Are you Swiss?
Switzerland punishes many non-violent offenders with a jail sentence already. It seems to me like Swiss jail is meant for what the Swiss people decide it’s for.
How is it not the Government's business to manage supply to the entire country and step-in where people are not looking out for each other.
That said, I think the idea is mostly unworkable, it would be much better to look at differences in energy bills for similar size homes and send round advisors to mee the home owners and discuss how they might improve energy efficiency.
Management of critical infrastructure is absolutely the government's business. It seems like (having read the article and not the headline) this is a law already on the books for dealing with violators of declared rationing programs, there's nothing about gas specifically. The penalty is 30EUR/day, "with jail time for repeat violators".
That doesn't sound so weird to me. The whole point of rationing (which isn't happening yet[1]) is that efficient market allocation in severe shortages isn't capable of meeting society's needs, and that the government needs to step in to do the allocation instead. Now, knowing HN, there are going to be a lot of people here who reject this premise a priori. But nonetheless that is the premise behind the law, and given that having some sort of enforcement mechanism is necessary, just like it is for all laws.
[1] And probably won't. The idea of shutting off gas is a pretty obvious bluff by Russia. They need that cash at least as much as the Europeans need the gas.
A key part of keeping the threat a bluff is being prepared to deal with it.
Shutting off the taps has limited long term utility if Europeans reduce demand for Russian gas by introducing substitutes or otherwise reducing demand!
Gas shutoffs have been happening because of European sanctions on their equipment, not because they actually want to shut it off, so whether they're "bluffing" or not is irrelevant. Many turbines are now out of action and Siemens either won't return them (UK sanctions) or returned one but refused to give any assurances they wouldn't shut it down remotely (!).
Rationing gas like this is foolish in all cases. That's what markets are for. They have no way to enforce this and it can only cause immense social strife for near zero payback. You'd think they'd have learned from the attempt to break up families at Christmas to punish the unvaccinated, but no. The current Federal Council really is trash.
I find it interesting that we aren't really at WW2 levels of war, yet rationing is already occuring. Are we in a different kind of war that we haven't acknowledged?
Depends on who "we" is and what you mean by "acknowledged". I live in Europe and it's pretty evident that Russia is waging war against Europe and not just Ukraine. That has been acknowledged for a long time already.
Switzerland strangely enough has somewhat of a liberal reputation, yet is the precise opposite. I suppose the financial reputation (dubious as well) bled over into the social one.
> Switzerland strangely enough has somewhat of a liberal reputation
Are you sure you are not mixing them up with Sweden? For example the last Swiss canton to give women the right to vote did so in 1991. And same sex marriage in Switzerland was made legal in July this year.
Google translated "Anyone who violates the requirements faces imprisonment or a fine. In the case of intentional action, a prison sentence of up to three years or a fine is possible. Even in the case of negligent violations of the measures, a fine of up to 180 daily rates is conceivable."
Then the original article goes into more discussion how enforcement is close to impossible and that a company who heats a large swimming pool on purpose is obviously worse than a resident setting their heating higher. My take-away is that there will be at most spot checks, some monetary fines possible. But jail is meant for the worst repeat offerenders of grand scale.
I wrote this 3 months ago, and it was very poorly received.
> But in a decade or so, it will be the prevailing opinion. Some czar of the environment will go around deciding who gets AC, and telling others "You don't need AC". (Generally, this is decided by campaign donations and party support.)
Fair enough. It wasn't a decade, it was happening now -- and it was heat instead of AC.
And it isn't happening now. The article itself only claims it's something that could happen if there are fuel shortages, plus it appears the article is incorrect.
In my experience they are commonly used in outdoors. Obviously being indoors with double-glazed windows and heating the space is more efficient than being outdoors with a radiant heater.
However, there should not be a broad-based hunt for energy sinners. "We are not a police state," said SVP Economics Minister Guy Parmelin (62) last Wednesday at the media conference of the Federal Council. "The police don't go to everyone - but there can be spot checks," says Parmelin. There are also specifications in other areas that are not constantly monitored. "The draft ordinances are primarily based on the fact that the vast majority of the population abides by the law," emphasizes Spörndli.
But controls are not excluded - for example, if you are ratted out by an angry neighbor or an overzealous neighborhood sheriff. A Gfrörli that heats up to 20 instead of 19 degrees must expect a penalty. Spörndli also confirms this – at least, “if the offense were reported and controlled and could subsequently also be proven”.
Continuing the trend towards more ineffective and authoritarian government interventions that started with COVID. The sad part is that the whole problem could have been prevented very easily, not to mention the lives offered to the war machine meat grinder.
Not defending the article, I've flagged the submission as it's several articles away from the original source, which itself may be inaccurate. But 19°C is 66.2°F, not -7°F.
Meanwhile here in the Netherlands, we're already shutting off our heating and wearing coats. Most of our heating costs go to Putin, so we'd rather go to bed with sleeping bags and coats.
This smells a lot like Russian Propaganda. Who benefits from the fearmongering if not the people selling the natural gas who are desperate for economic sanctions to be lifted? They're playing you people like idiots.
