It’s actually remarkable, and instructive, how often, when you scratch a public policy proposal or analysis, contempt for ordinary people leaks out. For instance another “Climate Forward” piece, with the sneering “Making dishwashers great again?” headline, says that the Trump administration’s repeal or weakening of “water and energy efficiency regulations” will cost consumers money. But if one of those modern toilets, shower heads, washing machines or whatever the President hates actually work well while reducing utility bills, you don’t need regulations to make people buy them. And if they don’t, then forcing people to pretend they do is arrogant and wasteful.

We concede that Donald Trump complaining that modern feeble shower fixtures leave him standing there five times longer and make it hard to style his “perfect” hair is hard to swallow. As for his claiming he has to flush a modern toilet “10 or 15 times” we plead for a cone of silence. But we also want Hiroko Tabuchi and her ilk to shut up about how:

“experts also say this would cost consumers money. The government’s own scientists say the water and efficiency rules saved U.S. households an average of $576 on their utility bills in 2024 while cutting the nation’s annual energy consumption by 6.5 percent and public water use by 12 percent.”

The Times, far from falling silent, did another “Climate Forward” piece, by the same author and a collaborator, insisting that “Energy Department to Repeal Efficiency Rules for Appliances/ Experts say the moves, which would apply to household appliances, will raise energy costs for consumers.” But only, we repeat, if consumers are incapable of comparison shopping without guidance from their betters, from experts who say to journalists who condescend.

You know who’s an expert on what costs consumers money? Right. Consumers. And you know who isn’t? Right. “The government’s own scientists”. If you really wanted to know if politicians and bureaucrats had made a good call in adjusting your shower, the last person you’d ask is one they paid to evaluate their excellence. (Or maybe the second-last, since the last person you’d ask is them, as the last person you’d ask to evaluate the excellence of Donald Trump’s hair is him, who never noticed it looked silly.)

Here the economists in us scream that the height of fatuity is governments providing utilities at below market cost and then adding restrictions to try to contain the utterly predictable excess demand. What the U.S. needs, and what everyone needs, to ensure conservation and just about everything else, is full-cost pricing of water, electricity etc. What we all get instead is a hoorah’s nest of subsidies, limitations, incentives and punishments that only make work and pay for public servants.

Arguably what nobody needs is journalism schools, if they graduate people who instead write:

“Andrew deLaski, executive director of the Appliance Standards Awareness Project, a coalition of environmental and consumer groups, utilities and government agencies, said already-stressed water supplies in many parts of the country would be further strained if the rules were eliminated.”

Really? That’s your go-to independent unbiased third party? (Actually the author has a degree in international relations from LSE… which is an argument against that field of study, that institution, or the general practice of governments subsidizing higher education.)

The article also complains that:

“His administration also plans to eliminate Energy Star, the popular energy efficiency certification for dishwashers, refrigerators, dryers and other home appliances.”

A stunning blow to everyone who earns a living off it. But who really chooses an appliance based on that thing?

Evidently it’s a sore point for what the late William F. Buckley Jr. in 1998 disparaged as the “shower-adjusters of this world”, at a time when that insult referred far more to their aspirations than to the meddlesome grip of iron they subsequently acquired on people’s lives including their taps. Heatmap weighs in on “Why Everyone Will Miss Energy Star – Even Trump – According to One of Its Architects”. And it’s hard to think of a less biased source.

It’s also a bit hard to cope with Heatmap calling the program voluntary while conceding that it’s run by government, the one entity in a functioning society that claims and enforce a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. But the big weirdness is that:

“You’ve probably relied on these certifications, too. Overseen by the Environmental Protection Agency, Energy Star labels are recognized by 90% of Americans as indicating that an appliance is top of its class when it comes to saving electricity and money. According to the government’s estimates, the voluntary program has saved Americans $500 billion since it began in 1992.”

But if so, why does the government need to impose it, fund it, or audit it and award itself an “A”? If the state steps aside, won’t manufacturers just keep right on to the applause of grateful and wealthier customers? Instead Heatmap uncritically quotes that “architect” making the laugh-out-loud claim that “The government inherently is an impartial, unbiased group”.

Likewise, the Climate Forward article may insist that research by:

“Ashlynn Stillwell, an associate professor in civil and environmental engineering at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign…. indicates that the energy and water saved through higher efficiency products more than pays back over its lifetime.”

We say let Dr. Stillwell choose her shower head, Donald Trump choose his, and we’ll choose ours. And if you say we’re too dumb, why would you let us vote?