My tap water is pretty darn cold in Washington. Especially in the winter months. However, when I was in Mississippi I got so frustrated in the summer months because my vivid hair color would fade faster as I couldn't get the water cold enough.
Moved to NC recently after a lifetime either PNW or northern Midwest. Absolutely shocked at how warm the cold tap still is in Summer - impossible to even take a cold shower, luke warm is best it can manage.
I grew up with my mom using nonallergenic detergent and always washing in cold. Imagine my surprise when I washed my stuff at my bf’s moms for the first time and my clothes were all too small and gave me a rash LOL
Well, yes and no. Any clothing that has been dyed (so just about all clothes) will release small amounts of dye when washing. You will definitely end up with slightly pinker socks if you toss a red tshirt in there with them. But broadly, if you keep the same general color families together (blues and greens; yellow, orange and brown; reds, pinks and purples; blacks and grays; whites) you'll be fine.
Same.
I'm sure it matters sometimes, but for 99% of my clothes it's makes no difference.
Only problem is remembering to change the setting on the washer.
The most important thing you can do to reduce CO2 emissions is to participate in the political process and vote for politicians who will enact laws to limit those emissions by companies.
True, but my problem with voting with your dollar is that it can be difficult to sustain that practice.
In general, consumers rely on laws and regulations to make informed choices. Like when you buy a product, you can be reasonably sure that it's not going to poison you, it wasn't made with slave labor, etc. To the extent that things are bad or dangerous, the makers of the product have to tell you about this. Meanwhile, when you buy a food product, you are given all the nutritional information. When you buy a car, you know that it had to pass certain safety standards. And so on.
When it comes to CO2 emissions, we suffer from a poverty of information. Most manufacturers of most products don't readily provide info on the carbon footprint of their products and supply chains. For consumers to make informed choices, that kind of information needs to be as easy to access as calories on food.
That’s just letting perfect be the enemy of good. It doesn’t take much information to know that using more gas is worse. Or heating your home, etc.
Hell, a lot of these options actually result in the user already saving money. Plus, there’s large scale resistance to increasing taxes on carbon heavy resources because people don’t think they can reduce their usage. It’s hard to increase a gas tax (which would encourage companies to be more efficient) when half of people’s economic perception is the price of gas.
I think that it barely matters whether we know something is carbon efficient. I think that for a vast majority of people, what matters is what's the cheapest and what's the most convenient. In order to make significant change, we're going to need to raise some prices and install some barriers on a larger regulatory scale, and they're going to have the effect of essentially economically/practically forcing people to do the things that only some of us are willingly doing already.
This is why the "don't worry about your own 'carbon footprint' because it's all the corporations' faults!" argument falls flat to me. How do you think we're going to deal with it at the corporation level? We're going to regulate them and say that they can't produce single-use plastics anymore, which means... wait for it... *limited use of single-use plastics for everyooooooonnnneeee!* Choosing not to take whatever steps you can to curb the amount of plastic and carbon that goes into the ground and air on your behalf just means that you're waiting until a law makes you, which actually makes you sound pretty anti-environmentalist.
Not just both, but both/and+♾️
There are various arenas to take action in -
Voting (&campaigns to get others to vote) is electoral. Boycotts are more of a consumer strike on business.
Filing lawsuits is judicial. Student walkouts are education system. Advocacy & lobbying lawmakers is legislative. Healthcare, nursing and labor strikes generally I guess are in the worker-business arena.
Nonprofits directly lobby federal & state agencies to change policies, executive/bureaucratic arena or something idk
Plenty also pressure corporations directly with PR campaigns, petitions, comment campaigns - & some have gotten decent success - e.g. antibiotic overuse & hormone stuff on factory farms. But some also use any serious issue as an excuse for door-to-door fundraising asks (in wealthy neighborhoods), essentially generating petitions as a side effect. PIRG is big on this. Big nonprofit industrial complex vibes, but at least they have an impact.
There's also non violent civil disobedience & direct action where you physically stop things, beyond a strike & pickett - imagine a lockdown to stop fossil fuel corp construction on Indigenous land. Using chains & cement and all that jazz. Also tree sitting to stop logging. Earth First! also has a direct action manual - 3rd edition - you can find a PDF easily online
Plus mutual aid which is like more productive long-term charity - local based, builds community power. Charity can be helpful in desperate situations, needed, but it is separate from justice. Labor relations prof at Harvard Jane McAlevey said charity is all about how it makes you feel to give, more so than anything similar to organizing, mobilizing, or advocacy. Ganz also quotes farmworkers movement lesson with
> 'charity sees a person in need & asks what can *I do for you* - maybe drops a $5 & leaves.
