In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-12-15 02:59:15 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message om,
writes
sarah wrote:

Where it is for the benefit of all, certainly.
That sounds ideal at first sight, but the question is, whose
opinion do
we take on what is most beneficial? Nannying legislation means taking
the decision out of the hands of business managers that know their
business,
And don't have any market incentive to improve environmental
practice.

So it should be made incentive and not penalty.

How did you have in mind ?


This is another illustration of how and why the public sector mentality
doesn't work well.

I don't think so.


and putting it into
the hands of a government body that as often as not really doesnt.
Yes - here's the rub. The 'happy quango' may well know b.all()
about the industrial processes. The knack is gluing the two together.

The knack is not having the quango at all but people who know what they
are doing and are in touch with
economic reality.

I see you make no mention of environmental reality.


Then to take it
further, this failed policy is not repealed but continued! A policy
that wastes energy and costs money is continued.
Not totally convinced it has failed...

It is focus on the irrelevant. In a typical house, lighting accounts
for 2% of energy consumption.

I seriously doubt that's true, at least unless they use low energy light
bulbs, heat electric, cook electric and have TIG welding as a hobby.

Care to cite a source ?


Thats nannying. Now we can blame the customer if wanted, but in a
freeish market it would be immediately realised that the solution was
to develop fittings the customers liked.
So do the regulations require that the fittings be butt ugly ?

Poor technology implementation and something that people don't really want.

So the market is free to make fittings that people would like then.
They just have a no incentive to, and would rather not bother if not
doing so increases the sale of fittings in the long run.


Lets compare what happens with failed policies in the private
business
sector. Either the business corrects it, and they try to, or they cease
being a service provider, and those that come closer to what the buyer
wants stay in business. The motivation to do well is much larger there,
as the individual either prospers or loses it all.
Which is great in those areas that markets address well. The
environment has generally not been one of them.

Then those wishing to promote its maintenance need to go away and think
about how to make
that marketable rather than immediately falling on the easy way out of
forcing unnatural behaviour.

I'm not sure that living sustainably is unnatural, but it's not
something capitalism has been good at.

Either marketing or legislation might contribute to getting the job
done. I'm not fussed which, and up to a point happy with both, though
marketing does seem to be the art of selling illusions. Not sure that
makes it the most appropriate tool.

Education about environmental issues, in as quantitative a way as
possible seems to be the better long term strategy, and that is
something I'm happy to invest effort in.


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore