The issue of laundry doesn't come up in the environmental and sustainability setting often enough, but here is an interesting article that discusses it:
In this year's report, no top-loading machine got top marks for cleaning. The best performers were front-loaders costing on average more than $1,000. Even after adjusting for inflation, that's still $350 more than the top-loaders of 1996.
What happened to yesterday's top-loaders? To comply with federal energy-efficiency requirements, manufacturers made changes like reducing the quantity of hot water. The result was a bunch of what Consumer Reports called "washday wash-outs," which left some clothes "nearly as stained after washing as they were when we put them in."
Now, you might think that dirtier clothes are a small price to pay to save the planet. Energy-efficiency standards have been embraced by politicians of both parties as one of the easiest ways to combat global warming. Making appliances, cars, buildings and factories more efficient is called the "low-hanging fruit" of strategies to cut greenhouse emissions.
But a growing number of economists say that the environmental benefits of energy efficiency have been oversold. Paradoxically, there could even be more emissions as a result of some improvements in energy efficiency, these economists say.
The problem is known as the energy rebound effect. . . .
Some of the biggest rebound effects occur when new economic activity results from energy-efficient technologies that reduce the cost of making products like steel or generating electricity. In some cases, the overall result can be what's called "backfire": more energy use than would have occurred without the improved efficiency.
"Efficiency advocates try to distract attention from the rebound effect by saying that nobody will vacuum more because their vacuum cleaner is more efficient," Mr. Shellenberger said. "But this misses the picture at the macro and global level, particularly when you consider all the energy that is used in manufacturing products and producing usable energy like electricity and gasoline from coal and oil. When you increase the efficiency of a steel plant in China, you'll likely see more steel production and thus more energy consumption."
But if your immediate goal is to reduce greenhouse emissions, then it seems risky to count on reaching it by improving energy efficiency. To economists worried about rebound effects, it makes more sense to look for new carbon-free sources of energy, or to impose a direct penalty for emissions, like a tax on energy generated from fossil fuels. Whereas people respond to more fuel-efficient cars by driving more and buying other products, they respond to a gasoline tax simply by driving less.
But if the benefits of energy efficiency have been oversold, then that's more reason to consider alternatives like a carbon tax, and to look more carefully at the hidden costs and trade-offs involved in setting rigid standards for efficiency. Unlike a carbon tax, which gives consumers and manufacturers an incentive to look for smart ways to save energy, a mandated standard of efficiency can reduce flexibility and force people into choices they wouldn't ordinarily make — including ones with consequences more serious than dirty clothes.
Interesting.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
