7 ms·

Some appliances haven't really changed much over the years: toasters, irons, kettles. But some appliances have improved their energy efficiency (e.g. fridges an

Some appliances haven't really changed much over the years: toasters, irons, kettles. But some appliances have improved their energy efficiency (e.g. fridges and freezers) and some are a little bit more enviromentally friendly (e.g. washing machines). If you have a (front-loading) washing machine that's still running from 20 years ago, it's probably using more water than a front-loading machine purchased today. Let's say I buy a top-of-the line Miele washing machine for £1300 ($2000 / €1580) [1] that's built to last 20 years. But 5 years after buying this washing machine, new washing machine models start using 25% less water. I can continue using my washing machine, but it's no longer as efficient as newer models. On the other hand, by keeping my current machine I'm not adding to the growing scrapheap of discarded consumer products. So, for some appliances there is a trade-off between longevity and the possibility that future appliances may be more energy efficient. [1] Yes, you really can buy washing machines for £1300 http://www.johnlewis.com/miele-wkh-120-wps-washing-machine-8kg-load-a-energy-rating-1600rpm-spin-chromeedition/p1163636 http://www.johnlewis.com/miele-wkh-120-wps-washing-machine-8...

DodgyEggplant 12y ago
Free markets are bad in adjusting for environment costs. What you say here could be useful if implemented into some tax benefits for energy saving products. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem
- zo1 12y ago
  "Free markets are bad in adjusting for environment costs" The concept of "environment" is completely in-congruent with the free market. Because, if indeed you had a "Free market", you'd have to concede that everything is on the market. That includes public property, which is practically never for sale and are mostly hoarded by the state without any chance of private ownership/transfer. That's called a monopoly. Individuals/entities have an incentive to abuse un-ownable(public) property, rather than to develop/protect it like they do for private-property. So, perhaps you should change your comment to "Regulated markets in the presence of a monopoly state are bad in adjusting for environment costs." But if we indeed had a free-market, I'd concede that there are a few examples where the market would be slow to "adjust its costs". Prime examples would be air and ocean pollution because they're currently technologically unfeasible to own/delineate.
  - DodgyEggplant 12y ago
    Completely agree with "regulated markets", or better "lobbied government markets". The point in question, however, is that if everyone is doing the best for her/his own interests, there is no invisible hand for the environment: the free rider problem. In Adam Smith's defence, in his times people were not even close to the modern times of extensive planet resources dilution, oceans, forests etc
    - zo1 12y ago
      Well, I guess that depends on our definition of environment. It's clearly vague, and the lines are completely blurred. So yes, I'd agree with you, there is no one that is currently interested in the stewardship of the "environment" except for principled individuals that believe it should be taken care of. There are plenty of examples where people own pieces of land, and they take very good care of it (and sometimes opposite). I grew up in a country where most low-mid and middle class individuals owned sizable plots of land. They spent quite a fair bit of time and money tending to their plots because it was theirs and represented value to them. Even more so for commercial versions of such ownership; particularly forestry enterprises. This is the case that free-market individuals make for the environment. Which is a concept that a lot of state-centered individuals find flawed in free-market thinking. Precisely because the definitions of "environment" differ. To state-centered individuals, the "environment" is something non-concrete, over-arching and pretty much difficult to delineate from the rest of the land. The opposite of that is where someone considers land to be theirs, for their exclusive use, and will thus develop it and maintain is value. If that value is due to the scenery, then it will be preserved.
      - DodgyEggplant 12y ago
        I think "environment" really means the larger eco-systems that "belong" to the planet or at least to many countries. Oceans, rivers etc.
        zo1 12y ago
        So how does that figure into all the individual pieces of land that people own? Is my land not part of the larger eco-system of the planet? I'd argue it is, and I take pretty darn good care of it. Are we somehow saying that we can't extrapolate this to a larger scale? For further reading, you might find this interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox
lispm 12y ago
I've bought a slightly cheaper Miele washing machine recently. It's great and uses a lot less energy compared to my old one.
bradleyjg 12y ago
If a washing machine uses less water and electricity but fails to actually clean clothes, in what sense is it efficient? Already that's happened to the top load market: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704662604576202212717670514 http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405274870466260...
- chestnut-tree 12y ago
  Interesting...top-loading washing machines have never gained a foothold in the UK. Front-loading washing machines are the norm and always have been. Front-loading machines are perfectly capable of cleaning clothes, but sure there are some disadvantages compared to top-loaders: generally longer washing times, inability to add clothes once the wash cycle starts. I'm guessing that the high cost of front-loaders in the US is due to their low popularity?
  - dazc 12y ago
    I remember top loaders being the norm - maybe 30 years or so ago but I am very old.
- otterley 12y ago
  I think this comment is misleading. In the article you're referring to, it's the more wasteful top-loaders whose performance got worse. The front-loaders which use less water and electricity worked just fine.

