.jpg){kind=link}
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
To make progress we need to overcome the “Dragons of Inaction” – our distressing tendency to believe what our senses tell us, instead of listening to the warnings of climate scientists.
How your brain stops you from taking climate change seriously
Science Jan 4, 2019 7:13 PM EST — Updated on Jan 4, 2019 9:16 PM EST
By — Nsikan AkpanInaction on climate change has been stymied by politics, lobbying by energy companies and the natural pace of scientific research — but one of the most significant barriers is our own minds.
…
Finally, there are what Gifford calls “dragons of inaction” — the specific cognitive barriers that dominate someone’s view of climate change.
“The perception of not having control over the situation is certainly one of the biggest” barriers, Gifford said.
Whenever the NewsHour covers climate change, the most common responses we get from those who don’t believe that humans influence climate change point to the ice ages. They cite how the Earth has experienced natural cycles, between extreme cold and heat, for millennia.
…
For instance, even if many people know that the average American emits about 17 tons of carbon every year, they don’t realize half of those emissions could be eliminated with simple fixes.
…
Washing clothes in cold water can save up to 15 pounds of carbon emissions per load, depending on your washing machine and your energy supplier.
…
Read more: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/how-your-brain-stops-you-from-taking-climate-change-seriously
My Dragon of tedium almost defeated my struggle to read to the end of Nsikan Akpan’s rather long climate monologue. But what stood out more than anything is the sheer inanity of Akpan’s proposed solutions. Buying more electric cars. Washing clothes in cold water. Turning down home heating.
Instead of glorifying the utterly inconsequential 15 lb of CO2 you save by not heating the water you use to wash your clothes, instead of struggling to win people’s belief, lets sidestep the issue of whether people believe climate change is a problem, by converting the economy to zero carbon nuclear power, the way France did in the 1970s.
By embracing zero carbon nuclear power, greens would get their bipartisan support for a policy to reduce CO2 emissions, without upsetting people with ridiculous belief building exercises, and earnest campaigns to make us all feel virtuous about wearing smelly, badly washed clothes.
And having to utilize Weak Transient power supplies
The only way you get clothes clean in cold water requires surfactants and sometimes bleach, which these chemophobes despise.
My “Dragons of Inaction”, i.e., my Critical Thinking Skills, overcome any Precautionary Principals and engage my Null Hypothesis.
This is nothing but pathetic “actionable” information for the same silly Patagonia-clad twits who think they’re (gasp!) saving The Planet ™ by eschewing plastic straws. They try to out-virtue-signal each other (unintentionally hilariously) on a local blog in my town. “I’m GREEEEEENER than you are, I recycle PEEEEEEEE!!!” ad absurdum. But PBS and Guardian types eat that up. Playing to their base.
ok ALL detergents for laundry contain surfectants anyway so that points a dud
unless you grate bar soap and make your own?
in which case youd be adding washing soda if you want it to work better and maybe a tad of borax for extra stain removal?
most Aussies wash in cold water and have done for decades, i can get greasy engine oil soaked denims clean in cold washing by using either a few drops eucalyptus oil if I have it-or a cheap pump pack stain remover.
it means the household doesnt pay heaps for during the day water reheating and have sufficient for showers etc if on off peak.
and ps you only use bleach on whites, yes they make coloursaf bleaches too but they do fade clothes if used every wash, needless expense and the fear of germs that seems to have got a hold of the gullible.!
if youve not been working in the sewers or in an abbatoir then the need for antibacterial everythings made you a classic advertisers bunny
We use ammonia and soap. Manual dasher in a 5 gallon bucket for laundry. Living on a boat, we bathe in the ocean, wash and shower in tank water. Reverse osmosis watermaker with solar power. We make 35 gallons on a good solar day. About one gallon per load. Life in paradise off the grid.
We don’t begrudge anyone’s normal or even peculiar wash rituals. The energy consumed from our point of view is merely availability and a money issue. If you have access to cheap, plentiful water and affordable heat then your path is different.
I certainly don’t want somebody making decisions for us.
Mark
Sadly, we live in a regular household, although far from extravagant, with one male (me) and four females (including our dog, who almost doesn’t count except for her weekly bed wash).
Daily clothes washing is a ritual my wife and I endure with a fixed smile. Young women of 20 and 24 don’t really get the domestic thing, yet.
Our clothes are invariably washed at 40C, and there starts the problems.
Scum, bacteria and smells.
Whilst I recall my dear departed mother washing everything at near boiling point (good quality cotton in those days) pipes, tubes and washing machine internals were scoured and virtually boiled daily. Not now.
The ritual is , every so often, the machine must be pulled apart, nooks and crannies cleaned of scum by various means including copious amounts of hot water and chemicals, then the machine run, EMPTY, for a couple of boil washes. The manufacturers state only one, which is probably fine for the machine (no it’s not!) but not for the outlet pipes.
God forbid one leaves clothes in a machine for more than a few hours following a wash cycle completion because they come out stinking. Rinse and repeat.
I’m not even going to start on the wonders of the low volume toilet cisterns other than to say we had a Victorian style cistern until 5 years ago. One flush and everything was gone. At least two, usually three, and frequently four flushes now to rid the pan of it’s debris.
How on earth is all this progress?
Retirement looms. A boat is looking a fine option, just have to persuade the wife! 🙂
” At least two, usually three, and frequently four flushes now to rid the pan of it’s debris.”
As we used to say back in the late 60’s …. that’s some heavy shit, man.
Dave Barry once had an excellent article about smuggling a Canadian Hi-Flo toilet into the states because of government regulations making it impossible to get one here.
No idea if you can still get them there. Might have to go further afield these days.
~¿~
Going to nuclear is simply a good idea, to preserve our coal supplies for plastics and pharmaceuticals. We will always need gasoline and diesel for transportation as EV cars simply do not have the power density except in intercity taxi fleets which would have many interchangeable cars to work with.
However, going nuclear and allowing the alarmists to think if is good, as it serves the goal of decreasing emissions, means that we will never be able to kill the junk science that they are trying to scam the world with.
We need cheap, reliable energy, so nuclear is the best. But, we also need to kill the global warming scam and Agenda 21, the main monster, as well as dismantle the UN, which created this entire mess.
I’m surprised we don’t see activists milling around with “SAVE THE CARBON” signs.
For what use are we saving the Carbon?
What will we do with all the piles of carbon that will be accumulating?
/sarc
We should be returning it back into nature’s cycles where it can be better used.
Why in natatories usualy you can swim in warm water ?
If you swim in cold one, you get a cold, stay at home with fever and don’t walk around producing lots of CO2.
So let’s change that unnecessary heating of water.
