It's no secret that a great way to reduce your household carbon footprint is to 1) switch to cold water when you wash your clothes, 2) use only the necessary amount of detergent and 3) hang your clothes out to dry. #1 is really the biggest energy saver - it takes about 3 times the electricity to use hot water in the wash as it does to run the dryer. Doing away with both is significant - the estimates I'm familiar with say you'll cut about 600 kilograms of carbon emissions by doing laundry without hot water or the dryer.
This hasn't been a hardship for us over the years, but it used to get tricky when the weather didn't cooperate (I never mastered the art of freeze drying the laundry). These days I really enjoy using a hanging rack, and I found one that I like so much that I actually wanted to recommend it: the *insert trumpet fanfare here* Moerman Laundry Solutions Y-Airer Indoor Folding Clothes Drying Rack. It easily holds a full load of laundry (3 people), works great inside or out, and folds up so compactly that it slides between our washer and dryer. (At Amazon HERE)
We also hand washed for many years, which takes off another 90 kg or so a year. I also enjoyed the rhythm of this chore, even when it was washing around 20 diapers a day! :) Our faithful Rapid Washer even made the trip with us to Cambodia, where it finally entered its rest due to rust (at Lehman's HERE). We replaced it with the plastic model (HERE), which won't ever rust (but I still miss our Rapid Washer, perhaps due more to nostalgia than to any real advantage). I usually use these in a 5 gallon bucket and have always been really satisfied with how clean our clothes get with this method.
There are other considerations besides just water usage and carbon footprint, chief among which may be highlighted in a recent study of microplastic pollution. Basically, our synthetic materials are shedding in the wash and entering the ecosystems around us at alarmingly high rates. I'm really thinking about some of the items in my wardrobe and keeping an eye out for better understandings of the impacts:
"'Polyester is heavier than water and pollutes bottom sediments where most marine life lives,' he says. Once in the marine system, they get taken up by filter feeders like clams, mussels, and small fish like anchovies, sardines, etc., which are then eaten by larger fish.
"That concerns Browne too. His work with shellfish has shown that once ingested by animals, microplastic can be taken up and stored by tissues and cells. This bioaccumulation of pollutants can have negative consequences for wildlife and humans.
"Courtney Arthur, research coordinator with NOAA Marine Debris Program, says the issue is on NOAA's radar, and expects research on microplastics and the effects on marine life to be a hot topic among scientists over the next few years. But for now, she says, the bottom line is still unclear.
"'We don't know the extent of injury at this point. We do know some marine animals ingest plastics, even down to mollusks like mussels and clams. We know it's possible they could be accumulating in the food chain,' says Arthur. 'All spectrum of marine life has the potential to take in these small particles, but at this point, it's hard to say how much harm is being done.'" (at Grist, HERE, and more HERE at Ecouterre)Happy washing!
0 comments:
Post a Comment