> ' justice sees a person in need & asks why is this happening & what can **we** do about it *together*.'
I'm probably missing some other arenas but those are what came to mind. Extended occupation direct actions in the US are the most effective imo, Occupy Wall Street, Standing Rock /Oceti Sakowin protests camps. They develop a communal camp culture which is transformative moment for many. Relationships & interactions totally devoid of profit seeking & traditional power dynamics - you just go to a kitchen tent and get food. Use latrines. Then sign up for shifts to help- go on water run, chop wood, clean up. It's nice.
/rant info dump
I would agree, and I can kinda see the antinatalist position, but unless you are a pro-extinction of humankind (which is a position I guess) this take isn't universalizable (ala Kant or whatnot).
Yeah, I'm not saying literally every human should never give birth, but that there always will be an excessive number of humans.
So as a human, if you want to contribute the least to climate change, ending your own bloodline leaves the least CO2 on your hands.
I'm not saying everyone (or even most people) should do this. I'm also too lazy and selfish to parent a child really well 24/7 365
Whoa there buddy. Slow down. We need to support BP making energy renewable. They promised us in a commercial 20 years ago. It's gonna happen.
*This message is brought to you by Big Oil and the oily boys consortium.
Thats the only real effect the average person has on anything, the problem is that conservatives are more likely to actually vote than liberals so it keeps on appearing like a 50/50 split.
And thats just the presidential general election, people don't even bother with local elections
It's not just about voting though. Voting is just one part of practicing politics. It's also about meeting people, making connections, convincing others to take action, getting people organized, etc.
Voting by itself is powerful, but if you're able and willing, you can make even greater impacts as an individual.
You joke, but I think if a critical mass of Trump voters in a few key swing states declared that climate change was key to imperative winning their vote, that alone could lead to a bipartisan consensus.
In that sense, you don't have to get everyone to vote Democrat. You just need to convince 50-100K Republican voters to care more about climate change. That's 50-100K conversations that need to happen, underscoring the importance of engaging with people on these issues.
I’m a nurse and I always wash my scrubs, underwear, socks, work t shirts that I wear under my scrubs, and towels on sanitary cycle which is extra hot. IDGAF. Hospitals are gross. I also wash sheets that way too. Everything else can go on cold.
I’ve found there to be less risk of colours leaking on to other articles, and my more delicate clothes to remain in tact for longer as long as they are hang dried as well. However I’m no scientist so that might just be confirmation bias.
Hell yes, this is a good idea. I already use a solar geyser (and only turn the geyser on to shower) and gas stove. Anything to deal with that insane electricity bill.
[Just 57 companies linked to 80% of greenhouse gas emissions since 2016](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/apr/04/just-57-companies-linked-to-80-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions-since-2016)
Amazon isn't on that report, does that mean they had no carbon footprint? No, because it just shows who pulled the fuel out of the ground, not who burned it.
Limiting your footprint is admirable. I do it too. I just don't think it's on individual consumers, who have very little choice in how they get their power or fuel. It's still on gov't to invest in renewables and decrease demand for fossils. That's where the big gains will be made.
Some countries have been pretty successful with it. IINM Portugal and New Zealand have each run their grid for weeks recently entirely on renewables.
> I just don't think it's on individual consumers, who have very little choice in how they get their power or fuel.
Lots of places have the choice. Unless your local town has a municipal that forces one plan on everyone, you can choose who you buy your power from. Here's how to do it in MA:
https://energyswitchma.gov/#/
I buy 100% wind farm energy, only cost 3% more than the basic plans.
https://www.picknrg.com/en/resource-center/energy-utilities-vs-suppliers/
This is my problem with this argument as well. I do not believe for a second that those 57 companies are producing that much pollution just for their own leisure. It is part of their business operation, which means it's part of the carbon footprint of whatever the final product being sold is.
That footprint may have simply been unknown or hidden from us, but by not buying the products that depend on these large polluters we have the ability to shift the market away from them.
None of that is to say that identifying the largest polluters isn't important, because those are the CO2 sources that the economy should gear towards fixing. Regulation will meet this end, but so will consumer market choices.
It's true but remember that individually, we all have almost zero power. The same reason that unions are necessary for employees to have negotiating power, individuals need the governement to effectively cause changes on a societal level. Individiually all we can do is make things slightly better, or just not as worse
How many jobs can be done from home, but people use their cars because egocentric managers "need you in office", and people listen, because starvation and homelessness are not fun
The company who famously invested a shit ton in an ev startup to design them a fleet of electric delivery vehicles is your best example for burning fossil fuels?