At any point in time, the total sun’s energy that is directly intercepted by the Earth is distributed over half of the Earth’s surface area. This is considered the day side of the Earth. This is a fundamental truth and is not contested is it (other than perhaps during an eclipse)?
But the recent explanation here as to how the Stephen-Boltzmann law is applied to Earth in order to arrive at an expected temperature does not conform to that simple truth.
Consider a planar cross-section of Earth’s shadow. We can determine how much of the sun’s energy is blocked by the Earth to form this shadow by calculating the area of that circular shadow in the planar cross-section and multiplying it by a known rate of sun’s energy for Earth’s distance from the sun. Now we have the total amount of the sun’s energy that is blocked by the Earth to form the circular, planar shadow. The area of that circular planar shadow is 1/4 of the surface area of the Earth by definition of a sphere.
This is all fine so far. Next, we’d like to ‘average’ the received sun’s energy over all of Earth’s surface area.
The first step described in applying the Stephen-Boltzmann law is to divide that amount of the sun’s energy by 4 to arrive at this average since the Earth has four times more surface area than the circular planar shadow.
However, that same amount of the sun’s energy that is blocked by the Earth to form that circular planar shadow, is always illuminating half of the Earth (definition of a sphere). This is a fundamental truth, half of the Earth is receiving all of the sun’s energy that forms that shadow. Therefore, to average the amount of the sun’s energy hitting the Earth over the entire surface area we would divide it by two, not four.
A difference of a mere factor of two in the first step, dividing the sun’s energy by four rather than by two. Does that skew the result?
We still need to examine subsequent steps in the Stephen-Boltzmann law application for accuracy, but first what temperature is derived from the Stephen-Boltzmann law if we were to only modify the first step to remain in compliance with reality?
Wrong. You must account for the higher angles of incidence for surface locations at non-zero radii from dead center. When the sun is not directly overhead, any given solid angle of solar energy is dispersed over a larger surface area. Hence the factor of 4.
Another way to look at it is that all solar energy blocked by the earth, producing the shadow, must be eventually distributed over the entire surface, not just one hemisphere.
Floyd Doughty – Thanks for your response.
“Wrong”
Are you saying that half the Earth, the day side, does not receive all the energy from the sun?
” You must account for the higher angles of incidence for surface locations at non-zero radii from dead center. ”
Why? That’s considered in a subsequent step of the Stephen-Boltzmann law application where the amount of the sun’s energy is discounted by the Albedo at the contrived rate of 70%. We’ll examine that issue later.
“Another way to look at it is that all solar energy blocked by the earth, producing the shadow, must be eventually distributed over the entire surface, not just one hemisphere.”
All the energy blocked by the earth is already spread out over one hemisphere. There are two hemispheres, to get the average over the entire Earth, divide by the number of hemispheres (2).
To conflate the area of the cross-section of Earth’s shadow being 1/4 of the whole Earth is wrong. That is saying that only a quarter of the Earth is receiving the sun’s energy at any given time.
It’s really quite simple, half the Earth receives all the energy from the sun. To get an average, divide by two. Areas of the Earth receive the sun’s energy in a gradient over the half representing the day side. But that half is receiving all of the sun’s energy. Half.
Wrong again. Albedo has nothing to do with this simple concept. It’s all about basic geometry.
I’ll try once more, and then give up:
The total solar radiation illuminating the day side hemisphere is exactly equal to the total solar radiation that would illuminate a disk, perpendicular to the direction of flux, of radius R, where R is the radius of the Earth. The area of that disk is equal to (PI*R^2). The solar energy incident upon that disk then must be distributed over the entire surface area of the sphere, which is (4*PI*R^2). Notice the difference is a factor of 4?
If you are unable to understand this concept after I’ve explained it three (actually, two) different ways, then I can’t help you. Good luck. I have a feeling you’ll need it.
Floyd – I think you need luck in sorting out your human interaction. You have quite a bit to learn.
Floyd Doughty “The total solar radiation illuminating day side hemisphere”, averaged with the total solar radiation on the night side is … ”
(Total solar radiation illuminating day side) / 2
Thanks for clarifying.
“When the sun is not directly overhead, any given solid angle of solar energy is dispersed over a larger surface area.”
Before the sun’s energy is distributed over larger area it first has to penetrate further through the atmosphere. By the time it reaches the surface it has already been weakened in some cases to be insufficient to have a noticeable warming affect. If there are two walls of bricks: One at the equator one lying flat on the ground, the other at one of the poles arranged upright, so that the sun strikes both at the same perpendicular angle, they will not heat equally and at the same rate. We all know that the wall at the equator will become too hot to touch, while the one at a pole is likely to remain cold. Therefore the area rule can only be applied after the sun has traveled through the atmosphere, which is a short distance at the equator and bigger and bigger distance towards the poles.
Surely?
Nope. This discussion has nothing to do with temperatures, warming, or atmosphere. It’s strictly high school geometry. Radiant energy with an angle of incidence greater than 0 degrees is distributed over a larger area than radiant energy with a direction of travel that is normal to the surface. This is the case at every point on a sphere, except the point at which the normal is parallel to the direction of flux.
How much total radiant energy actually illuminates a sphere? The same amount that would illuminate a disk with the same radius as the sphere, which is perpendicular to the flux.
Floyd Doughty – “It’s strictly high school geometry.”
Exactly! But you don’t seem to see it. If I drive 40 miles in a hour and then stop and have lunch for an hour. I was driving for half the time and stopped for half the time, the average speed over the whole two hours is 40/2 = 20 mph. It doesn’t matter how much time I spent driving 60 mph in that first hour.
We derived how much energy from the sun is received by half the Earth (day side). To average that over the entire earth, we simply divide by two. It doesn’t matter how that energy is distributed over the day side.
Thomas Homer
That “flat earth” approximation myth is only valid “on average” across a mythical disk in space – at 40 degrees latitude on the globe – and is correct even at 40 latitude for only those two periods of the year when daily sunshine at top of atmosphere approximates the yearly average of 1362 watts/m^2. (Most users prefer Trenberth’s 1/4 diskworld though. )
OK, I’ll try just ONE MORE TIME. If the following explanation doesn’t work for you, nothing will, and I promise to stop trying, because this entire subject is really off topic for this thread. I’m posting in response to your initial post, since the column width is becoming rather narrow.
Your argument for dividing by 2 is correct if we were considering TOTAL energy in watts (or average flux in watts per square meter) over the entire day side hemisphere. But we’re not. We’re talking about actual flux experienced by each surface point of the day side hemisphere, which is NOT constant. You’re confusing total, or average energy with flux, or energy distribution.
Please follow this simple explanation: Let’s have a weak sun illuminating a sphere of radius R meters. Let’s also say that a surface at a right angle to the direction of the flux would experience 100 watts per square meter. First replace the sphere with a disk of radius R meters. To state the obvious, that disk intercepts EXACTLY the same amount of energy as the original day side hemisphere oriented towards the sun. Each point on the disk experiences precisely 100 watts per square meter because the surface of the disk at each point is perpendicular to the radiant energy. The TOTAL energy illuminating the disk is (100*PI*R^2) watts. Now make that disk into a stretchable membrane, and stretch it into a hemisphere with the convex side towards the sun. The edges of the hemisphere and original disk are coincident. The new membrane hemisphere also experiences a total of (100*PI*R^2) watts because the cross sectional area is the same as the disk. Isn’t that obvious? Now the total (100*PI*R^2) watts illuminating the day side hemisphere must be distributed over the entire sphere. So divide the total (100*PI*R^2) watts by the area of the sphere, which is (4*PI*R^2), to obtain the average flux over the entire sphere, which is 25 watts per square meter. Hence the factor of 4.
Look at it another way. The membrane hemisphere experiences the same total energy as the disk, namely (100*PI*R^2) watts. But the area of the hemisphere is twice that of the disk. So the AVERAGE flux per square meter of hemisphere surface must be half that of the disk, or 50 watts per square meter. So now you can do your divide by 2 thingy to get the average flux over the entire sphere, because the flux we just calculated for the day side hemisphere is already an average.
What’s twisting you off is that you assume the radiant energy received by every square meter of the hemisphere is the same, and equal to (in the example above) 100 watts per square meter. It isn’t. If it were, then a hemisphere would receive a total of (100*2*PI*R^2) watts, but a disk with the same cross sectional area would only receive (100*PI*R^2) watts. That would mean that a cylinder of parallel (nearly) rays from the sun with radius R and a specific flux density would impart twice as much total energy to a hemisphere than it would to a disk with the same area as the cylinder of rays. That’s insane, and reminds me of the kind of nutty arguments made by alarmists.
The only point on the hemisphere that receives the same flux as every point on the disk (100 watts per square meter), is the center point, where the surface is perpendicular to the direction of flux. Every other point on the hemisphere receives less, because of the curvature of the hemisphere. The amount of flux any point on the hemisphere receives is equal to (100*Cosine(theta)) watts per square meter, where theta is the incident angle of the radiation at that point on the surface. This is explained in more detail below, even though this concept should be obvious. At larger distances from the center, like near the edges, a square meter of flux grazes the surface, and so is spread over an area of (1/Cosine(theta))
square meters, where theta is the angle between the normal to the surface at that point and the incident ray. If you were to compute the integral of the energy illuminating the entire hemisphere, it would equal (100*PI*R^2) watts (the same as the disk would receive), but the actual flux at each point on the hemisphere would vary between 100 watts per square meter (at the center) and zero (at the edge).
There is only one case in which your calculation could possibly be correct. If each point of the hemisphere is irradiated with a flux that was parallel to the normal to the hemisphere at that point, your calculation works. That might be possible if the sun were replaced with a continuous hemisphere of an infinite number of “laser suns”. Each laser sun would emit an infinitely narrow beam of energy that intersected the day side hemisphere at an infinitesimal point where the normal at that point was parallel to the direction of flux. But that doesn’t happen in the real world.
Why doesn’t every point on the hemisphere experience the same radiant energy as every point on the disk (100 watts per square meter)? Maybe the following experiment will help you understand:
Take a sheet of paper. Draw 5 horizontal, equidistant, parallel lines all of the same length. Imagine a radiant source very far off to the right of the page – so far off that rays of radiation from this source are essentially parallel, at least over a delta distance of R, the radius of our sphere. Let’s say the parallel lines you drew are rays of flux. The lines are spaced 1 meter apart, and each line represents 100 watts. Also imagine the lines (hereafter, “rays”) replicate into the plane of the page, so the drawn rays actually represent 5*5=25 rays in a square cluster on a one meter grid. So this is a representation of a flux of 100 watts per square meter propagating to the left. Imagine that this is a representation of only a small portion of the total flux, and the rays actually replicate along both axes that are perpendicular to the rays, far beyond your page. Now draw a line intersecting and perpendicular to the rays. This represents a plane with a normal that is parallel to the direction of propagation. Each point on this plane experiences radiant energy with a flux of 100 watts per square meter. Now draw a line intersecting the rays, at a different angle to the rays. 45 degrees would do nicely. This is a plane at an angle to the illuminating energy. At the point where the new plane intersects the lowermost ray, draw a short line perpendicular to the new plane. This is called a “normal” of the plane. The angle between this new line and the rays is called the angle of incidence, theta. Now draw another line from this same point where the new plane intersects the lowest ray, perpendicular to the rays, and intersecting all rays. Notice that the length of this line between the top ray and bottom ray is shorter than the length of the angled line between the two rays. Using really simple geometry, the ratio of the lengths can be shown to be the Cosine of theta. Now considering each of the lines, which are actually planes intersecting the rays, the same amount of radiant energy must be distributed over a larger area on the slanted plane, relative to the perpendicular plane. Therefore, the flux (watts per square meter) illuminating the angled plane is less than that illuminating the perpendicular plane by a factor of Cosine theta. Now draw the projection of a section of hemisphere across the rays on your paper, convex to the right. Finally, you should realize that radiant energy intersects a hemisphere at varying incident angles, so not all points on the hemisphere experience the same value of flux.
OK, I am TRULY done with this topic now. If you can’t understand what’s going on by now, I’m not going to waste any more of my time.
” “The perception of not having control over the situation is certainly one of the biggest” barriers, Gifford said.” Right. Go watch a thunderstorm, and see how much control you can assert. Weather operates at such high localized power
fluxesas to completely overwhelm the influence of carbon dioxide and other minor greenhouse gases. A sensible observer quickly gives up the delusion that man has control over what the atmosphere does with heat.sorry – please delete “fluxes” for this to read sensibly. Bad engineer. No cookie.
100% agreed. Go nuclear, end of CO2 issues! The fact that the Green Blob won’t even consider this tells you all you need to know about their motives- which are NOT anything to do with CO2, despite having brainwashed legions of followers into thinking this is the case.
Why we are still paying for PBS/NPR is way beyond me. Not only do they push this nonsense, but we are forced to pay for it.
Proof of the existence of the “Uniparty”. “Budget Hawk” Ryan in charge. PBS still funded with big budget increases.
