« It is worse than you think | Main | The virtues of inegalitarian American philanthropy »
The Fed's Dirty Laundry and Yours
Not content to kill people with CAFE standards the Federal government is now messing up our laundry. So called "energy-efficiency" standards have severely reduced the cleaning ability of new laundry marchines. Who says? Here is Consumer Reports:
Not so long ago you could count on most washers to get your clothes very clean. Not anymore. Our latest tests found huge performance differences among machines. Some left our stain-soaked swatches nearly as dirty as they were before washing. For best results, you’ll have to spend $900 or more. (italics added)
What happened? As of January, the U.S. Department of Energy has required washers to use 21 percent less energy, a goal we wholeheartedly support. But our tests have found that traditional top-loaders, those with the familiar center-post agitators, are having a tough time wringing out those savings without sacrificing cleaning ability, the main reason you buy a washer.
I too support the goal of having washers use 21 percent less energy. Hell, I support the goal of having washers use no energy at all. Let's pass a law.
Energy efficiency sounds so nice. Who could be against efficiency? Tradeofs, however, cannot be avoided. Thus, energy-efficiency really means that the government is going to choose how white your shirts are gonna be.
Ironically, the law could well reduce cleanliness and increase energy use. If the new washers are as bad as Consumer Reports say they are people will just start to wash everything twice.
Addendum 1: Prominent members of a certain political party often promote the theory that "if we make them build it, the savings will come" but, as we all know, ignoring tradeoffs is a sure sign of discredited crackpot economics.
Addendum 2: CEI suggests you email some virtual underwear to the Secretary of Energy in protest.
Posted by Alex Tabarrok on September 11, 2007 at 08:00 AM in Economics | Permalink
Comments
Well-said, Dr. Tabarrok!
Posted by: Chris Meisenzahl at Sep 11, 2007 8:19:20 AM
There ARE washers that get clothes clean. They're side loaders. So the DOE has basically mandated top loaders out of existance.
Side loaders are fine if that's what you want, but what if what you want is a top loader?
Once again, choice has been sacrificed to the leftist agenda.
Posted by: Buzzcut at Sep 11, 2007 8:21:34 AM
If the machine doesn't wash my clothes, it's not efficient. Zero, nada!
(Efficiency) = (Effect)/(Energy)
If you reduce (Energy) by 21%, it *does not* mean that efficiency rises. In fact, if (Effect) [in the current case, clean clothes] is reduced; then, Efficiency drops to zero.
Posted by: luispedro at Sep 11, 2007 8:33:12 AM
"Not content to kill people with CAFE standards "
I think the source for this was uninformed about the study that looked at actual data on deaths instead of crash test with dummies. Large cars are only safer for their occupants, they are more dangerous for people in other cars and vehicle quality is a much more important safety factor than weight.
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/
assets/images/2002/Aug-26-2002/SUV-report.pdf
Posted by: joan at Sep 11, 2007 8:34:39 AM
my prediction: Give it 3-5 years and the lower end washing machines (including top loaders) will work just fine with the new energy standards. In the long run, it seems entirely plausible that these types of regulations end up improving energy efficiency at reasonable cost (although I would have preferred an "energy tax" for less efficient machines, which is essentially the CAFE policy).
Posted by: ZZZ at Sep 11, 2007 8:36:39 AM
Two subsidiary predictions. (1) The value of washing machines built before the energy legislation will of course rise, but also people able to keep those machines functioning beyond their expected lifespan will command a premium for their skills; and (2) people who wash their shirts twice instead of once will find their shirts falling to pieces faster so the environmental impact will be negative as shirts go landfillwards roughly twice as quickly.
Posted by: Seamus McCauley at Sep 11, 2007 8:43:58 AM
Is it automatically bad for the government to decide how clean our shirts should be? Let's say current detergent formulations were shown to kill 3 million babies annually via mother's milk, and that mandating different formulations would lead to increased ring around the collar. Isn't this a worthwhile tradeoff? Wouldn't the state have a legitimate regulatory interest in that case? By banning lead in gasoline it's possible the government decided how fast cars should go, but then again it does that anyway with speed limits. My question is whether this is *necessarily* bad, or whether you just object to the tradeoff in the washing machine example (my own domestic regulatory bete noire is low-flow toilets).
Posted by: Dan at Sep 11, 2007 9:00:20 AM
When they first mandated low-volume toilets, they were terrible and had to be flushed twice. But I've heard that the newer models are both water-saving AND work fine. FWIW
Posted by: mae at Sep 11, 2007 9:03:02 AM
"Is it automatically bad for the government to decide how clean our shirts should be?"
I'm not even really that libertarian, but yes, obviously, duh. Are you joking?
Posted by: josh at Sep 11, 2007 9:04:54 AM
I agree entirely: the idea that "if we make them build it, the [energy] savings will come" is crackpot economics, entirely at odds with every precept of microeconomics from Adam Smith forward.
For anyone to reasonably believe that this regulation could work, you'd have to imagine something like the following incredibly outlandish hypothetical could occur: consumers of washing machines and similar products would form a "Consumers Union," and would pay dues to this organization to obtain and test the washing machines for effectiveness. This "Consumers Union" would issue "Consumer Reports" on the (entirely hypothetical) "huge performance differences" between various washing machines, and consumers would use that information to choose the washing machines that actually performed better with less energy consumption. Manufacturers whose machines were not up to snuff would be forced to either improve their machines or exit the business.