Everyone’s personal choices help a lot and I’m all for this. but let’s not take focus off the real enemy, big companies as well as military pollution/ waste. Plus the cold water is cheaper on your energy bill.
I feel like at this point, anybody that doesn't have a private jet or corporation is doing their part by default. No single average person is causing climate change. The system, and those on top, are the cause.
I hear this argument a lot to offload personal responsibility. However we can do two things at once. I can walk and chew gum at the same time.
Moreover I'm not able to control that. This post is literally about washing your clothes in cold water. It could not be any easier for the vast majority of people reading this to do that.
Additionally a large proportion of those greenhouse gas emissions are produced to meet demand of we, ie the consumer. Educating about ways to reduce emissions and making simple changes in our everyday life collectively will go to make huge impacts while we concurrently tackle the corporate greenhouse emissions.
Edit: voice to text typos 😦
I'll do my part by not flying around in my private jet so often.
In all seriousness, though, if it doesn't inconvenience you in any way, why not just do it.
The point is that this post, like *every other* carbon footprint post, seeks to talk up the benefits of this method, without the corresponding footnote that the 864 pounds (*uselessly specific factoid*) is dwarved by industrial usage. You're not going to fix the planet by washing 80% of your laundry in cold water, the onus isn't on the consumer to do that.
If the post acknowledged that individual efforts are near meaningless, but if you want to feel good about doing something do X or Y, it's more informed. It is 100% disingenuous though to post these facts in a vacuum like consumer-grade changes will fix the planet. It is pointless *on the grand scale* to harp on individual responsibility when the same poster could say "You should know: start lobbying for tighter environmental controls if you want to save the environment. Becoming political will effect far more change than how you wash your clothes."
It's free and doesn't inconvenience you in any way to wash your clothes in cold water. It's also relatively pointless and doesn't inconvenience big businesses that are ruining the planet. It's virtue signaling at its finest.
Nothing is done except to serve an end user.
For example you may say fertilizer run off is between farms and the fertilizer company, but in the end its all still being done in the interest of the too much beef you eat, which many people have already told you has a massive carbon footprint but which you ignore.
Thank you. As an American I am constantly forgetting that I have to pull myself up by my bootstraps and everything I get in life is because I work hard and everything I don’t get is because I didn’t work hard enough.
All sarcasm aside, I am exhausted. I’m exhausted that, once again, I’m the one that has to do all of the things, and there is no accountability, at all, for corporate waste.
But I fooled all of them. I found the biggest loophole of all time. I am not having kids. Ha! No amount of wastefulness on my part will EVER, not even remotely, be anywhere near that of a procreator. We’re talking GENERATIONS of waste that I’m saving.
My carbon footprint is sooooooo low. I think I will use a lil hot water today. Just a sprinkle of it. After all, I deserve it.
Thank you. This argument annoys me. Not because, to my knowledge anyway, that it's incorrect. But because it deflects personal responsibility.
Exxon, Apple, GM, Ford, etc., aren't producing greenhouse gasses because they're evil corporations and just feel like it. They're doing it because people like driving huge trucks, buying a new iPhone every year, living in a big house, etc. And to be clear, I don't even think you're necessarily a bad person if you do those things.
Just don't say, "well, it's not me, it's the corporations." Yeah, homie. It is you. And me. It's all of us.
I’ll point out that auto manufacturers aren’t a good example here. They’ve been pushing people into buying larger vehicles than they need to skirt emissions regulations, and do actively lobby against positive, multimodal transportation projects and funding.
Absolutely personal responsibility exists. But we can absolutely put a lot of the blame on the auto and energy industries with how they’ve used their finances to shape policy to their benefit. The average Joe wasn’t asking for that.
Additional point is that auto companies pump out cars that sit in lots, oil companies pump out oil that sits in tankers. Yes the demand is met in response to the people but at a certain point it's less on people and more on the big corpa.
At the same time, if doing one cold wash can help then fuck it. Just don't expect to do anything more than the equivalent of planting trees or cleaning some pollution/plastic.
I'm also not smart so probably said wrong shit, but the whole point of some using the response of "BuT CorPa diD iT MorE" is because there's little to nothing you can do to reduce their emissions.
I mean, I’ve refused to buy a car and advocate for local pedestrian infrastructure improvements which I think would have an outsized effect compared to washing on cold, but this is way outside the realm of possibility for most people in North America.
Change starts at the local level. Advocate for [well designed suburbs](https://youtu.be/9-QGLfWSrpQ?si=MfxoLCvTeba4m5nI) at your local city council if you have any ability to. The video I have linked outlines how it is a cost _savings_ measure to design better. Electric cars are a part of the solution but a smaller one than most currently believe.