“Whenever the NewsHour covers climate change, the most common responses we get from those who don’t believe that humans influence climate change point to the ice ages. They cite how the Earth has experienced natural cycles, between extreme cold and heat, for millennia.”
Talk about the Dragons of Inaction. The ice age and other natural cycles were mentioned in the above article but the point was never disputed. Climate freaks never will talk about the ice age and natural cycles, ever. This article is no different.
Those dragons are haunting me – I feel sure that I will feel much relieved by fighting some decent windmills.
I wouldn’t wear cold washed clothes, it’s warm water dissolving fat.
Nsikan Akpan may wear uncleaned clothes, his problem 😀
Washing in cold water is sometimes best. link The clothing label will give you washing instructions. Insisting on hot water washing will harm some of your clothes and make you less comfortable.
Following one simple rule makes your life simpler. Sometimes it makes you worse off. On the other hand, trying to always get everything right is also guaranteed to make you worse off. Ya can’t win. 🙂
But has trouble killing Germs.
But has trouble killing Germs & Bacteria.
if plain simple soap and washing hands well removes the majority of bacteria…
then why the hell do you fear natural bacteria on clothes?
and if you SUNdry clothes than more get wiped out IF there was anything much there anyway
Modern again 😀
All well known, but as our water has less than 30°C, it has always to be warmed for washing.
stick woolens in a hot wash, even a warm one
and than go buy all new clothes
Woolens aren’t my favorite clothes 😀
Dry clothes in sun sounds nice, but I just look out of my window and search the sun and a certain warmth, unfortunately I don’t find , but it rains and will change in snow uring afternoon.
Haven’t you some better ideas, elect greens f. e. ??
😀
Is that your choice for futur and climate saving ?
Greenies wishfull thinking – back to the middle ages, back to the “darkbrown” roots, isn’t it ?
😀
Quite right. Speaking as a mere female who has done the washing all my adult life some of the ideas of washing fabrics by males on this thread is madness. Boiling clothes!Most new fabrics need cold water. Wool needs to be washed by hand in lukewarm water. Read the labels inside the clothes before purchasing is my humble advice to those who do not leave everything to their females
…so will peeing in the yard
about the same….nil
Why is this garbage always directed at 1st world countries?…when it’s 3rd world that’s increasing emissions
Why not do away with the washing machine altogether and tell your wives that they should waste their time using the washboard again? Washing by hand will make a glorious comeback. Such a low carbon approach surely is a great leap forward.
modern again
And the rivers water and fishes enjoy 😀
How many gigatons of co2 do wives emit whilst bashing clothes on rocks and washboards?
Did you factor in the increased respiration of the housewives doing the labor and shooting the breeze at the local pond/river/lake? 🙂
And then there will be 2 people washing clothes. Because she will tell you you can wash your own d… clothes.
Ugh.
They missed the most obvious solution of all.
Don’t wash them at all!
Heck, stop bathing as well. (My son would be ok with this, his mom & dad, not so much.)
This would be especially beneficial for hospitals.
Nothing kills the creepies like cold water.
Talk about a race to the bottom.
\sarcasm is now off for those in doubt.
It does sound to me like they are preparing us for an unreliable electrical grid.
I tried the cold water wash thing for a long time. Someone should tell soap manufacturers to sell soap that works in cold water and is fragrance free for sensitive skin. After double washing clothes and getting detergent stains on the clothes where the stuff didn’t wash out, I went to warm water. It works so much better. I’m even evil enough to use all hot water in special cases. Seriously, if changing the temperature of your wash water will save the planet, we’re all going to be fried anyway. It’s too serious to be saved from.
(Disclaimer: I do not believe we’re at that point.)
Next up…cold showers….
Solves the nonexistent population problem
Once upon a time, my dad was the copywriter for the Tide account. He was asked to set up the ad campaign in Germany. Here in the US at the time it was all about fighting the “dingy grey” you’d get doing your whites. The Germans typically did their “hot” loads at around 200°F. There was no such thing as a dingy grey load of whites.
so dissolve the powder in a bit of hot water first…or swap to a liquid detergent that isnt bulked up with fillers to make it look like a bargain
“How your brain stops you from taking climate change seriously”
All it takes is a brain with the capacity to look past the alarmist rhetoric and understand the science.
It’s a simple reflex against brainwashing 😀
Is it better to use hot or cold water to brain wash someone?
Make them warm and comfortable and lazy and they won’t even know they’ve been brain washed.
Check the label.
45 vol %
😀
So we need the yellow vest movement at the laundry now…..while the jet set flys overhead.
I’ll look at the cyclical AMO chart instead.
. . . and from that bastion of knowledge on which America depends comes this week’s lead article in the Harvard Business Report newsletter that even many of its readers couldn’t stomach . . .
The Story of Sustainability in 2018: “We Have About 12 Years Left”
https://hbr.org/2018/12/the-story-of-sustainability-in-2018-we-have-about-12-years-left?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter_weekly&utm_campaign=weeklyhotlist_not_activesubs&referral=00202&deliveryName=DM23125
Step lively now. Everyone back to their cold wash. Time is short.
It used to be five years that we had left.
Another attempt to ‘white wash’ AGW/Climate Change…..
I think you can take seriously climate change without freaking out over it. I can accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I have difficulty, regardless of the amount I read about it, accepting that the small increase in a trace gas can have such a drastic effect. Also, I just can’t accept that we really understand enough about the atmosphere to fully accept the theory that such a small change can have such a large effect – AND that we can quantify the change by 2100.
There are lots of other things to pick at, such as climate models, paleo evidence, and the like. But common sense tells me that we should wait before we become panic-stricken.
Notice, once again, the fatal propensity for proposing people do things which will have no effect on global CO2 emissions, which are supposed to be the problem.
Washing clothes in cold water can save up to 15 pounds of carbon emissions per load, depending on your washing machine and your energy supplier.
Probably. And how much would this lower the US 5 billion tons of CO2 emissions if we all did it? Tiny. Unmeasurable. And what effect would this have on the 37 billion the world emits….?
Exact same problem with the Ocasio-Cortez Green New Deal. It too will have negligible effects on global emissions.
So yet again the question: why do these people advocate doing things which have no effect on what they claim to be the problem, while refusing to advocate doing things which are necessary and effective if their account of the problem is correct?
I have a pair of undershorts the label of which advises me to ‘think climate…cold wash’.
I wish I was joking… but it’s true.
Well, if you turned them inside out you would get twice the wearing time so you could still wash in warm water while producing half the “carbon”.
…and then front and back as well!
Are they green shorts?
Don’t know about that, but they could get brown fast.
