Costing 0.001% of the defense budget, cutting energy star is a strange place to cut the fat. If it saved only 1% of what it claims to save Americans a year than the program would still have a net benefit to consumers. Bitch and whine about energy star all you like but you probably shouldn't do it on the basis of any kind of cost benefit scheme. The energy efficiency sector is filled with both well intentioned and malevolent bull shit. I have friends in the building efficiency side who can't believe the publicly funded waste. The most real economics I did in college was studying the take back effect for the local public sector energy efficiency outfit. Their numbers were full of shit, entirely based on engineering models. They lived in fear that someone would someday actually monitor a large number of thermostats before an after improvements and watch 7% if their predicted savings go away. 7% is a big part of what make many if these projects work out on paper. I knew nothing about the energy star program until today and a little bit about government energy efficiency programs in general. I don't think I'm in anyway prone to expect the best of them. I think energy star is probably a worthwhile program, problems and all.
The defense budget was not always so large. Making excuses for bad programs, entertaining arguments that spending more will fix problems, and ignoring evidence are some of the ways it grows. I am perplexed when you say I should not use a cost-benefit analysis, right after you use a cost-benefit analysis. How should we decide whether this is a good program, if we don't weigh the pros and cons? Actually, though you say "net benefit," yours is a benefit analysis and does not consider any costs. The Americans who are potentially saving energy costs are also the taxpayers who pay for the program. You provide no evidence that the program saves even 1% of what EPA claims. Should we cross our fingers and hope it's true? Blue stickers do not save any energy. Presumably they are meant to help consumers select more energy-efficient products than they would without the stickers. Do we have any evidence that this goal is met? Does it work often enough to balance the times the stickers are applied to less-efficient appliances, leading to increased energy consumption? NPR worries that the "vast majority" of products display blue stickers. Sears sells a lot of appliances, and the online catalog has an "Energy Star Compliant" filter. YES NO 76 84 Dryers (under $1000) 49 42 Dryers (over $1000) 278 67 Refrigerators (French door) 129 131 Refrigerators (top freezer) 166 193 Refrigerators (under $1000) 406 173 Refrigerators (over $1000) For appliances on which blue stickers are not practically automatic, there is a pattern of "gold plating" in which the Energy Star is bundled with additional features on more expensive models. French door refrigerators average over $2000, are less energy efficient, and they are 80% Energy Star. Top freezer models average below $800, are more energy efficient, and they are 50% Energy Star. Are we still saving? EPA has moved to third-party certifications rather than letting manufacturers make the call. Many of these compliance companies signed the letter to keep Energy Star alive. It's a voluntary program for manufacturers. What then, is the role of the EPA? Is it to set the standards? Other organizations can set standards. Is it to police the use of the blue stickers, which anyone can buy on eBay? Is it something else? I have a bias against government programs, which made me suspect that Energy Star is probably not a worthwhile program even before I learned anything about it. Do you have a different reason to think that it is probably a worthwhile program?0.001% of the defense budget
If it saved only 1% of what it claims to save Americans a year than the program would still have a net benefit to consumers.
Energy Star Compliant 294 16 Dishwashers 156 34 Washers 131 130 Dryers 500+ 371 Refrigerators