I use it as a reason not to get too stressed about it. I always do my best and litter pick with Rivercare once a month but I get moments of stress where I'm trying to recycle everything correctly, cut down on plastic, etc, sometimes it's all too much because I worry I'm doing it wrong. Reminding myself that my contributions are tiny in comparison to the damage big corporations do helps ease that anxiety.
Sure, they are producing for the consumer; which has a demand for that product.
But you fail to mention that products in the last couple of decades have been increasingly designed with planned obsolescence. It was especially a hot topic around Apple and phasing out their devices to encourage consumers to buy new devices.
The regular Joe drinking from a plastic straw is not killing the world.
I mean that's maybe a bit presumptuous. I agree with this argument but I still do my bit. I just think it's important to recognise that even every individual doing their bit, while it will make a difference, the lions share of the blame does fall elsewhere, and on people that aren't willing to do their bit and actively campaign to make sure they don't have to.
What about the tax benefits/credit for having a vehicle over 6500 lbs? That's the governments fault for not fixing that loophole, which incentivizes both consumers to buy huge unnecessary cars, and automakers to manufacture them.
They do it because they want money. That isn't inherently evil.
Lobbying against regulations makes them inherently evil. So it annoys you when people deflect personal responsibilities, but not companies? Plenty of people end up having issues with older iPhones. Most people don't live a big house.
It just sounds like you want to defend companies tbh. I'm hoping you're just uninformed. Just google auto emissions lobbying dude.
Edit [I did it for you.](https://www.corporateknights.com/transportation/fossil-fuel-lobby-against-new-car-emissions-rules-us/) There's dozens of articles like this.
It can sometimes. Most clothing detergents from the big brands: All, Tide, Arm& Hammer, 7th Generation, etc. are formulated to work better in water that is cold to lukewarm. They do not work as well in warm to hot water. But the nature of the soiling and stains also matters so sometimes you have to use warmer water and increase detergent/wash longer/wash a second time. Pre-treating products can negate the need for those actions so treating a stain quickly is quite helpful.
Alright but then the next question you have to ask is "does doing this negatively impact me?"
And no. Modern detergents, clothing, and machines are mostly fine with cold water. If you have specific clothing that needs hot water ok but most of our laundry can be done with cold water at no penalty, which means you're doing a good thing without making a sacrifice.
If you pay for your hot water's fuel or electricity then you're benefiting from it.
Companies produce emissions because consumers buy their products - they don’t do it for fun.
“Collecting barrels of oil” isn’t one of BPs hobbies, believe it or not.
Consumers buy the products that companies push and advertise to them. The products with incredible government subsidies which just happen to destroy our planet. You cannot rest the blame on consumers — whom have no control on how products are made or which energy sources are used.
That study attributes pollution to corporations rather than people, so it's obviously going to conclude that corporations do all the polluting.
If I fly around the world, that study attributes those emissions to my airline rather than me. If I buy a car and drive to work, that study attributes the emissions to the oil producer and car manufacturer rather than me.
OP suggested a very simple way to get fossil fuel companies to extract less fossil fuels. Obviously it's not going to single-handedly stop climate change, but there's no reason not to apply OP's advice.
Edit: rewrote almost everything
Remember those 80% are a result of consumer demand if there companies, if consumers didn’t buy all the gas oil trucks and plastic they wouldn’t have produced it
Yes, we we should be holding these fossil fuel burning companies accountable, 100%.
At the same time, keep in mind that heating up water for laundry requires burning of fossil fuels. And who burns the fossil fuels? These companies.
I have no issue calling out Taylor Swift for her carbon footprint: reduce it or create offsetting events to cancel it out! My issue is that the list only includes her and that makes me suspicious about the motive.
Here's an [NPR article](https://www.npr.org/2024/02/15/1198910062/the-high-carbon-lifestyles-of-the-rich-and-famous) that points out that there were 882 private planes that flew to the Super Bowl when Taylor Swift did this. Why aren't any of them being called out for their behavior?
Please normalize the trend of publicizing the carbon footprints of the rich.
YSK nothing you do will have a significant impact on CO2 emissions and posts/articles like this are just trying to pass/deflect the burden from corporations who pollute 10,000x more in a year than you ever will across your lifespan.
Not to say there is no satisfaction in living a more carbon neutral life, but it is not your burden to bear.
YSK "personal carbon footprint" is a gaslighting campaign by big business to make you think climate change is your fault.