Yeah, yeah, it’s because of the “failure to communicate” climate properly; that’s why very little gets done. They just need to get the right message out, tailoring it to different groups. This is what they’ve been telling themselves (and whoever will listen) for over ten years now. Talk about cognitive dissonance.
Washing clothes in cold water is fine and better for the clothes anyways, however, it does little to prevent the climate from changing.
Why wash them at all or even buy them?
Street living people are apparently showing the way to go on this. Their perfume of cultural enrichment is ahead of the olfactory curve./
Okay, first off, excusing the inexcusable fact that CO2 is called ‘carbon’ to make it sound worse than it really is, how do you get 15 pounds of CO2 per wash? I use far more water in my morning shower with my high-pressure water saver shower head than my weekly laundry cycle. And my showers are very hot even if it high summer. If I am creating 15 pounds of CO2 per wash (I am not), then I must be creating 150 pounds of CO2 per morning shower. I seriously doubt my weekly laundry is creating 1/2 pound of CO2, much less 15 pounds of it.
Second, why is it possible for the earth to have natural hot-cold cycles in the past but not possible for it to have it now? By acknowledging that the climate changed in the past, these idiots just unknowingly admitted their argument is flawed.
Third, you will not be able to convince me that a gas that has gone from 0.035% of the atmosphere to 0.040% is some magical control knob. Related to this, I will start to pay more attention to alarmist when and only when their accuracy IMPROVES to 1% accurate. If you bat 0-for every time you step up to the plate, why should I believe you alone will win the World Series? In the same way, why should I believe people who have never been right over the long term to suddenly be right now?
It seems it is a permanent April Fools Day in ClimateAlarm Lalaland, problem is, the followers of the “true path” do not get the joke!
Thankfully we have the dragons on inaction to fight back the unicorn of regulating carbon (read: regulate/tax all aspects of life).
Iiiihhh.
Stinky green junkies.
“lets sidestep the issue of whether people believe climate change is a problem, by converting the economy to zero carbon nuclear power, the way France did in the 1970s”
Hey let’s not just stop at recommending more nuclear power. Here are some other suggestions for the CAGW crowd to reduce CO2:
stop fighting fracking–switching from coal to hydrocarbons reduces CO2 per unit of energy used
stop fighting GMO–genetically modified plants produce more with less energy
stop buying organic food, which also yields less relative to inputs
After their heads stop spinning, tell them they should also get behind Trump’s efforts to deal with China’s predatory trade policies, because of China’s coal power plant construction programs.
From the one-square of toilet paper school.
The proper way to use only one square of toilet paper:
First, fold the piece in half, then half again creating a triangle. Carefully tear off the top of the triangle, tuck that piece behind your left ear (you will need it later). Unfold the piece and put your middle finger of your right hand through the hole you created so that the paper is like a ring on your finger. Insert the middle finger into your anus and pull it out carefully grasping the paper to cover the soiled part of your finger and pull it over the finger to clean it off. Take the small piece from behind your ear and clean underneath the fingernail. Discard both pieces and flush.
“….Making the future tangible is only one of the psychological barriers that have made climate change into an elusive problem….”
I find it fascinating that the folks at PBS are fancying themselves amateur psychologists now. They have reached a level of enlightenment and righteousness on the issue of climate change that licences them to dictate our lifestyle to us to one degree or another. This of course precludes the possibility that there could be anything wrong with the “science” that they are being fed by the people they know are right.
When the mainstream media reaches this level of — for the lack of a better word — arrogance, it only serves to demonstrate the extent to which they can be duped by their illiteracy on scientific matters and the manner in which scientific discourse is supposed to work.
If in fact a collectivist mindset does indeed dominates the media, believing in group think (the masses are always right) all but eliminates the possibility of thinking independently for themselves on matters for which they have no background. Hence we have the lecturing on cold water clothes washing and veganism.
I couldn’t even force myself to read the whole PBS piece. The mind boggles too much.
Rather than saying the masses are always right, I probably should have said the consensus is always right.
Cold washing clothes is just fine! C’mon, pick the RIGHT detergent!
If you use the wrong kind, I agree, you will have bad results.
We started doing it to save on the electrical bill. Could care zip about the AGW hysteria, but also have no love for the electrical company.
But, even more funny. Make your own detergent. A complete different level of clean. Fragrance free, cheap and much better cleaner than the stuff you buy.
If anything every does smell. Put some Peroxide in the wash, most, if not all modern clothing is color fast with Peroxide and it will remove any smell.
Add Borax to the wash. Eliminates odors and adds to the cleaning power of the detergent so you can use less.
Washing in cold water does not get rid of bugs. Especially flea eggs and larvae.
Do have a scratchy New Year……..
R
If it is heat, then the dryer will kill those bugs and larvae. Have never had any such issues.
A dryer? How callous of you wasting energy like that.
I do have an answer to that too.
I have a non-vent electric dryer!
All that warm, dry and lint free air stays in the house and provides nice heat during most of the year. It is also 100% Hydro, so it reduces my gas furnace usage, a little too. So, essentially Zero CO2 on my part for the laundry. I could Virtue-Signal all day long about my laundry habits, if I believed in AGW hysterics.
You can make a filter using an old nylon stocking. As you point out, I would only do this with an electric dryer. If you want to get more fancy with the filter, you can.
I did this in my first house when I was single.
Right.
Do not wash it hot, but dry it hot!
😁😁😁😁😁
Though, the dryer uses 10x more energy than the washer. So, if you don’t care about your energy bill…
Not sure my comment posted.
R, if it is heat you are thinking about, then the dryer will kill them, and I’ve never had any such problems.
you saying you have a year round flea issue? then its not the washing you need to be looking at..its the house or pets.
I do hear usa had/has a bad bedbug problem
but they live in mattresses and carpets etc so the washing cycle isnt going to do diddly squat for that either is it?
Bedbugs were almost completely gone. As with Tuberculosis, measles, and many other diseases.
Persistent tolerance and reinforcement of (near-insane) “homeless” residents by politicians, plus 30 million Illegal aliens not inspected at entry points across the border as at Ellis Island (as at every entry port in years past!), have re-infested many counties and cities.
The problem with these solutions is carbon is not the real issue. The environmentalists use global warming to push a specific agenda. They already have a solution in mind — a socialist world government, the end of capitalism, etc., and anything that doesn’t lead in that direction will be ignored
It is 100% guaranteed that socialists, anti-capitalists, and advocates of a world government are using climate scaremongering to further their own agendas.
The difficulty in using that in any argument is that there are many who sincerely believe the scaremongering, and they probably comprise the majority. If you’re talking to one of them, they’ll obviously not accept your argument. And if you do happen to be talking to a communist who only pretends to believe the scaremongering is that it’s an easy accusation to deny, and an impossible one to prove.
