Great article. Thanks for the link. It confirms one long held suspicion (that Energy Star labels are to a great extent a promo to get us to consume more) and a more recent impression (that Consumer Reports is getting pretty good on environmental issues).
On a related topic, I heard (via e-reviews on the internet) that many washing machines meet EnergyStar criteria by reducing the size of the motor, thus not washing the clothes as well AND breaking down more frequently. This is also because most of the "old reliable" brands have been sold and re-sold and are no longer made in the US, Sweden, Germany, etc and do not have as good quality control. I think I'll keep my 35 year old Mayatg, thank you. On the other hand, I attended a Cooperative Extension workshop on energy efficient lighting, and the TCP salesman (full disclosure--the presenters were salesmen) and he explained that EnergyStar light bulbs have better quality control, and thus often have less mercury. Also the "better" brands, especially those from Europe--where they regulate the amount of mercury in CFLs--have the mercury in an amalgam, so it is less volatile if the bulb breaks. I certainly found that the cheapo CFLs did not last as long as advertised. He also said that major brand CFLs sold in big box stores are usually not made to as high standards as their regular retail products, UNLESS they have the EnergyStar logo. My plumber said the same thing (when is a Moen not a Moen? when you get it off the shelf at Home Depot). Happy non-consuming. Margaret On Sep 16, 2008, at 11:05 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > http://www.celsias.com/article/epa-and-consumer-reports-duke-it-out-over-energy-s/ > > Trouble with the 'Energy Star' Label. Posted by Leslie Berliant, > Celsias, September 15, 2008. "The October 2008 issue of Consumer > Reports is all about energy efficiency as a way to save money. > Articles include product reviews and ways to cut energy use at home. > There is also an article about [DOE's] and [EPA's] Energy Star > rating, 'Energy Star Has Lost Some Luster'. Consumer Reports' > research found that there were a number of Energy Star-rated > appliances that used more energy than claimed... Consumer Reports > sees 3 main flaws with the [Energy Star] program: 1) qualifying > standards are lax; 2) tests are out of date; and 3) companies test > their own products... The EPA responded... saying the Consumer > Reports article 'misses the basic purpose of the Energy Star > program... EPA initially seeks to have about 25% of available models > meet the ENERGY STAR criteria when they are first established for a > product category. Increasing the market share of qualifying products > from their initial levels is a goal of the program -- not a > fundamental flaw'... [Energy Star is] a needed program, one worthy > of expanding, but only if those appliances actually do help > consumers save energy and money, not if the ratings are inaccurate > or based on non-typical use... Yes, we should have more Energy Star > refrigerators, but we should not call something energy saving that > actually isn't simply to have more on the market." > > Article Below > > The October 2008 issue of Consumer Reports is all about energy > efficiency as a way to save money. Articles include product reviews > and ways to cut energy use at home. There is also an article about > the U.S. Department of Energy's and Environmental Protection > Agency's Energy Star rating, "Energy Star Has Lost Some Luster ". > Consumer Reports' research found that there were a number of Energy > Star rated appliances that used more energy than claimed. One LG > refrigerator claimed to use 547 killowatt-hours of annual energy > consumption but used more than double that, 1,110 kWh per year, when > the ice maker was turned on. According to Consumer Reports, the > difference is due to the testing procedures; ice makers were turned > off during Energy Star testing. > > Consumer Reports sees 3 main flaws with the program: > > Qualifying standards are lax > Tests are out of date > Companies test their own products > The Energy Star program has been around for 16 years. In order to > qualify for the rating, appliances and consumer electronics are > supposed to use 10% -25% less energy than the DOE's maximum allowed > amount for that category. Energy Star claims to have saved consumers > $16 billion in energy costs and 40 million metric tons of greenhouse > gas emissions. > > The EPA responded with a letter on their Energy Star site, saying > the Consumer Reports article "misses the basic purpose of the Energy > Star program. Energy Star helps consumers not just find energy- > efficient products, but ones that will cost-effectively help them > save money while protecting our environment." The letter goes on to > say: > > EPA initially seeks to have about 25 percent of available models > meet the ENERGY STAR criteria when they are first established for a > product category. Increasing the market share of qualifying products > from their initial levels is a goal of the program - not a > fundamental flaw or an indication that the requirements are lax, as > the article suggests. > > How they reach that goal is important, though. It's a needed > program, one worthy of expanding, but only if those appliances > actually do help consumers save energy and money, not if the ratings > are inaccurate or based on non-typical use of the appliance. Yes, we > should have more Energy Star refrigerators, but we should not call > something energy saving that actually isn't simply to have more on > the market. > > The American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy is siding > with Consumer Reports. In a September 3rd release, they "strongly > urged DOE to remove these models from the list of Energy Star > models..." They also called for DOE to fine those manufacturers that > are not accurately reporting their energy use, citing a similar case > in Australia involving air conditioners which resulted in a $3 > million Australian fine. > > Consumer Reports and the non-profit that publishes them, Consumers > Union, sent a letter (pdf) to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson > standing behind the assertions of the original article and > reiterating their 4 recommendations to improve the Energy Star > program: > > Bring testing procedures in line with the technology available in > consumer products. > Require some independent verification of test results. > Consider a graded qualifying system that uses letters. > Better policing by federal officials and enforcement of standards, > including increasing spot checks of ENERGY STAR-qualified products. > > > > > > > Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog, plus > the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com. > > __._,_.___ > Messages in this topic (1)Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic > Messages | Files | Photos | Links | Database | Polls | Members | > Calendar > > Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) > Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch > format to Traditional > Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe > Visit Your Group > All-Bran > 10 Day Challenge > Join the club and > feel the benefits. > Featured Y! Groups > and category pages. > There is something > for everyone. > Yahoo! Groups > Latest product news > Join Mod. Central > stay connected. > . > > __,_._,___ _______________________________________________ For more information about sustainability in the Tompkins County area, please visit: http://www.sustainabletompkins.org/ RSS, archives, subscription & listserv information for: [email protected] http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org