DodgyEggplant 12y ago

Free markets are bad in adjusting for environment costs. What you say here could be useful if implemented into some tax benefits for energy saving products. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem

zo1 12y ago
"Free markets are bad in adjusting for environment costs" The concept of "environment" is completely in-congruent with the free market. Because, if indeed you had a "Free market", you'd have to concede that everything is on the market. That includes public property, which is practically never for sale and are mostly hoarded by the state without any chance of private ownership/transfer. That's called a monopoly. Individuals/entities have an incentive to abuse un-ownable(public) property, rather than to develop/protect it like they do for private-property. So, perhaps you should change your comment to "Regulated markets in the presence of a monopoly state are bad in adjusting for environment costs." But if we indeed had a free-market, I'd concede that there are a few examples where the market would be slow to "adjust its costs". Prime examples would be air and ocean pollution because they're currently technologically unfeasible to own/delineate.
- DodgyEggplant 12y ago
  Completely agree with "regulated markets", or better "lobbied government markets". The point in question, however, is that if everyone is doing the best for her/his own interests, there is no invisible hand for the environment: the free rider problem. In Adam Smith's defence, in his times people were not even close to the modern times of extensive planet resources dilution, oceans, forests etc
  - zo1 12y ago
    Well, I guess that depends on our definition of environment. It's clearly vague, and the lines are completely blurred. So yes, I'd agree with you, there is no one that is currently interested in the stewardship of the "environment" except for principled individuals that believe it should be taken care of. There are plenty of examples where people own pieces of land, and they take very good care of it (and sometimes opposite). I grew up in a country where most low-mid and middle class individuals owned sizable plots of land. They spent quite a fair bit of time and money tending to their plots because it was theirs and represented value to them. Even more so for commercial versions of such ownership; particularly forestry enterprises. This is the case that free-market individuals make for the environment. Which is a concept that a lot of state-centered individuals find flawed in free-market thinking. Precisely because the definitions of "environment" differ. To state-centered individuals, the "environment" is something non-concrete, over-arching and pretty much difficult to delineate from the rest of the land. The opposite of that is where someone considers land to be theirs, for their exclusive use, and will thus develop it and maintain is value. If that value is due to the scenery, then it will be preserved.
    - DodgyEggplant 12y ago
      I think "environment" really means the larger eco-systems that "belong" to the planet or at least to many countries. Oceans, rivers etc.
      - zo1 12y ago
        So how does that figure into all the individual pieces of land that people own? Is my land not part of the larger eco-system of the planet? I'd argue it is, and I take pretty darn good care of it. Are we somehow saying that we can't extrapolate this to a larger scale? For further reading, you might find this interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox

lispm 12y ago

I've bought a slightly cheaper Miele washing machine recently. It's great and uses a lot less energy compared to my old one.

bradleyjg 12y ago

If a washing machine uses less water and electricity but fails to actually clean clothes, in what sense is it efficient? Already that's happened to the top load market: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704662604576202212717670514 http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405274870466260...

chestnut-tree 12y ago
Interesting...top-loading washing machines have never gained a foothold in the UK. Front-loading washing machines are the norm and always have been. Front-loading machines are perfectly capable of cleaning clothes, but sure there are some disadvantages compared to top-loaders: generally longer washing times, inability to add clothes once the wash cycle starts. I'm guessing that the high cost of front-loaders in the US is due to their low popularity?
- dazc 12y ago
  I remember top loaders being the norm - maybe 30 years or so ago but I am very old.
otterley 12y ago
I think this comment is misleading. In the article you're referring to, it's the more wasteful top-loaders whose performance got worse. The front-loaders which use less water and electricity worked just fine.