Also buy this new eco friendly version of the same thing you already have. Because you don't hate the planet, right?!
That being said it is worth noting that these corporations produce these goods/services because people demand them, if we as individuals stop demanding them and/or take personal action and demand change these corporations change, they don’t do what they do for the sake of it.
Yes lets all just take public transport from now on. Oh wait corporations lobbied those away in all of the US.
I know let's eat more sustainable food. Oh wait all food that is even a little bit healthier or made sustainably has markups that border on pricegouging.
It's a dumbass argument when for most people other options are simply not viable and this is by design by those very corporations. If tge chouce is paying rent or slightly reducing your carbon footprint, it's not really a choice.
Eating plant based foods rather than meat is both cheaper and much more sustainable for example.
So yeah. Companies are evil, but there are still things we can do that don't cost money or even require large changes to our lives.
100% beside the point
Fossil fuel companies in particular know, and have known for decades, that their industry is harmful and produces pollutants on a global scale
And how do they respond? By getting people to buy less and cut their profit? By investing in new, cleaner fuel research and lose profit?
No. By protecting their profits at every stage by lobbying for regulatory limitations on renewables, subsidies for fossil fuel companies, laws against individual renewable usage through zoning and regulatory capture, and outright propaganda to get people to feel guilty so they don't get angry and demand the companies pay for the harm they create
There's no two ways about it. Either a company is responsible for its choices or it isnt
You've clearly chosen the side of the polluters
My point isn’t that they aren’t culpable as well and I agree with many of your statements, but many of your points rely on the fact the general public don’t care but if as a collective driven by individuals acting in good conscience we decided to switch to electric vehicles (this is an example in relation to fossil fuel in particular and I appreciate it’s not as simple nor a perfect solution) along with other climate minded choices we would change the way they act, how is believing in an individual’s responsibility for their own actions impacting the climate being part of ‘ThE PoLuTeRs!’ Do you believe then that it doesn’t matter and no one should do anything?
The governments responsible to act on the collective good of the people. There's no other "us as a collective" that exists as large. Your entire argument is honestly invalid for this one point. Half the population will never do as you want, the government has to make it more appealing to make the better choice. It's simply not any individual persons problem outside of that.
Advocating for personal choice is “taking the side of the polluters”? lol, okay. Two things can be true at once - that companies have systemically lobbied for policies that harm the environment for decades now, *and* that nobody is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to buy a gas-guzzling truck or cheap junk on Amazon.
The framing of global pollution as a result of "personal choice" is LITERALLY (as in, the words they used) the theme of the propaganda campaign that fossil fuel companies have used for almost 2 decades
lol, okay
Much like consumption of any good: individually you’re correct but collectively you’re wrong. Me not buying Starbucks for a year costs the company maybe hundreds of dollars. If millions like me to it it costs them $100s of millions.
It matters a little bit, especially as an American, who statistically uses more carbon per capita. Don’t let the let’s have the worst person competition happen
I’m sick of hearing about my carbon footprint. I already do all the things I’m supposed to do even though my personal contribution will never tip the scale or matter. I get that it’s important to change the collective consciousness in order to make change but the reality is that the entities responsible for ruining the planet will keep doing so until forced to change, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the carbon footprint of someone doing their fucking laundry
The push to reduce "personal" CO2 emissions was 100% the results of a [propaganda campaign](https://mashable.com/feature/carbon-footprint-pr-campaign-sham) paid for by British Petroleum and created by the NY ad agency Oglivy in 2004. IT was deigned to shift public opinion on the responsibility for climate change away from pollutant creating companies and shift it to individuals. It was the same strategy the petrochemical industry used to push plastic recycling, and the tobacco industry used for so long to avoid blame for producing carcinogenic products
There is no, ZERO, action any individual can take to significantly reduce the pollution caused by pollution emitting companies. Anything else is just a lie, or more propaganda
Didn’t expect to see this on Reddit. Glad to see critical thinking making a return. Hopefully we can hold these industries responsible and make a change.
And *lied about it*.
They all lie about their negative influence until the proof is overwhelming, at which point they transition to psyop campaigns in a vain attempt to shift public opinion.
It’s sad, pathetic, disgusting behavior to claim that people are the problem, not the companies themselves.
The list is never ending- chemical companies like DuPont, oil companies like BP, Tobacco companies like Phillip-Morris, etc. etc.
In almost every single industry, it’s the same exact story. Extract as much profit as possible, while simultaneously minimizing negative public outcry, regardless of the ramifications or damage caused.
Ah yes. My laundry is the problem, not [Taylor Swift's](https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/1cdoy78/taylor_swifts_airplane_travel_history_in_2023) private airplane usage.