But to your list above you can add “internationalists” who simply want to redistribute wealth. You can add government bureaucrats who want to raise taxes. You can add rent-seekers who want to build infrastructure, and politicians who can build power by spending money.
Luddites. Apologies to Luddites as they were essentially correct about mechanization destroying cottage industries.
NPR is a bad joke on US taxpayers.
By embracing zero carbon nuclear power… the CO2 emissions problem could be addressed, perhaps when combined with carbon capture. In that case, what would justify massive wealth transfers from Western nations, to countries who are too corrupt to have functioning economies of their own?
What do you suppose Zimbabwe would rather see: $5Billion USD per year, or emissions at the levels agreed to in Paris? Only with a strategy guaranteed to fail can you justify a massive, continuing cashectomy.
I’m doing my part.
I never add ice to my Scotch. And I always take a hybrid limo from the private airport to the global warming conferences, and I ask the maintenance team to use cold water to wash the G4.
Has your company ever had an energy savings program that didn’t include a reminder to turn out the lights when you leave a room?
If you read guidelines on how to implement an energy program that item is always included, even though it doesn’t actually have any appreciable impact. But the purpose isn’t to save energy — it’s to serve as a constant reminder to do things that save energy. And it gets people to use THAT as a reference point. (Wow, turning the heat down in the warehouse, is like turning the lights out 5 million times!)
Another of the big “dragons of inaction” the specific cognitive barriers that dominate someone’s view of ‘Climate Change’ is rational and critical thinking which draws one’s attention to the fact that there has been no scientific proof produced yet that CO2 causes Global Warming of any significance. Mere repeated propaganda will not get one to the starting line.
Instead of washing in cold water, how about not washing at all?
/sarc
the modern trend to only wear outerclothes once then be anal retentive about washing and bugs is hilarious
change underwear daily of course,
but if you work in an office or aircon sales job etc then you’d be damned lucky to break a sweat so how are the clothes magically “too dirty to wear”
air em out overnight
generations of people got by just fine doing that and saved a shitload of time n water n labour to boot.
I love the way the refute the skeptics by refuting an argument no skeptic is making.
I don’t know of anybody who claims that AGW can’t be true because of ice ages.
Burning a gallon of gas is supposedly 20 lbs of CO2.
Seems hard to believe that using cold water instead of warm (or even hot) would save 15 lbs.
The equivalent of 20 lbs of CO2 in my Prius gas tank gets me 50 miles…15 lbs gets my load of laundry warm or hot?
Let me know when Al Gore takes a bulldozer to his big mansion and stops using private jets… then we can talk about hot versus cold water. Till then… it’s just climate propaganda.
Ah but the bulldozer would need fossil fuels to operate. Better to knock the mansion down by hand.
So, disenchanted that their opponents have found ~9 objections to their argument, they express dismay when a 10th objection is also produced. I think not.
If you live in Arizona and the water out of the tap is warm, do you have to chill it for this to work??
I’m surprised that no one here knows that if you have a five or less year old washing machine bought in the US you likely don’t have hot water available in your washing machine. That freedom to choose to wash your clothes in hot water was taken away for most machines in early 2000’by agreement with green lobby to save energy, which usually is about Global Warming. If you have GE Energy Star labeled washer
go measure the temp of Hot Water settings. GE weebsite will tell you regulators control the temp and not to shut off the cold water valve just to get hot water. Government regs at work…. while other
Give arms like the CDC tell you to be sure and was
Bedding in hot water to kill bed bigs, diseases etc.
so if I need to, I’ll boil water on the stove and pour it into my state if the art washing machine… more evidence greens would be happy reducing it standard of living even if manmade global warming doesn’t exist.
I have purchased two different washing machines since 2000, neither has had any restriction on hot water use.
Anthony, with respect, I believe I said “5years or less” not since 2000.
I believe I said ‘likely’
I referenced Ebergy Star rating (which is on most major manufacturers, thus the ‘likely’ reference’
Challenge others who do meet that criteria to measure your temp output
When did you purchase yours, has it the industry Energy Star rating, and what is the hot water temp?
https://www.energy.gov/articles/new-energy-efficiency-standards-residential-clothes-washers-and-dishwashers-save-consumers
Does anyine really believe this was about saving consumers money..,, by force?
Nice that the gov is ‘making us’ save money by giving up our hot water.
https://cei.org/content/federal-efficiency-rules-ruin-washing-machines
I just bought a state of the art Samsung Inverter 6 KG washing machine in the Philippines for a friend of mine wanting to supplement her income and not do the dam laundry by hand. There was no hot water input. Just a cold water In. Most new washers in Asia are such, and the better ones are inverter moters, as are the A/C and fridge moters.
Mind you, the water temp can already be warm just coming out of the black poly pipe, especially if it is laying above ground. A better argument for cold water is just saving some money on your electric or gas bill. I find the laundry is done very well even on cold water.
Earthling: that’s great you like to wash clothes in cold water and that you recommend it….I don’t. Can I have my hot water back in my washing machine?
I’m often struck by greens and earthers who explain how their ways of doing things are so cool and work..for them…on things things that somehow ultimately and unnecessarily become a ‘one size (theirs) fits all’ mandatory law on how to conduct our daily hygiene.
Bruce, I think you can buy whatever washer you want in North America. You might have to shop around and get the model you want with hot and cold water in. Fill your boots, there is no shortage of brand new hot water washing machines in NA. And there ain’t no law about hot water washers now being illegal. Geez.
I am in Asia anyway if you read what I wrote, and the water is warm to hot that comes out of pipes that lay on the ground so having a hot water line in is redundant for hundreds of millions of people that mostly don’t have a hot water tank anyway. I am not telling you to wash your clothes in cold water, so don’t tell me how I should wash my clothes either. I only need hot water in a wash from time to time and it ain’t a big deal for me. I have hot water washers in a condo and a house in NA, and cold washes as good as hot for most things. I could care less about saving 15 pounds of CO2, but I might want to save a few bucks if the price of electricity for hot water is 25 cents Kw/hr.
Earthling:
“… so don’t tell me how I should wash my clothes either.”
Where in all of my comments on this issue, did I ever tell you how you should wash your clothes?
Sorry Bruce, maybe you right about not telling me how to wash my clothes. You told me I could and it is my right, and I only shared a personal experience that washing most stuff with cold water is just fine for me. I don’t think you need to extrapolate from that, that I am some rabid Green promoting that. In Asia where I am, the water already warm or hot, so no big deal.
