On Conservation: Front-Loading Washers and Tissues

{Editor’s Note: this is Day 4 of the EcoChallenge through the Northwest Earth Institute. You can read about the kickoff here or register here.}

ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND WATER CONSERVATION

As I’m writing this, some lovely men are installing our new, energy-efficient, front-loading washing machine. It is not our first front-loader. We bought one a few years ago, but that particular brand had some issues and several repairs. It was enough to make me rethink the front-loading option because the problem revolved around the piston and bearings that hold up the tub. One repairman claimed it was a common problem with front-loaders.

The other pro for reverting to a top-loader was money. We had $500 credit for the replacement, and the store carried a $500 Maytag top-loader for just that price. It wouldn’t cost us a thing (except buying a new product service plan). The lowest priced front loaders were $799 including an LG we liked. (Before knowing anything else about the brand, I simply liked its name: Life’s Good.)

Then I did my research looking for consumer reviews and recommendations from places like Consumer Reports. And I just couldn’t get past the green stats on front vs. top loaders. Even the HE top loaders aren’t as good.

According to the California Energy Commission, front loaders cut water use by nearly 40 percent. (25 gallons of water to the 40 gallons of a typical top loader.) That saves about 7,000 gallons of water per year. And, as I know from our previous washer, so much water gets squeezed out of the clothes, that dryer time is minimal. The yellow ENERGY STAR tag that comes with the washer informs me it only requires 97 kWh of electricity or about $10 annually.

In the long run, we’ll make our money back on the appliance’s cost. Probably in the short run, as the LG model suddenly went on sale for $649, so the cost difference was not much. (It was like a sign from the eco-Universe!) Can’t wait to try my first load of laundry.

On the energy front, I also want to give kudos to my husband who has turned off his laptop two nights in a row now. Nothing like being mentioned publicly in a blog to motivate you, right, Honey?

TRASH REDUCTION

My daughter has committed to reducing her tissue use. I don’t understand Sofie’s fascination, but I routinely find tissues among her dolls and animals, serving as blankets or clothing or horse saddles. While I admire her fashion creativity, I often cite the tree-killing defense and ask her to use something besides tissues. My daughter will agree amiably at the moment, but then I find that she continues to use them in her play.

However, for the EcoChallenge, Sofie has agreed to abstain. She’s using a hankerchief for her nose at night, and I guess the dolls and horses have to suffer with store-bought fashion outfits and blankets made of fleece remnants.

I realize the next step is for me to stop buying tissues altogether, but that’s a tough one. I’m still addicted to certain disposable items for their convenience. I use tissues for blowing noses, cleaning glasses and as a quick solution for the occasional bug kill.

I could use some help on this one. Does the sustainable world commit to hankerchiefs and cloth rags? Does the energy use from extra laundry outweigh the benefits? Aren’t recycled tissues super pricey? Are there other options I’m not aware of?

ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION

Here’s the update on the battle: My achy body lost out, and I’m two for two in finding alternate transportation to zumba class! I walked to class yesterday (a 25-minute warm-up) and carpooled home with someone. Other than my exercise class, I haven’t gone anywhere within a two-mile radius of my home. Knowing that I’ve committed to walking or biking has made me reconsider that trip to Subway or a quick stop by a friend’s house. I stay home more and make do with what’s available (leftovers and Pandora radio). I don’t think I’m in danger of becoming a recluse yet.