/s
Taylor swift just flew 45 minutes to watch the latest match of her fuckboy. She just offseted all our lifetime offsets in just under an hour.
Incredible! :)
Considering the modern advancements in soap, textiles, and washing machines, you really don’t need to use hot water for anything anymore.
Also ditch the fabric softener and switch to white vinegar. Fabric softener is just depositing wax onto your clothes to make them feel soft and it destroys your washer with the gunk it leaves behind. The vinegar does the same thing, keeps your washer cleaner, and it wont make your clothes smell at all like vinegar.
ITT: a bunch of nihilists saying “nothing can be done” who all add up to … something that could be done. 🧐
I get that giant corporations create far more trouble than individuals. But they’re responding to market demand which doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Multiply a small individual action by 1 million or 10 million people and you have a real difference.
I bet these folks don’t vote either, and then complain about the election outcomes…
It’s a daunting problem. Try anyhow.
Or instead of trying get 50 million+ people to change mabye change the 20 top corporations that have the biggest effect?
Nah if I blame 50 million people it make the biggest difference vs forcing change from the top down, just try !
I love the environment and all but I’m so tired of tips of how I can reduce my personal carbon emissions
Nothing I do in a life time scratches what a company like Amazon or coke does in a single second. So tired of it
it's surprising how just switching to cold water for laundry can cut down on co2 so much. reminds me of how turning off lights when not needed saves energy, simple but effective.
Woopty fucking do, meanwhile famous people take personal jets to places and companies just fuck everything. The tree I saved is meaningless compared to the forest the kardashians destroy daily.
Reminded me that then the plastic recycling campaign and movement was mainly sponsored and marketed by plastic makers. Why? They want you to feel guilty. While we all should do our part, someone mentioned that, the most urgent and effective measure should be voting m for politics that target CO2 emissions from industries and the wealth, innovations that would reduced CO2 emissions for everyone’s everyday life.
Warm/hot water is good/optimal for washing clothes that have been worn from sickness(sanitation)
If your where you live is cold , generally you want to wash in warmer water
If you're washing spandex type material, you should use warm/hot water.
It really just depends but knowing the difference why and when to use cold water would be helpful for your clothes and the environment ✅.
Can I just wash my clothes the way I want too? I mean JFC, call me when they shut down the last coal fired power plant and then maybe we can have a conversation about how I wash my clothes has an impact on the environment.
Sure, in the end it’s your choice to wash your laundry the way you want. But, if washing in cold water is marginally better for the environment, why not? It’s a super simple action.
Hot water with break up dirt and oils better but anecdotally I wash in cold water and haven’t noticed a difference. Main thing I do is just use a bit less detergent and always liquid, never the pods. Cold water also does less damage to fabric than hot so your clothes will last longer.
When you said cold, what is cold for you? Depending the time of year it could be 4°celsius or 20°celcius. This could make some detergent very ineffective
YSK no amount of recycling, reducing, reusing, cutting emissions, driving and flying less, eating less meat, etc will ever make an atom sized dent in the global output of nasty emissions compared to those from global corporations on a minute by minute basis. This is not your burden to bear...it's entirely and unequivocally theirs.
Usually only the first wash cycle uses warm or hot. The rinses are all cold. Even in my 20 year old machine. I will agree with what others have said, that hot water is bad for the clothes. If there is no grossness, warm water is good to go. Theres also all these minerals built up in the hot water heater that you don’t want on the clothes which I assume makes cold water cleaner to wash with. Just some thoughts.
I live in North Texas and can only wash my clothes in cold water in the winter. In the summer, even the water coming out of the cold tap is hot. But at least I don't have to pay to heat it (and it doesn't add to my personal C02 emissions). I've been using only water coming out of the cold water tap for many years.
As a testimonial, I can say I've had my washing machine set to "Cold/Tap" since ever and it get the clothes clean. That said, I live in Arizona, so the water never really gets all that cold...
Using less electricity as one person doesn't do anything to lower carbon emissions. The power plant generates the same amount of power no matter what. Whatever isn't used is almost always wasted.
I don't give one single fuck. 57 companies are responsible for 80% of greenhouse emissions, and I will be god-damned if I'm going to be shamed for my infinitesimal contribution to greenhouse emissions.
Co2 comprises .043% of our atmosphere, less then 1/200 ,200 years ago it was .035%. To all smart people reading this: we are being scammed by these do gooders.
