find was over a thousand dollars. There are only a few companies in my city who will do warranty repairs on LG fridges with linear compressors. There are a couple others who will no non-warranty work, but the repair won't be under warranty so if the new compressor goes bad (which is not unlikely on these new fridges), you're SOL. I have yet to find a used appliance reseller that sells refurbished LG fridges; when they haul away LG fridges, they are always scrapped. So what I have is a four thousand dollar fridge that lasted seven years. This is a common problem with LG fridges.
Washing machines are another whole world of pain.
So yes, I'll definitely be voting for every right-to-repair initiative that comes my way.
You know, you could easily read online about this stuff if you want. Try Yale Appliance's blog for a start. But then again, your comments make it seem like you didn't come here because you're curious.
If that is what you meant to write then your argument was indeed _very_ poorly constructed. It's certainly more flimsy than many replies you received.
What does annoy me though is that you have to pay a premium for appliances which are ‘built in’ over the equivalent model which is not built in, despite the built in version being less complicated (no door handles, for example).
The UK had a catastrophic fire potentially caused by a cheap fridge freezer.
White goods cause a few house fires.
This page says 5 a day: https://www.electricalsafetyfirst.org.uk/media-centre/press-...
This page says 60 per week: https://news.sky.com/story/eight-house-fires-a-week-caused-b...
We need white goods to be safer, and people don't chose safer, they choose cheaper, so we need regulations.
I want to buy Miele, or any other quality brand, but if anything breaks (which we know will happen), the service technician has a two hours drive to get to my place, which I have to pay. IOW, the top quality brands mostly offer service in densely populated areas (and it makes businesses sense for them)...
As usually, when politicians think they can do business better than the businesses themselves, this will probably be a net waste.
How exactly can the market be doing good work here? And why didn't this work with cars, where the hobbyist can no longer service 99% of their newly bought car?
The problem here is that people don't really want these devices. Maybe they think they want them, but in reality the effort to have them repaired would be too much to them. As others have pointed out, wages are the real issue, not cost of spare parts.
Except when no one provides such products, or the only ones fitting that goal require very large sacrifices elsewhere.
Look at mobile phones and tablets before the EU rules. Finding one that charged off a standard USB socket was near impossible.
Again with mobile phones, since there is no right to actually own and control your device, finding a phone that allows you to root it constrains your choices in just about every other way, including ways that have nothing to do with being able to root the phone, such as being a second class citizen from your carriers point of view (e.g. Verizon refused to enable international calling for my phone because it wasn't an "approved", aka Verizon branded, phone.)
So, right to repair regulations mean that I wouldn't have to decide between being environmentally conscious (if that open is even available) and having a product that works.
> wages are the real issue, not cost of spare parts.
I can and do perform many repairs myself when the device allows a repair to be done (even sometimes when it doesn't).
You have things like fairphone where you can exchange and upgrade parts. In general, the magic of capitalism is that if people want something, somebody will eventually make it.
I also wonder how much of companies trying to prevent repairs is actually BECAUSE of regulations. Like they could be liable if something goes wrong. What if somebody tries to repair a phone, does it wrong, and the battery explodes. Who would be liable?
Your final point, with you being able to do a lot of repairs: you are not normal in that respect. Most people could not do that.
And even the hourly rate of most people would probably make it ineffective for them to do it, even if they could.
Since it is inefficient, I question the assumption that repairs are automatically good for the environment. Maybe buying a newer, more energy efficient machine every couple of years is better in some cases, especially if the old machine is recycled properly.
I would be much more in favor of regulations with respect to recycling. This "repairing is better" is mostly ideology and virtue signalling.
Citation needed. People keep trotting this out as if it's some kind of accepted truth, and it just isn't.
So yeah, politicians try to defend the general interest best they can. Sometimes they make mistakes of course.
Countries with strong regulations can thrive. I live in France. People like to bash on our social system and on our strong regulations, but we are still one of the worlds greatest economic powers. Same goes with Germany.