Seriously, what's going to motivate consumers to form such an organization? An "invisible hand"? Get real.
Hmmm ... I wonder what this hypothetical "Consumer Reports" would say about irony detectors.
Posted by: alkali at Sep 11, 2007 9:06:53 AM
I think I would rather die if I have to eat less and wash my clothes by hand. On the other hand, if I die, I eat nothing and dirty no cloth. So everything comes to a wash - I wonder whether my washing machine could handle it.
Posted by: Yan Li at Sep 11, 2007 9:06:57 AM
Is there any evidence that a Ford Explorer is safer than a Honda Civic? The statement that worse fuel efficiency translates to a safer car is false.
Posted by: Jim Caserta at Sep 11, 2007 9:17:11 AM
Which is safer, a chevy cavalier or honda civic? Which gets better mileage?
Posted by: Jim Caserta at Sep 11, 2007 9:32:05 AM
For those who mentioned that the technology will come around to meet the standard eventually, thus the standard creates efficiency--why wouldn't the technology that you refer to have come to pass and be implemented in washing machines without the regulation? Similarly with low-flow toilets, yes, technology made them eventually feasible but that would have happened without the regulation. All the regulation did was make us spend the intervening time with no way to get rid of our crap.
Posted by: Wilson at Sep 11, 2007 9:34:00 AM
arghh...soon they're going to be rationing how much toilet paper one can use...with the mandatory switch to energy-efficient bulbs approaching (I hate the light that those give off--much less pleasing than the "Reveal" type bulbs I prefer to use), aesthetics and personal hygiene are taking a big hit to "eco-friendliness." I'd better stock up...
Posted by: mington at Sep 11, 2007 9:46:41 AM
For those who mentioned that the technology will come around to meet the standard eventually, thus the standard creates efficiency--why wouldn't the technology that you refer to have come to pass and be implemented in washing machines without the regulation?
Energy use by consumers imposes costs on other people (in the form of damage to the environment) that the consumer doesn't pay for ("externalities"). Accordingly, consumers value energy efficiency features of washing machines and other appliances less than they would if they actually bore those costs. By requiring a higher standard of energy efficiency, the government forces consumers to act as if they valued that feature more.
It is frequently suggested that replacing some part of income or payroll taxes with a tax on environmentally damaging methods of creating energy (a "carbon" tax) would be a more efficient way of causing consumers to take into account the costs of environmental damage when making purchasing decisions.
Posted by: alkali at Sep 11, 2007 9:52:05 AM
Why 21% Why not 22%? For that matter, why not 100% less energy. Let's give industry some real stretch goals. :-)
Posted by: Acad Ronin at Sep 11, 2007 9:54:12 AM
In all cases of which I am aware, the technology pre-existed the regulation in the market, but was not widely applied. The more efficient technology was substantially more expensive in the market, for the normal reasons. DOE then used far longer payback periods than most consumers are willing to accept to economically justify the new minimum standards.
While industry has used its involvement in the process to moderate the new standards and avoid the application of standards which would require the cross-licensing of a competitor's proprietary technology, I am aware of only one instance in which industry was able to "kill" a proposed standard: heat pump water heaters.
Posted by: Ed Reid at Sep 11, 2007 10:05:48 AM
Top loaders are so, 1990s. Front loaders are the way to go - and they use less water.
Posted by: Vincent Clement at Sep 11, 2007 10:06:57 AM
Alkali -- if there are externalities of the sort you say, then a far better solution is a tax on energy to internalize the externalities. Standards are inefficient.
The only decent argument I've heard for mandates of this sort are that many appliance purchases are made by landlords who do not pay the energy costs of the tenants or are made by tenants/owners who will not remain with the appliance long enough to have the energy savings "pay" for themselves. Not saying it's a good argument, just that it's plausible.
Posted by: ah at Sep 11, 2007 10:07:18 AM
Use a front loader.
Posted by: Katie at Sep 11, 2007 10:07:46 AM
ah (10:07 am): If only there were some way to tax you a nickel for not having read all four sentences of my very short comment (9:52 am).
Posted by: alkali at Sep 11, 2007 10:17:07 AM
here here. I've been disappointed in our brand new washer & dryer for months. more on the dryer side - it takes up to 2 hours to dry clothes in my 2007 dryer that took 1 hour in my previous 1987 dryer. Progress!
Posted by: mike at Sep 11, 2007 10:37:35 AM
Add me as one who finds the "Not content to kill people with CAFE standards" opener especially clueless.
Please read (pdf):
AN ANALYSIS OF TRAFFIC DEATHS BY VEHICLE TYPE AND MODEL
(I'm a mountain biker with a front-loading, low water use, washer. I find that it gets the dirt out, even when biking clothes are part of the regular load.)
Posted by: odograph at Sep 11, 2007 10:37:44 AM
BTW, the short answer to auto safety is to buy a Camry ... a Camry hybrid if you swing that way ;-)
Posted by: odograph at Sep 11, 2007 10:39:09 AM