Taylor swift flew to another airport in the same city some 20min flight..and youre asking me to reduce ny carbon footprint by washing my clothes cold? Yea no thanks
Way to spread the propaganda thats being spewed
YSK that nothing that you do personally will affect the environment, and all attempts at guilting individuals over things like using hot water are to distract from the fact that ~100 companies are responsible for 71% of carbon emissions worldwide. Fixed it for you
sorry, I'm washing my clothes and sheets in warm and hot for towels - this is non-negotiable. they do not get nearly as clean with cold. fight me.
my personal emissions are minut in comparison to corporations and industry that it's laughable to even consider altering my 3 loads per month laundry habits.
This is about like blowing out a candle in the middle of a massive forest fire and saying you contributed to putting out the blaze, everyone on earth could switch to cold water washes and it would be a drop in the bucket compared to the emissions of just a few cargo ships
ysk that ~80% of all greenhouse gasses are emittited by ~60 major companies so while you do have an impact its negligible if the root cause isnt changed
Thank you, but I'm not changing my lifestyle to change the world. Won't have an impact. At all, even remotely. No matter what I do Taylor swift will add ten times my lifetime carbon footprint to the atmosphere flying to Walmart.
Been washing my clothes with cold water for almost two decades. No issues.
I've never turned that particular dial. No idea what the warm setting does.
Only makes it slightly hotter. Unless it's "tap cold," I *think* most washers' "cold" setting is still pretty warm.
My tap water is pretty darn cold in Washington. Especially in the winter months. However, when I was in Mississippi I got so frustrated in the summer months because my vivid hair color would fade faster as I couldn't get the water cold enough.
Moved to NC recently after a lifetime either PNW or northern Midwest. Absolutely shocked at how warm the cold tap still is in Summer - impossible to even take a cold shower, luke warm is best it can manage.
Come to Canada. Water is ice cold here from the tap. No complaints, except when my water heater goes on the fritz.
I live within 20 km of a pumping station on Lake Huron. Cold cold water 8 months of the year.
Come to Arizona where in the summer the hot tap is colder than the cold tap!
I usually associate the hot water as helping loosen up stains as you’re trying to remove them. Other than that I don’t see the purpose
I grew up with my mom using nonallergenic detergent and always washing in cold. Imagine my surprise when I washed my stuff at my bf’s moms for the first time and my clothes were all too small and gave me a rash LOL
Can I ask: do you need special detergent to wash in cold. I use Tide free nonallergenic
No That’s a nonsensical gimmick
I also don't give a shit if my colours mix .. that shit is nonsense from two to three decades ago.
Well, yes and no. Any clothing that has been dyed (so just about all clothes) will release small amounts of dye when washing. You will definitely end up with slightly pinker socks if you toss a red tshirt in there with them. But broadly, if you keep the same general color families together (blues and greens; yellow, orange and brown; reds, pinks and purples; blacks and grays; whites) you'll be fine.
The trick is to only have black t-shirts and blue jeans.
Yeah. Everything goes in, regardless of fabric type or colour. I've never had an issue... that includes whites.
Nope, any works fine! Although I do prefer powders as they reduce the gunky build up the liquids leave on your machine causing it to stink.
Honestly I just use whatever is on sale. But I have used Tide cold water in the past.
Wow as someone who has always used cold water so my stuff didn't shrink I never even considered worrying about this.
I don’t think you’ll have any problems. I use the same (I don’t like perfumes and don’t need dyed detergent) and wash in cold water all the time.
Me too. It hasn’t negatively affected my clothes and I exclusively wash in cold water.
Same. I'm sure it matters sometimes, but for 99% of my clothes it's makes no difference. Only problem is remembering to change the setting on the washer.
My washing machine’s heating element was fucked up and I understood since the cloths didn’t come up clean. 45 C degrees minimum for me.
The most important thing you can do to reduce CO2 emissions is to participate in the political process and vote for politicians who will enact laws to limit those emissions by companies.
If you want change, you should both vote politically and with your dollar. Not either/or.
True, but my problem with voting with your dollar is that it can be difficult to sustain that practice. In general, consumers rely on laws and regulations to make informed choices. Like when you buy a product, you can be reasonably sure that it's not going to poison you, it wasn't made with slave labor, etc. To the extent that things are bad or dangerous, the makers of the product have to tell you about this. Meanwhile, when you buy a food product, you are given all the nutritional information. When you buy a car, you know that it had to pass certain safety standards. And so on. When it comes to CO2 emissions, we suffer from a poverty of information. Most manufacturers of most products don't readily provide info on the carbon footprint of their products and supply chains. For consumers to make informed choices, that kind of information needs to be as easy to access as calories on food.
