Fight Global Warming – Hand Wash Your Clothes

Posted by John Goetz

From the Creative Ways to Tackle Global Warming files:

It appears that the Australian Cotton Research and Development Corporation feels the need to develop an argument that cotton is a green alternative to polyester. According to Daily News & Analysis India, the CRDC has commissioned a “life cycle assessment” that compares the environmental impact of cotton and polyester T-shirts on their production, use and disposal stages, the “cradle to grave” approach. This assessment is being done by researcher Francisco Javier Navarro of the Queensland University of Technology’s Institute of Sustainable Resources.

According to the following excerpt: washing dirty linen yourself rather than relying on a machine could help cut down greenhouse gas emission levels… Now there’s an idea sure to gain a lot of traction in the modern world. Surely most of us want to return to that nostalgic era captured in the image above, back to the pre-industrial age when life was simpler and temperatures cooler.

The article continues: For example, washing and tumble drying a dirty T-shirt consumes three-quarters of the energy used in manufacturing and using it…This means our decisions on washing our clothes have a big impact on the carbon footprint of our clothing. It makes a huge difference in energy consumption to hang clothes out on a washing line to dry instead of using a tumble dryer.

OK, that seems to be pretty standard common-sense stuff. But wouldn’t polyester have the edge here, as it takes less time to dry a polyester leisure suit than it does a 100% cotton T-shirt? Well, the study actually seeks to break new ground.

The article concludes with the following:

One of the objectives of Navarro’s research is to analyse the effect of increasing the number of times T-shirts are worn before washing.

Navarro said the use of “smell-friendly” fibres would also assist in increasing the number of times a shirt is worn between washes. “Research shows that polyester is related to more intense sweat odour than cotton,” he said.

So, the suggestion is that we wear the cotton T-shirt more times between washes than the polyester shirt, thus negating the polyester advantage and therefore saving the planet. Now that’s clever, but Dr. Navarro might first want to check and make sure there is not a middle school boy out there somewhere holding a patent on that concept. Perhaps the study will extend this to underwear and socks and just about everything else we wear. No, wait, that has probably been patented by the same boy…

Regardless of who came up with the idea first, I believe this will go over well with those who use public transportation, as they are at the forefront in reducing their carbon footprint.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

68 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
dipole
September 9, 2008 4:02 am

Hi-tech hand washing:
http://www.leeds.gov.uk/templenewsam/farm/fm_dt.html
These would have been in use in the UK at least until the 1960s, I reckon.

Speed
September 9, 2008 4:21 am

End global warming. Bring back the Clothesline Canyon.
http://www.shorpy.com/node/4397

Bill Marsh
September 9, 2008 4:57 am

Yes, of course, we should turn off the air conditioning, unplug the computers, the dishwasher, not use the vacuum cleaner, use dry ice to cool the frig (or get rid of it entirely), stop cutting the lawn, etc.
In other words we should roll ourselves back to the late Middle Ages technologically.

September 9, 2008 5:00 am


Dry Ice? What and release more CO2 into the atmosphere? Sheesh!

Editor
September 9, 2008 5:25 am

Speed (04:21:47) :
End global warming. Bring back the Clothesline Canyon.
http://www.shorpy.com/node/4397
If there were a mandate that all clothes be white, that would increase the Earth’s albedo and further help to Save the Planet(tm).

Mike Bryant
September 9, 2008 5:57 am

Good idea Ric,
Congress needs to also outlaw all paint except white.

Mike Bryant
September 9, 2008 5:57 am

All pets too.

September 9, 2008 6:00 am

This is a particular bugbear of mine. Tumble dryers aside. Over-washing aside. Over-warm washing aside. Too often washing, etc….
Perfumes in the form of “fabric conditioners” are a particularly pernicious attack on our immune system and long term health analysis is non-existent.
In the UK we have a company, Johnston, who label themselves “A family company” but who’s adverts always elicit shouted “A family killing company” in our house. They produce some of the most vile pestilence ever conceived.
Spray-on in several shades. Plug-in “air freshener” with names such as “open window” seriously – it boggles belief, open a window why don’t you. Stuff to give your taps (faucets)a shine. Stuff to spray on your carpet. A cornucopia of over-indulgent, not to mention poisonous ways to spend your disposable income AND KILL EVERYONE IN YOUR FAMILY.
There was an advert on TV last year where the makers proclaimed that concentrating their, probably destined to be effluent before some wag decided it would sell, “product” would reduce the numbers of trucks carrying said muck to the supermarket.
Imagine how many trucks would be needed to carry zero of these, and related boxes of concentrated, lingering death.
Chemical companies should be on trial for crimes against humanity but would probably claim that in a free market society people are able to purchase as they will.
As usual education is everything. Just say no.

Jeff Alberts
September 9, 2008 7:26 am

OK, that seems to be pretty standard common-sense stuff.

Sorry but it doesn’t. Make more efficient washers and dryers, there, problem solved.
Besides, you’re not just drying one Tshirt, at least I hope you’re not. You’re drying 20 or more items, so that energy consumption suddenly gets spread across all those items. Also, if you live in an apartment, you don’t have a yard to put up a clothesline. Again the “solutions” ignore a great number of people.

Jeff Alberts
September 9, 2008 7:27 am

Chemical companies should be on trial for crimes against humanity but would probably claim that in a free market society people are able to purchase as they will.

