Energy: the age of unreason

04/09/2014

Eighteen months ago, I wrote a piece about the durability of kettles, lamenting that, while they were very cheap, they seemed to last no time at all. From that, we got three pages of comments on the forum – interesting, informative and mostly well-written and precisely the reason why such forums add value to a blog.

My particular focus at the time was the WEE directive, and a suggestion that we would be better served if the EU spent less effort on telling us how to dispose of broken domestic appliances, and more on ensuring that they lasted longer.

I even advanced the case that, while leaving the EU would not guarantee us sensible (or even better) regulation, at least it would enable us to try a different tack – such as statutory durability requirements.

Entirely separately, under the aegis of the Ecodesign Directive (2009/125/EC), we have seen Deloitte on 1 July 2014 produce a "preparatory study" to establish the Ecodesign Working Plan 2015-2017, in order to assist in further implementing the directive.

Publication was over two months ago, and largely unremarked, with the study working towards ranking electrical products according to their potential for energy saving.

As one might expect, electric kettles are on the list, and the interesting thing here is the main comments refer at some length to poor durability of the appliances. The report notes:

There are many discussions and complaints on the Internet about poor reliability, although very little rigorously researched data. The UK consumer organization has carried out surveys of its members and found that most consumers expect kettles to last at least seven years but only 9% of their members had kettles older than six years. ERA has surveyed its employees and found that kettles are the least durable kitchen appliance with many failing in less than two years.

However, there are no legislative proposals – that is not what this document is about, although if by whatever means a mandatory durability standard came into being, I would no object. I really do dislike having needlessly to throw away such appliances, and would gladly pay a little more to achieve better durability.

So far, though, we have a largely unexceptional document – and it remained so until the Express gots hold of it, shrieking about it being an "astonishing assault on our British way of life". We then see the similar foam-flecked charges in other newspapers and it is no surprise to find at UKIP at the bottom of this, sounding off with the ignorance to which we have become accustomed.

On the very, very specific point of kettles (and the other appliances so far mentioned), there are no proposals for banning high-power appliances – or any proposals at all. This is a study document, and a draft at that. Anyone who asserts that bans are being proposed simply hasn't read the document.

The hyperventilation, of course, owes much to the recent controversy on domestic vacuum cleaners, and ill-informed claims that all high-powered machines have been "banned".

But, as we have noted several times (almost to the point of tedium), there is no outright ban. Those who feel they need more powerful machines can always bypass the 1600W cap imposed on appliances sold for the domestic market and buy commercial or industrial machines.

This brings into focus the wider issue as to whether imposing controls on the sale of appliances, with the specific objective of improving energy efficiency, is a legitimate role for government – any government, whether the EU or national governments.

Personally, I regard efficient use of electricity as a desirable and necessary objective – a public "good". If voluntary action or the market cannot deliver, then there is a legitimate role for legislative intervention.

What took me aback somewhat is that I didn't think the case for energy efficiency needed to be made. No matter what your views are on the generation of electricity, it makes absolute sense – or so I thought – to minimise the demand for electricity, if that can be done without impacting on consumer choice.

This has been the case with electric fridges and freezers which collectively, account for 14 percent of total household electricity consumption and where legislative intervention is pursuit of energy efficiency has not compromised the consumer interest. As this US report attests, between 1987 and 2010, the real price of refrigerators decreased by 35 percent while energy usage was more than halved.

Where manufacture and marketing of domestic appliances is undertaken on a global scale, though, it makes absolute sense to have a multi-national standard. And while I would prefer that any European standards were addressed through organisations such as UNECE (as are vehicle and some agricultural standards), in the real world, it is inevitable that the lead organisation will be the EU – for the time being.

What we thus see is a constituency which objects to such initiatives for the sole reason that they are managed by the EU (even though member states willingly agree to them). And this does seem to me both irrational and harmful.

If we are ever going to develop a credible EU exit plan, we are going to have to recognise that there are some things that are best handled at a national level, and others at a regional or global level. In many cases, a regional solution becomes a precursor to a global agreement.

As I pointed out, in seeking energy efficiency standards for vacuum cleaners, we are not alone. The US is also going down this path and, in the fullness of time, we would hope to see a global standard, to facilitate global free trade in these and similar appliances. Possibly, that will involve an ISO standard, adopted by individual legislatures.

This process of creation and adoption of performance standards has been going on for generations, and is largely unnoticed and unexceptional. But for some reason, this basically benign process has become the touchstone for unthinking "euroscepticism".

Nevertheless, those who so easily link this issue with their opposition to the EU need to think very hard about what they are trying to achieve. Despite the media hype, there is doubtless a constituency who share with me a belief that energy efficiency controls on domestic appliances are, on balance, a good thing.

Some in that constituency may be persuadable that the EU is a bad thing, and cast an "out" vote in any referendum. But, if we oppose specifics which are linked with the EU, we are likely to lose their supporters, and therefore assist the Europhile cause.

Throughout its history, the EU has shown some skill in attaching itself to popular causes, thereby benefitting from what is often called the "halo effect". We need to be aware of this, and be cautious about what we oppose in the name of Euroscepticism.  In many respect, we need to decouple issues - if we oppose them, it should be because they are intrinsically wrong, not just because the EU is the originator. 

But what worries me is that so much opposition seems now to be entirely irrational, based on hatred rather than logic, to the extent that we are entering a new age of unreason. And that is not going to win us any battles.

FORUM THREAD: HANNAN/UNREASON