And your new gas stove.
Ever since Gerald Ford’s administration, federal regulators have been trying to make, and have succeeded in making, various appliances less useful.
President Trump’s people put a pause to some of that. Biden’s employees have started it going again.
The latest is washing machines. They already use less water than their counterparts of 20 years ago. Biden’s regulators want to require that new washing machines use even less water. This would mean that washing your clothes will take longer and/or that your clothes will come out dirtier.
Collin Anderson writes:
Biden’s Energy Department last month proposed new efficiency standards for washing machines that would require new appliances to use considerably less water, all in an effort to “confront the global climate crisis.” Those mandates would force manufacturers to reduce cleaning performance to ensure their machines comply, leading industry giants such as Whirlpool said in public comments on the rule. They’ll also make the appliances more expensive and laundry day a headache—each cycle will take longer, the detergent will cost more, and in the end, the clothes will be less clean, the manufacturers say.
The proposed washing machine rule marks the latest example of the administration turning to consumer regulations to advance its climate change goals. Last month, the Energy Department published an analysis of its proposed cooking appliance efficiency regulations, which it found would effectively ban half of all gas stoves on the U.S. market from being sold. The department has also proposed new efficiency standards for refrigerators, which could come into effect in 2027. “Collectively these energy efficiency actions … support President Biden’s ambitious clean energy agenda to combat the climate crisis,” the Energy Department said in February.
How exactly does using less water “confront the global climate crisis?” Are his regulators even aware that the main user of water in the United States is agriculture? Allowing farmers to sell the water allocated to them rather than use it in low-value uses would make water more plentiful to us consumers. The water saved if the new regulations even achieved their stated goal would be a small fraction of one percent of the water that could be saved if farmers cut their usage by only one percent. Co-blogger Scott Sumner gives some of the data on water usage here.
READER COMMENTS
Jon Murphy
Mar 15 2023 at 8:26am
Another possible outcome is shorter lifespan of clothes. Detergent is harsh on clothing. If it’s not properly rinsed out, it’ll eat away at the fabric. So, the water restrictions could lead to dirtier clothes and shorter lifespan of clothes.
James Hanley
Mar 15 2023 at 9:35am
If reducing water before was good, further reducing it must be even better. The ideal washing machine uses no water at all!
BS
Mar 15 2023 at 3:42pm
So it may be necessary to wash twice. (Also harder on clothes.)
Kind of like how 2 flushes of a 3 or 3.5 gallon toilet save water vs 1 flush of 5.
David Seltzer
Mar 15 2023 at 6:21pm
BS…You beat me to it! Drat!!!
David Seltzer
Mar 15 2023 at 6:30pm
If It’s necessary to wash my clothes twice to get them clean and fresh smelling, am I not using the same amount of water as my previous washing machine? Where is the energy saving ?
Jose Pablo
Mar 15 2023 at 9:31pm
If we want to reduce the amount of water for domestic use, wouldn’t be more effective to introduce a Pigouvian tax in water bills?
And it could be interesting to point out some data:
Only 12% of the total water consumption in the US is used for domestic purposes. Of this 20% is used in washing machines. That means washing machines represent around 2.4% of the total water consumption.
Let’s say that 20% efficiency increase in water consumption can be achieved (I totally made up the figure, but sounds ambitious). In this case, the total savings would be around 0.5% of the total consumption.
Maybe we are talking about “virtue signaling” measure, not about fighting climate change.
If we take into account only the domestic consumption the savings for this 20% increase in efficiency would be around 4% of the domestic consumption. Not bad, but around 17% of the total domestic water consumption is lost thru leakages (Non Revenue Water). The best managed water system have NRW rates as low as 5%. That means that around 10% of total water consumption could be saved just reducing leakages.
But “reducing leakages” requires serious planning and competent work. Drafting new regulation on the other hand … well, anyone can do it overnight
Jon Murphy
Mar 16 2023 at 6:48am
A Pigouvian tax is probably not the most effective or efficient means given water prices are subsidized. Just let the market work.
Additionally, there’s no externality here.
Jose Pablo
Mar 16 2023 at 2:20pm
new appliances to use considerably less water, all in an effort to “confront the global climate crisis.”
The Biden’s Energy Department seems to think otherwise. And it is not even a externality, it is a “crisis”!
Jose Pablo
Mar 15 2023 at 9:49pm
86% of the US population is served by public water systems.
Being this the case I very much doubt that the consumers are paying the full cost (included a market return on infrastructure investment) incurred in the water management cycle.
So we very likely are in the schizophrenic (but usual) situation in which the government is incentivizing water consumption thru subsidies and, at the same time, enacting new regulation to reduce water consumption.
[Any specific data/information on these very likely subsidies?]
Jose Pablo
Mar 15 2023 at 10:17pm
https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/drinking-water-grants
So, the EPA is subsidizing the consumption of water (obviously with the best intentions), but water consumption is bad for the environment but, wait, EPA is the agency in charge of protecting the environment …. so it subsidizes an environmentally damaging activity?
Or what about Biden saying that the government is going to stop subsidizing US cotton farmers in the west
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/federal-dollars-are-financing-the-water-crisis-in-the-west/
nah! … irrigation represents 37% of water consumption (3 times the domestic one) …that looks like a lot of voters, right? (and very noisy ones too)
Ian Fillmore
Mar 16 2023 at 2:53pm
Several years ago our washer/dryer wore out, so we bought a new set. We deliberately went with the simple, upright washer. Even then, it still came with “high-efficiency” settings to use less water. After maybe six months of using it, the thing broke. When the repairman came, he told us that the agitator in the center had been completely stripped. He said this was pretty common. With small amounts of water in the machine, it becomes very difficult for the agitator to rotate. I suppose the parts could be engineered to be stronger, but that would probably make the machine both more expensive and less environmentally friendly to manufacture. The repairman advised us to always run the machine on the “Deep Water Wash” setting, which simply fills the machine completely with water every time—effectively converting the machine back into a “low-efficiency” washer. It’s worked fine ever since.
I almost wonder if the manufacturer knew that the “high-efficiency” setting had problems but was required to provide it to satisfy some regulation. However, to satisfy its customers that wanted, you know, a working washing machine, they built in this workaround.
Anonymous
Mar 16 2023 at 9:23pm
So what about all the places that have plenty of water? It’s not like the water is destroyed when you use it, but we have to suffer too, for nothing.
Jose Pablo
Mar 16 2023 at 9:58pm
That’s a good point. The Energy Department should clarify the conexion between water consumption and the “climate change crisis”.
My understanding would be that the “water problem” is a consequence (not a cause) of climate change and that is related mainly with its “scarcity” which, obviously, has a huge “local” variability.
But “pricing” is the right mechanism to solve a scarcity problem, isn’t it?. And water pricing is local, so it can be easily adapted to very different local conditions (Federal regulations, on the other hand …)
Quoting Richard W Fulner in a recent coment to Pierre’s last post:
“Replacing prices – replacing information – with power is a recipe for poverty. We are knowledge-based lifeforms who perform poorly in a world of disinformation.”
Comments are closed.