Soooo, you don’t wash your clothes?

John-X
September 9, 2008 7:29 am

Johnnyb (21:20:49) :
“Anyone ever been to Lubbock, Texas in the winter or spring?”
Not on purpose.

Jeff Alberts
September 9, 2008 7:31 am

It seems to me that we could all live a life of luxury and comfort if we just didn’t live as long. We could cram all our carbon footprint into, let’s say, 30 years. As we turned 30 an implant in our hand would light up and we would be sent off to a place, let’s call it Sancutary, where we are told we all renew but in reality we are just killed. At least we would have had a great 30 years.

As long as I get to play around with Farah Fawcett in her prime… 😉

Mike Bryant
September 9, 2008 7:38 am

To the reveal,
I am happy to see more mainstream environmentalists on this site… welcome.

Bill Marsh
September 9, 2008 7:45 am

Jeff Alberts<
“We have a runner!” Computer, “Tracking!”

Gus
September 9, 2008 7:46 am

I suspect that most of the radical environmental movement is populated by luddites in disguise. I doubt that they will be satisfied until humanity’s progress is reversed to stone age levels.

Dan McCune
September 9, 2008 7:46 am

Hang drying your clothes is subject to the same limitations as solar and wind power if you live anywhere but in a tropical climate. From December to March my T-Shirts would have to freeze dry.

Mike Bryant
September 9, 2008 7:51 am

Speaking of science fiction, I always thought that the future would be silver jumpsuits and jetpacks. Then I noticed that in many sci-fi movies, the hero would decide to remain in the past.
Could the greenies be so disappointed that we don’t have jetpacks yet, that they decided to chuck it all and head for the past?

Fred
September 9, 2008 7:55 am

Hmmm Maybe it’s a climate thing/busyness thing.
Where I live I’d have to fight way though 2-3 snow pack in winter to hang laundry…that would probably freeze, and eventually, freeze dry though it might take a week. Up north it might take less time, it’s colder and dryer there.
In summer, assuming it wasn’t actually raining ( hah!) , or so humid mold would grow, or that I was even around long enough to take it in, I’m sure it a viable task ,except I really hate hanging/retreiving laundry at 11pm in the dark which is when after dinner it’s time for such things.
And speaking of just washing… I’m pretty sure my machine does a less water intensive job than I would over an entire load, and does it faster, and better.
Busy bodies, away with them.

David
September 9, 2008 10:00 am

“For example, washing and tumble drying a dirty T-shirt consumes three-quarters of the energy used in manufacturing and using it…”
Does anyone else think that they’re actually talking about putting one single dirty T-shirt in the washing machine and then drying it all by itself in the dryer?

Steve in SC
September 9, 2008 10:56 am

Line drying is actually better for the clothes.
Several precautions are in order however.
1. No bird feeders within 1/2 mile of the clothesline.
2. No trees within 50 yards of the clothesline.
3. No line drying below 35 deg F.
4. A minimum of 1/2 acre of ant free land is required for the clothesline area.
5. If there are any pokeberry plants within a mile they must be eradicated.

Lichanos
September 9, 2008 11:23 am

Yes, I like to line dry my clothes. They smell nice, and it’s easier on the fabric. Of course, you can’t do it every day, but we do it a lot now, and it reduces our energy consumption and bill.
Nothing earthshaking here, but using a clothesline is a lot easier than the effort it takes to handwash clothes!

Les Johnson
September 9, 2008 12:52 pm

Steve in SC: One more item to add to the list of precautions when air drying clothes.
No Blow flies. Within a thousand miles.
When I lived in Nigeria, if the clothes dryer was not working, then all clothes that were hung to dry, had to be ironed. Even underpants. Especially underpants.
Flies would lay eggs in the wet clothes. The eggs would hatch, and if you were wearing them, burrow into the body. Then they feed, grow, and burrow back out.
After one buddy had an infestation, the clothes dryer was the ONE appliance I ensured that did work. Well, that and the coffee machine. Oh, and the Margarita maker.

Les Johnson
September 9, 2008 1:09 pm

David: Your Does anyone else think that they’re actually talking about putting one single dirty T-shirt in the washing machine and then drying it all by itself in the dryer?
I haven’t actually seen the numbers for T-shirts, but I will assume its a similar situation to styrofoam cups.
One city in Canada banned the styrofoam, on supposedly energy efficiency grounds. It turned out that paper cups require more energy to make, and even ceramic mugs are not energy competitive if you do not wash a full load of mugs. Even then, the mugs have to be washed in a machine (much more efficient), and not by hand.
Intuitively, I think the t-shirts falls into the same model. If its not a full load, it takes less energy to make new ones. Especially when using a dryer.

Mike Bryant
September 9, 2008 1:31 pm

There is absolutely no problem with flies burrowing into your flesh and then burrowing out, as long as you are fighting global warming.
The Margarita maker is THE one appliance that is most responsible for global warming.
Actually if the greens let us take our Margaritas back with us to the sixteenth century, it might not be so bad.

james griffin
September 9, 2008 1:40 pm

I dont know if we should laugh or cry………the following article on this website clearly shows a continuing downward trend in temps.
There is no global warming.
Beggars belief.
James

Verified by MonsterInsights