I am Washington — A life-cycle story

I am Washington — neither the city nor the state. I am not a character in the novel which bears my name. (For the record, I am white, not black.) I am a brand name, almost brand new washing machine. I am one of a generation of household appliances replete with special features, but sadly with an appalling service record. I am advised not to expect more that 3-4 years of productive life. They call me a victim of  “programmed obsolescence.”

Careful study of my origins describes a particular life cycle and a truly unique carbon footprint. Admittedly this calculation is my unique “spin” on my “mode of production.” Life for me begins below ground, as iron ore is bored from below, extracted above, eventually processed as ore is turned into metal. It takes lots of energy to accomplish this, sourced from hydro-electricity, nuclear power generation, natural gas or other fossil fuel combustion processes, in some places including coal fired plants.

Metal parts are fabricated from the metal castings — casing, washer drum, control systems, metal wiring, along with electronics, glass, cables and hoses through other processes. Returning to the ground, focusing on plastic, crude oil is a necessary ingredient. Given the negative influence of fossil fuels on atmospheric chemistry, such dependency is problematic.

In recent years the ratio of metal/plastic in appliance manufacture (along with cars) has shifted significantly. More plastic means less weight but shorter lifespan. I suppose that one day appliances will be created through a combination of artificial intelligence and a London Drugs three-dimensional printer, all controlled from a mobile phone — but that’s another story. Stay with me here.

If you thought I was imagined, developed, tested, assembled, and shipped  from a single location to where I now work, well, you’d be wrong. That would be too simple and less cost-effective. Various parts are shipped from around the world to an assembly plant — this is not a manufacturing plant as the parts are already manufactured in multiple locations where labour is cheap, where environmental protection is minimal.

Once assembled the appliance is shipped (often long distances by rail or truck) to a central warehouse in the US. (NB: If Donald Trump wants to restore all manufacturing to the US he’s has a bigger problem on his hands than he or his henchmen can imagine.)

The assembled machine is next transported north to a Canadian warehouse and from there shipped to local appliance retailers across the country by both rail and truck — more carbon expenditure; more cost. Once purchased by a customer, the home-bound appliance is delivered by truck to its new workplace.

And there’s more . . . The old appliance is retrieved and redirected to a local landfill where it is broken down with some parts retained for other uses. If a fridge, someone will remove the freon; otherwise, the metal from old appliances is crushed and shipped to a processing plant to separate out  different materials — metal, copper, aluminum, plastic, fabric — using machinery likened by some to an overgrown paper shredder. The separated materials can now be reused within new products.

So is this really a good news story? Do the environment, the manufacturer, and the consumer all benefit? I’m not so sure.

Recycling is occurring which is great; but compared with the manufacturing carbon cost the ratio isn’t all that great. Appliances now come with energy efficiency ratings, but energy efficiency, calculated over short life-spans is only a small part of the story.

My life-cycle story above chronicles how industry participates in manufacturing and recycling. It is good for everyone to have some understand of my “mode of production.” It is good for consumers to know which product is indeed best in class, and whether to purchase the product at all. New Zealanders, many in the UK, and many Africans would never purchase a clothes dryer. Pretty well everyone needs a refrigerator however.  

Choice, accompanied by insight, benefits everyone.

It does seem that these days, consumers increasingly bear the brunt of ecological responsibility as industry works to create efficiencies within global market economies. In order to encourage market investment, profit is still preferred to sustainability. Beyond the fiscal bottom line however, manufacturers and corporations increasingly talk about the triple bottom line — “a business concept that states firms should commit to measuring their social and environmental impact—in addition to their financial performance—rather than solely focusing on generating profit, or the standard “bottom line.”

Everyone needs to do things differently now. Otherwise the graduation towards an inhospitable planet continues apace. George Monbiot asks a salient question: “Think of what would change if we valued terrestrial water as much as we value the possibility of water on Mars?” It’s a good question.

Governments keep trying to come up with digestible and simplistic policy solutions to benefit both the economy and the planet. Any solution must do doth. We are told to drive an electric car, now, or no later than 2035. One must ask where all this power for these charging stations will come from. In the place where I work, a condominium, our strata council must soon estimate our power consumption needs — factor in EV charging stations and more heat pumps; the number grows daily.

Corporations will complain that they cannot adapt to climate crisis needs. They will lose their competitiveness. Well fill your boots; keep your profit;  and discover there is nowhere to spend it. As an appliance with only 2-3 years left, that won’t be my problem. I will be re-cycled into non-biodegradable plastic to line underground cooling centres.

Visit the takenote.ca HOME page for a colourful display of hundreds of other blogs which may interest or inspire you.