I just don’t think there is a ban on buying a washing machine with hot water in. I just bought one for my Condo in NA and it had hot and cold in. It’s an option you can buy one with only a cold water inlet. I would never buy that in North America, but in Asia it makes sense because the water already warm or sometimes hot from the water pipes being exposed to sunlight. Not everywhere, but it hard to get cold water out of a pipe here in Southern Asia. The majority of hundreds of millions don’t have a hot water tank, so the manufacturers build those mainly for the third world markets. They are available in NA too, but I think you are leading people astray by stating our right to a hot water inlet on a washing machine has been taken away. When it comes to that, we can all invoke the Second Amendment and rightly so.
ANTHONY: FROM GE’S OWN TROUBLESHOOTING WEBSITE…
Washers – Hot Water Not Working or Not Hot Enough
Heating water in your home uses energy. To conserve energy, new washers are designed to limit the amount of hot water used by adding some cold water to the fill when you select HOT water. This allows the washer to fill without causing your water heater to need to replenish as much hot water, which reduces the amount of energy used by the water heater.
On most top load models with a lid lock, the unit will only fill with Hot water if the lid is down and locked. If the washer is set for hot or warm water and the lid is up, it will only fill with cold water. This is designed as a safety feature.
Effective March 6, 2015: The U.S. Department of Energy revised their standards and federal guidelines for hot water energy consumption for all clothes washers. These changes affect all washer manufacturers in order to save energy and conserve resources. All manufacturers must comply with the new standards.
We are committed to meet the Federal energy standards and deliver a product that upholds GE Appliances wash performance standards. To comply with these standards, HOT water temperature selection is a mixture of hot and cold water from your household plumbing. When you select HOT, you will receive some cold water with the fill; this is normal.
Since the appliance is designed to fill with limits on the amount of hot water filling the appliance, it is not recommended that the cold water supply be turned off during a HOT water fill. The appliance is designed to fill with a mixture of hot and cold water to save energy, and is operating normally when doing so.
Additionally, new laundry detergent is formulated to work with any water temperature for wash performance. For best wash performance, we recommend:
HE (high-efficiency) Detergents
Oxygen (Oxi) Detergents
Look for “HE” and/or “OXI” listed on the package and follow package instructions for best results
If you really obsessed with this Bruce, I suggest you turn off the cold water valve so it can’t mix the cold and hot. The washer won’t know the difference and will fill with hot water.
Alternatively, you could splice a tee into the hot water line and make both inlets only hot water. That way you could really get your laundry washed in as much hot water as you want. Hopefully you don’t shrink all your laundry.
Interesting though that they do this. Thanks for looking that up. Maybe it to protect people from their high tempature hot water tanks. The dish washer doesn’t do this, and there is a reason why the hotter the water, the better.
Earthling:
We are on a website where people make points and back them up when challenged. To suggest I’m obsessed… because I made a point and took the time to back it up when you challenged it, is a bit disengenuous. Why did you even challenge it?
Whether you and I are fine without being able to wash our clothes in hot water is not the point at all. And whether a housewife or househusband can reach back behind the machine and turn the cold water off isn’t the point either for crying out loud, first very few people will, second GE says DO NOT do that, third you will have no COLD rinse.
No, the posited point(s), which shouldn’t have been that difficult, is/are much bigger, and there are several.
One (posited) you can’t buy a hot water washing machine in the United States any more. Even you found that hard to believe.
Two, the government has taken that consumer choice away.
Three, Consumers don’t know it.
Four, the labels still say HOT and are therefore not only misleading, but fraudulent.
Fifth, its lowering the standard of living to take that choice away….all the articles in the world about when to use hot and cold are of no value if the choice has been taken from y you.
Sixth…this freedom, this choice, is taken away due to global warming alarmism.
As a lawyer it flies in the face of Federal Trade Commission, Consumer Protection laws, etc., as consumers throw their bedding, diapers, etc. in HOT water that is not hot at all, and they are told that it is hot when its not.
I’m not obsessed, but I’m fascinated you couldn’t care less about any of the above. That it doesn’t seem in the least bit problematic that an entire society, the entire US of A for that matter, might be being denied by its government the ability to buy a machine that washes clothes in hot water (without your fancy home fix like replumbing).
By the way, have you taken the temperature of the ‘hot’ water coming out of your new ‘hot’ water washing machine?
one of the most significant barriers is our own minds.
By this logic, I could justify the existence of magical unicorns. “Well, if I just believe in my heart that unicorns exist…”
Eric, first of all climate clowns are not washing their clothes in cold water nor are they driving electric cars. You and I are supposed to do that. See the climate overlords need to use everything they want to ban so as to…well, overlord. This is a strictly do as I say not as I do routine. Always has been, always will be.
I’m going to call BS on the claim that heating enough water for 1 load of clothes is going to create 15 pounds worth of CO2.
Maybe if it was an industrial sized washer, you were heating the water from just above 33F to 110F and both wash and rinse were done with hot water only. (Not warm)
And then only maybe.
PS, I was giving the moron the benefit of the doubt and assumed he meant CO2 when he just mentioned carbon.
An atom of carbon weighs about 1/3rd what a molecule of CO2 does, which would make his claims 3 times more ridiculous.
MarkW can call all the BS he wants, but MarkW is mathematically challenged.
…
The typical top loading washing machine uses 45 gallons of water per load. Let’s us assume that they use a “hot” wash and a “cold” rinse. That means that 22 gallons of water need to be heated. Now, assume that the water heater takes in water at 50 degrees F and heats it to 180 degrees F. 22 gallons of water weighs 180 lbs.
180-50= a delta T of 130. 180 lbs of water with delta T of 130 is 23400 BTU. You need 6.86 kwh to produce 23400 BTU.
..
Each kwh of energy from a coal burning power plant produces 2.07 lbs of CO2.
..
So 2.07 times 6.86 = 14 lbs of CO2
…
Hard to call BS on that MarkW
Ground temperature (water flowing in pipe to the house) = 50 degree F. Where? Upstate NY, ND, ID, MN, WI in mid-winter?
Most of US population is 60-65 degrees F starting temperature, or higher, in mid-winter.
Those areas are up to 75-82 or higher in mid-summer. http://www.greencastonline.com/tools/soil-temperature
Outlet water temperature from a hot water heater = 120 – 125 degrees F. NEVER 180!
More realistic Delta T = 125 – 70 = 55 degrees F, not 130. 65-70 degrees F if five foot ground temperature is colder at 55 degrees.
“Conveniently” assumed an “Electric” hot water heater and 33% power efficiency? Why? Few US hot water heaters are electric.
My gas hot water heater is 95% efficient at turning “raw” BTU’s into hot water!