Use your brain... Homes are not uniform. The amount of gas it takes to heat a small, well-insulated modern apartment is pretty low. Require an older, larger, poorly insulated farmhouse to fall within similar utilization ranges and that home is no longer livable.
And homes have multiple residents. Who's at fault if usage is high? Perhaps the property owner's name is on the bill, but a tenant has control of the thermostat, or a family member. Who do they intend to arrest? How would you prove who the responsible party is for high usage? And what about the extreme burden this would place on the courts? And then you have a large chunk of your population in jail, instead of contributing economically to the country, supporting their families, etc. The economic damage of such a policy would be far worse than doing nothing at all.
This is the thinking of people who live under an authoritarian regime, which presently is not Switzerland. This only makes sense to somebody who has no human rights and whose country doesn't give a fuck about their economic standing if it means undermining the regime. Who could that be? I wonder...
48 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 108 ms ] threadThat said, I think the idea is mostly unworkable, it would be much better to look at differences in energy bills for similar size homes and send round advisors to mee the home owners and discuss how they might improve energy efficiency.
That doesn't sound so weird to me. The whole point of rationing (which isn't happening yet[1]) is that efficient market allocation in severe shortages isn't capable of meeting society's needs, and that the government needs to step in to do the allocation instead. Now, knowing HN, there are going to be a lot of people here who reject this premise a priori. But nonetheless that is the premise behind the law, and given that having some sort of enforcement mechanism is necessary, just like it is for all laws.
[1] And probably won't. The idea of shutting off gas is a pretty obvious bluff by Russia. They need that cash at least as much as the Europeans need the gas.
Shutting off the taps has limited long term utility if Europeans reduce demand for Russian gas by introducing substitutes or otherwise reducing demand!
Rationing gas like this is foolish in all cases. That's what markets are for. They have no way to enforce this and it can only cause immense social strife for near zero payback. You'd think they'd have learned from the attempt to break up families at Christmas to punish the unvaccinated, but no. The current Federal Council really is trash.
We can only win it by not destroying the planet.
How is this news? This will likely never become law.
Are you sure you are not mixing them up with Sweden? For example the last Swiss canton to give women the right to vote did so in 1991. And same sex marriage in Switzerland was made legal in July this year.
Google translated "Anyone who violates the requirements faces imprisonment or a fine. In the case of intentional action, a prison sentence of up to three years or a fine is possible. Even in the case of negligent violations of the measures, a fine of up to 180 daily rates is conceivable."
Then the original article goes into more discussion how enforcement is close to impossible and that a company who heats a large swimming pool on purpose is obviously worse than a resident setting their heating higher. My take-away is that there will be at most spot checks, some monetary fines possible. But jail is meant for the worst repeat offerenders of grand scale.
> But in a decade or so, it will be the prevailing opinion. Some czar of the environment will go around deciding who gets AC, and telling others "You don't need AC". (Generally, this is decided by campaign donations and party support.)
Fair enough. It wasn't a decade, it was happening now -- and it was heat instead of AC.
And it's not like Switzerland is some backwards dictatorship shit-hole either, this is a reliable democracy of considerable wealth!
With any luck they'll manage to switch their heating/energy production to some better method than gas
Can anybody explain the radiant heaters? Aren't they are actually more effective in keeping people warm compared to heating the air?
There are consultations on what to do in an energy shortage: https://www.reddit.com/r/Switzerland/comments/xbfpsq/comment...
https://www.blick.ch/politik/gfroerlis-muessen-im-ernstfall-...
However, there should not be a broad-based hunt for energy sinners. "We are not a police state," said SVP Economics Minister Guy Parmelin (62) last Wednesday at the media conference of the Federal Council. "The police don't go to everyone - but there can be spot checks," says Parmelin. There are also specifications in other areas that are not constantly monitored. "The draft ordinances are primarily based on the fact that the vast majority of the population abides by the law," emphasizes Spörndli.
But controls are not excluded - for example, if you are ratted out by an angry neighbor or an overzealous neighborhood sheriff. A Gfrörli that heats up to 20 instead of 19 degrees must expect a penalty. Spörndli also confirms this – at least, “if the offense were reported and controlled and could subsequently also be proven”.
How quickly we forget the lessons so recently learned.
I don't get it; if it's "rationed" the entire "using more than reasonable" doesn't seem to be an issue. Don't they track usage at a billing level?
Use your brain... Homes are not uniform. The amount of gas it takes to heat a small, well-insulated modern apartment is pretty low. Require an older, larger, poorly insulated farmhouse to fall within similar utilization ranges and that home is no longer livable.
And homes have multiple residents. Who's at fault if usage is high? Perhaps the property owner's name is on the bill, but a tenant has control of the thermostat, or a family member. Who do they intend to arrest? How would you prove who the responsible party is for high usage? And what about the extreme burden this would place on the courts? And then you have a large chunk of your population in jail, instead of contributing economically to the country, supporting their families, etc. The economic damage of such a policy would be far worse than doing nothing at all.
This is the thinking of people who live under an authoritarian regime, which presently is not Switzerland. This only makes sense to somebody who has no human rights and whose country doesn't give a fuck about their economic standing if it means undermining the regime. Who could that be? I wonder...