Some appliances haven't really changed much over the years: toasters, irons, kettles. But some appliances have improved their energy efficiency (e.g. fridges and freezers) and some are a little bit more enviromentally friendly (e.g. washing machines).
If you have a (front-loading) washing machine that's still running from 20 years ago, it's probably using more water than a front-loading machine purchased today.
Let's say I buy a top-of-the line Miele washing machine for £1300 ($2000 / €1580) [1] that's built to last 20 years. But 5 years after buying this washing machine, new washing machine models start using 25% less water. I can continue using my washing machine, but it's no longer as efficient as newer models. On the other hand, by keeping my current machine I'm not adding to the growing scrapheap of discarded consumer products. So, for some appliances there is a trade-off between longevity and the possibility that future appliances may be more energy efficient.
If a washing machine uses less water and electricity but fails to actually clean clothes, in what sense is it efficient? Already that's happened to the top load market:
Interesting...top-loading washing machines have never gained a foothold in the UK. Front-loading washing machines are the norm and always have been. Front-loading machines are perfectly capable of cleaning clothes, but sure there are some disadvantages compared to top-loaders: generally longer washing times, inability to add clothes once the wash cycle starts. I'm guessing that the high cost of front-loaders in the US is due to their low popularity?
I think this comment is misleading. In the article you're referring to, it's the more wasteful top-loaders whose performance got worse. The front-loaders which use less water and electricity worked just fine.
Free markets are bad in adjusting for environment costs. What you say here could be useful if implemented into some tax benefits for energy saving products.
"Free markets are bad in adjusting for environment costs"
The concept of "environment" is completely in-congruent with the free market. Because, if indeed you had a "Free market", you'd have to concede that everything is on the market. That includes public property, which is practically never for sale and are mostly hoarded by the state without any chance of private ownership/transfer. That's called a monopoly. Individuals/entities have an incentive to abuse un-ownable(public) property, rather than to develop/protect it like they do for private-property.
So, perhaps you should change your comment to "Regulated markets in the presence of a monopoly state are bad in adjusting for environment costs."
But if we indeed had a free-market, I'd concede that there are a few examples where the market would be slow to "adjust its costs". Prime examples would be air and ocean pollution because they're currently technologically unfeasible to own/delineate.
"That includes public property, which is practically never for sale and are mostly hoarded by the state without any chance of private ownership/transfer. That's called a monopoly."
I don't see how that's a monopoly. They're holding an asset that they don't wish to sell, but there's plenty of competition in near-perfect substitutes. How is this more of a monopoly than Ted Turner's 2 million acres? You can't buy that specific piece of land, but there's lots of land for sale that might work very nearly as well for your purposes.
To illustrate my point: Please tell me where/how can I buy the land for a river/beach in the United States? How about some 30x30 meters of lagoon beach? I'm filthy rich, and I want to own a river... Thought so.
Here is the formal definition of monopoly that I just looked up: "the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service."
The fact that there are near-substitutes is a factor in preventing monopolies from forming in a free-market. Not so in the case of a state-lorded market, where there is no near-substitute or alternative for a lot of things. This encompasses a lot of things, and public property is one of them.
Another definition of monopoly: "a commodity or service in the exclusive control of a company of group." Let us not forget that the state owns all land, and you're merely renting it from them. If you doubt that, please proceed to not pay your property taxes and let us know how that goes for the "ownership" of your land/property. Or for that matter, hold land that the government wants; it will eventually cease it from you via eminent domain.
However, I will conceded that I probably didn't use the word monopoly in the standard, cookie definition. But that's usually the case when arguing against a behemothic concept such as the state. Perhaps you'd look past that, and understand the point I was trying to make rather than the pedantic, non-near perfect usage of a word. I tend to do that with words :)
If you restrict to seashore and similar areas that we have categorically removed from the market, then I totally agree that the government has claimed a monopoly on those areas. That's not all (or, I think, most) "public property".
Completely agree with "regulated markets", or better "lobbied government markets". The point in question, however, is that if everyone is doing the best for her/his own interests, there is no invisible hand for the environment: the free rider problem. In Adam Smith's defence, in his times people were not even close to the modern times of extensive planet resources dilution, oceans, forests etc
Well, I guess that depends on our definition of environment. It's clearly vague, and the lines are completely blurred.
So yes, I'd agree with you, there is no one that is currently interested in the stewardship of the "environment" except for principled individuals that believe it should be taken care of. There are plenty of examples where people own pieces of land, and they take very good care of it (and sometimes opposite). I grew up in a country where most low-mid and middle class individuals owned sizable plots of land. They spent quite a fair bit of time and money tending to their plots because it was theirs and represented value to them. Even more so for commercial versions of such ownership; particularly forestry enterprises.
This is the case that free-market individuals make for the environment. Which is a concept that a lot of state-centered individuals find flawed in free-market thinking. Precisely because the definitions of "environment" differ. To state-centered individuals, the "environment" is something non-concrete, over-arching and pretty much difficult to delineate from the rest of the land. The opposite of that is where someone considers land to be theirs, for their exclusive use, and will thus develop it and maintain is value. If that value is due to the scenery, then it will be preserved.
So how does that figure into all the individual pieces of land that people own? Is my land not part of the larger eco-system of the planet? I'd argue it is, and I take pretty darn good care of it. Are we somehow saying that we can't extrapolate this to a larger scale?
For further reading, you might find this interesting:
But if you have land near the ocean, you may sail a few miles and throw it there. Your land is clean - the eco-system is not. Or, say, you have a river, and take most of it's water: your land is better off, then next lands were the river would have flow to not so much, and so on.
Sure could, and I'm guessing the current law framework would semi-allow it. Do you think it would be different if people were allowed to own pieces of ocean/sea?
If you have a (front-loading) washing machine that's still running from 20 years ago, it's probably using more water than a front-loading machine purchased today.
Let's say I buy a top-of-the line Miele washing machine for £1300 ($2000 / €1580) [1] that's built to last 20 years. But 5 years after buying this washing machine, new washing machine models start using 25% less water. I can continue using my washing machine, but it's no longer as efficient as newer models. On the other hand, by keeping my current machine I'm not adding to the growing scrapheap of discarded consumer products. So, for some appliances there is a trade-off between longevity and the possibility that future appliances may be more energy efficient.
[1] Yes, you really can buy washing machines for £1300 http://www.johnlewis.com/miele-wkh-120-wps-washing-machine-8...