That's not true. All it needs is for one business among hundreds to require working 90 hours a week. Then all employees would want to work 90 hours a week instead of 100 hours. Then automatically lots of people would want to work in this company instead of all the others.
The other companies in order to keep workers in their companies would also want to lower the bar to 90 hours. And if everyone would require 90 hours a week, then when 1 company would lower the bar to 80 hours a week... etc.
Did I get this right?
What you describe works if companies struggle to hire people and need to compete with each-other for workforce. Nowadays in many sectors throughout the world (and often for less educated workforce) it's the other way around: there are more people looking for a job than there are vacancies.
Clearly in this situation it works the other way around: the worker who's ready to work longer for cheaper will be hired over the others. Then it's a race to the bottom.
Beyond that, I often feel like most people on HN are hugely privileged when it comes to job hunting and working conditions and it shows in the discussions. It's easy to lose track of the difficulties the majority of people experience when it comes to finding a job when you have half a dozen recruiters fighting over how much money they're going to throw at your face at any given moment.
"I wish those recruiters would stop spamming my inbox" is not a problem the average human being has ever (and probably will ever) experience.
I also don't think a sane person would like to stop receiving messages from recruiters.
I'm also not sure I understand what you have in mind when you write "privilege".
Why not?
>I also don't think a sane person would like to stop receiving messages from recruiters.
If you're not looking for a new job it's a useless distraction. Emails aren't too bad, phone calls are more annoying.
>I'm also not sure I understand what you have in mind when you write "privilege".
Then try re-reading my comment with a less adversarial attitude, I think it's fairly transparent. You seem more interested in winning the argument than engaging in constructive discussion, but maybe it's just one of these situations where the text medium fails to convey enough nuance and context cues to judge a person's intentions.
For everyone else, though, this works the other way too. All you need is for one person who's facing foreclosure to put in 110 hour weeks before it becomes the norm.
Hell, how many people here are on Slack at the weekend because their colleagues are and they fear looking lazy, and not because they're "passionate" (or whatever BS word we're using to describe abuse)
By introducing more and more regulations, it's more complicated to run the business. Less people are creating businesses, because it's so complicated to run it, and regulations change from year to year. So, the only real beneficiary of regulations are businesses established 100 years ago, where there were not much regulations, and they had their 'hothouse' conditions allowing them to grow without much competition.
In my country in small towns there are i.e. 3 companies to choose from when a person is trying to find a low-tech job. The owner of the first company is a good buddy with the mayor, the second company has a big legal department and is able to pull lots of million of PLNs from EU's dotations, and the third one will probably end their life in few next years, because it's too hard to compete with the previous two. So, in this context, it is possible that the previous 2 will just raise the work time bar and nobody will shed a tear about anyone.
I do see what you're saying, for instance setting a maximum interest rate on payday loans caused lenders to shift to that maximum (even those which were below before), and having rules about what's part-time or full-time work does tend to solidify jobs around those points (get as much work out of them as you can without providing health insurance, etc.) but the alternative doesn't seem to work.
If that is the case, it seems unwarranted to present it as an example of failure. Poor people were attracted by the success, and accommodating them was not seamless. But how could it be - no system can be prepared for that.
Except that's not how it happened, at least in England and the US in the 19th century.
We have regulation that makes machines safer. This is regulation that makes machines safer for the environment. If the regulation turns out to be counterproductive it can be adapted later...
Experts are not better than business leaders at running businesses.
As usually, the answer lies somewhere in the middle.
I think what the EU is trying to do is to force both companies and consumers to think about the consequences of mindless mass consumption and obsolescence. Beyond petty laws and regulations, the EU sometimes does have a noble fundamental concept behind their policies; it remains to be seen if the resulting policies are effective in practice.
the word you're looking for is "populist" - i.e.,"we care, but we don't care enough to start looking bad".
It's a good step, but not great. Greater urgency is needed at this time.