Amazing the incorrect numbers you can generate by assuming incorrect starting points.
Outlet temperatures are not what the internal cutoff temperature for the water heater are.
…
You obviously don’t know how the control system for a water heater is set.
Steve,
Water heaters are NOT heating water to 180F, I have personally set in several Electric Water heaters, they ALL show the maximum heating range at 140-150F. That is the MAXIMUM, but most are set around 110-120 for home use, that is one reason why Automatic dishwasher have a built in heater to increase the heat for another 15F or so, to kill the germs on the dishes.
It is easy to change the heating settings, thus your statement is silly.
I have no doubt about what you have set the temp in water heaters for. However you don’t realize that the sensor you are making the setting for is the outlet temperature of the heater. Keep in mind that when the hot water flows thru the heater, the inlet temp is well below the outlet temp, and there are several minutes delay between the outflow and the turning on of the heating elements (electric) or initiation of gas burn (natural gas.) The sensor you are adjusting for is NOT the internal temperature of the tank inside of the water heater.
Again. No. The measured output water temperature is 122-128 degrees F. That is the bulk (average) temperature of all water in the water heater, and that bulk temperature is correct – regardless of your assumptions about 180 water right at the burner, the electric heat coil, or the safety fuse.
By the way Sunset, my calculations were conservative, in that I assumed a hot wash, cold rinse. Double everything I said if the rinse is hot/warm.
Again. Wrong.
Steve, the only thing that matters is what the outflow temperature is.
LOL @ RACookPE1978, “soil temperature” is not the temperature at 2-3 feet below the surface where most water pipes are buried.
Er, well, yes it is.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/temperature-for-3-or-4ft-underground.826193/
Oh, and keep in mind the distribution of the population of the USA when you calculate the “average.”
RACookPE1978 posts: “Conveniently” assumed an “Electric” hot water heater and 33% power efficiency?
…
Nope, and electric water heater is even more efficient than a gas heater.
Steve, where is the electricity coming from to power that Electric heater?
I notice you left that part out completely.
It comes from the wires that are attached from my home to the street.
…
What you want is better expressed by this:
…
Realistically, it depends a lot on your specific geographical location………which is why I used the “average” in the amount of CO2 per kwh produced.
Again. Not true. At any level of energy measurement.
If you think that your gas water heater is more efficient than an electric one, I suggest you wait for your gas water heater to fire up, then touch the flue pipe. You’lll note that it is hot/warm. Hot exhaust gas is venting out of your living space, and every BTU going up that pipe is wasted heat energy.
…
Electric water heaters have no flue pipe.
Not true. The 95% efficiency for the natural gas energy to hot water energy does, in fact, include those flue gas losses.
Steve,
Your assumption that the water will be heated to 180 degrees is:
a) correct?
b) incorrect?
c) biased?
d) not an assumption, but a data manipulation?
e) both b & c ?
f) both d & e ?
(EPA recommends 120 … since you believe that EPA is correct in all things green, you should recalculate with 120).
I just had a new electric water heater installed. It came with a factory pre-set temperature of 120 F. However, if you do not set the temperature to 140F you run the risk of having “smelly” water. This is caused by a harmless bacteria that exists at temperatures less than 140 F. There are massive scalding warnings pasted all over the outside of the heater and in the instructions if you adjust the temperature above 120 F. I adjusted my heater to 140 F. You just have to be smarter than the hot water.
1) Very few places in the world have cold water at 50F and even those places it’s only that cold during the winter.
2) No hot water heater heats to 180F, 110 to 120 max.
3) 45 gallons per load, you are delusional.
The reality is that based on the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, one can conclude that the climate change we are experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. There is plenty of scientific rationale to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. OK, the next load of laundry will be with only cold water and the climate crisis will be over and the IPCC will get defunded because there no more will be any climate related problems.
Washing clothes in cold water works fine if you don’t wear them much.
The massive increase in the use of salt in clothes detergent is starting to… DESTROY THE ENVIRONMENT.
No problem washing clothes.
Give me a river, give me women, give me time.
https://goo.gl/images/zZ2MC1
Especially if you live in a van down by the river.
In every ethnics narratives:
https://www.google.com/search?q=die+T%C3%B6chterd+des+H%C3%A4uptlings+waschen+am+fluss&oq=die+T%C3%B6chterd+des+H%C3%A4uptlings+waschen+am+fluss&aqs=chrome.
These people would be happier if we all had to force our women to wash clothes in cold water by hand.
The washing machine is a miracle device that frees many hours per week of labor in a household, and makes a higher standard of living quite attainable. You may think that eliminating the use of hot water is their goal, but they would rather eliminate the machine all together.
An oldie but goodie:
https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_and_the_magic_washing_machine
“Washing clothes in cold water can save up to 15 pounds of carbon emissions per load, depending on your washing machine and your energy supplier.”
If there was ANY truth in that statement, there would already be laws in California requiring all commercial laundries, all hospitals, all jails and prisons and all other institutions with laundry facilities to only use cold water.
No mention of any plan to follow through on their statements.
Newer GE and other washers prevent use of hot water to comply with law. Few people seem to know it. The water from my washer and the other 300 washers in this newer luxury apartment complex are lukewarm. We complained. From GE’s own troubleshooting website about ‘no hot water” complaints, the washer now mixes in cold water on the ‘hot water’ setting, but I assure you it is more than just a little cold water. Do not plan on washing guest’s bedding, killing many bacteria, etc in hot water just because your washing machine says ‘hot’. Use plan B whatever that is for you.
From GE’s own website on complaints about ‘no hot water’:
“Effective March 6, 2015: The U.S. Department of Energy revised their standards and federal guidelines for hot water energy consumption for all clothes washers. These changes affect all washer manufacturers in order to save energy and conserve resources. All manufacturers must comply with the new standards.
We are committed to meet the Federal energy standards and deliver a product that upholds GE Appliances wash performance standards. To comply with these standards, HOT water temperature selection is a mixture of hot and cold water from your household plumbing. When you select HOT, you will receive some cold water with the fill; this is normal. …… Since the appliance is designed to fill with limits on the amount of hot water filling the appliance, it is not recommended that the cold water supply be turned off during a HOT water fill. The appliance is designed to fill with a mixture of hot and cold water to save energy, and is operating normally when doing so.”
My view: The government has passed laws that effectively outlaw hot water washers. Like a lot of laws that say one thing but know the effect will eliminate something else, you can’t get, or are very likely not going to get, a newer hot water washing machine any more, because of the law. As I commented above, few people know it. And its my continued belief it all goes back to global warming. It is also my continued belief that it is another example of forced reduction in standard of living to satisfy GW alarmism.