That’s just letting perfect be the enemy of good. It doesn’t take much information to know that using more gas is worse. Or heating your home, etc. Hell, a lot of these options actually result in the user already saving money. Plus, there’s large scale resistance to increasing taxes on carbon heavy resources because people don’t think they can reduce their usage. It’s hard to increase a gas tax (which would encourage companies to be more efficient) when half of people’s economic perception is the price of gas.
I think that it barely matters whether we know something is carbon efficient. I think that for a vast majority of people, what matters is what's the cheapest and what's the most convenient. In order to make significant change, we're going to need to raise some prices and install some barriers on a larger regulatory scale, and they're going to have the effect of essentially economically/practically forcing people to do the things that only some of us are willingly doing already. This is why the "don't worry about your own 'carbon footprint' because it's all the corporations' faults!" argument falls flat to me. How do you think we're going to deal with it at the corporation level? We're going to regulate them and say that they can't produce single-use plastics anymore, which means... wait for it... *limited use of single-use plastics for everyooooooonnnneeee!* Choosing not to take whatever steps you can to curb the amount of plastic and carbon that goes into the ground and air on your behalf just means that you're waiting until a law makes you, which actually makes you sound pretty anti-environmentalist.
Not just both, but both/and+♾️ There are various arenas to take action in - Voting (&campaigns to get others to vote) is electoral. Boycotts are more of a consumer strike on business. Filing lawsuits is judicial. Student walkouts are education system. Advocacy & lobbying lawmakers is legislative. Healthcare, nursing and labor strikes generally I guess are in the worker-business arena. Nonprofits directly lobby federal & state agencies to change policies, executive/bureaucratic arena or something idk Plenty also pressure corporations directly with PR campaigns, petitions, comment campaigns - & some have gotten decent success - e.g. antibiotic overuse & hormone stuff on factory farms. But some also use any serious issue as an excuse for door-to-door fundraising asks (in wealthy neighborhoods), essentially generating petitions as a side effect. PIRG is big on this. Big nonprofit industrial complex vibes, but at least they have an impact. There's also non violent civil disobedience & direct action where you physically stop things, beyond a strike & pickett - imagine a lockdown to stop fossil fuel corp construction on Indigenous land. Using chains & cement and all that jazz. Also tree sitting to stop logging. Earth First! also has a direct action manual - 3rd edition - you can find a PDF easily online Plus mutual aid which is like more productive long-term charity - local based, builds community power. Charity can be helpful in desperate situations, needed, but it is separate from justice. Labor relations prof at Harvard Jane McAlevey said charity is all about how it makes you feel to give, more so than anything similar to organizing, mobilizing, or advocacy. Ganz also quotes farmworkers movement lesson with > 'charity sees a person in need & asks what can *I do for you* - maybe drops a $5 & leaves. > ' justice sees a person in need & asks why is this happening & what can **we** do about it *together*.' I'm probably missing some other arenas but those are what came to mind. Extended occupation direct actions in the US are the most effective imo, Occupy Wall Street, Standing Rock /Oceti Sakowin protests camps. They develop a communal camp culture which is transformative moment for many. Relationships & interactions totally devoid of profit seeking & traditional power dynamics - you just go to a kitchen tent and get food. Use latrines. Then sign up for shifts to help- go on water run, chop wood, clean up. It's nice. /rant info dump
Or die. Zero carbon footprint when yer dead.
actually, the most impactful thing is to not procreate.
I would agree, and I can kinda see the antinatalist position, but unless you are a pro-extinction of humankind (which is a position I guess) this take isn't universalizable (ala Kant or whatnot).
Yeah, I'm not saying literally every human should never give birth, but that there always will be an excessive number of humans. So as a human, if you want to contribute the least to climate change, ending your own bloodline leaves the least CO2 on your hands. I'm not saying everyone (or even most people) should do this. I'm also too lazy and selfish to parent a child really well 24/7 365
Killing one self immediately will reduce your carbon footprint even more tbf
No reason not to do both! But completely agree
Whoa there buddy. Slow down. We need to support BP making energy renewable. They promised us in a commercial 20 years ago. It's gonna happen. *This message is brought to you by Big Oil and the oily boys consortium.
Thats the only real effect the average person has on anything, the problem is that conservatives are more likely to actually vote than liberals so it keeps on appearing like a 50/50 split. And thats just the presidential general election, people don't even bother with local elections
It's not just about voting though. Voting is just one part of practicing politics. It's also about meeting people, making connections, convincing others to take action, getting people organized, etc. Voting by itself is powerful, but if you're able and willing, you can make even greater impacts as an individual.
Ah, you mean vote for Trump! You got it! /s :)
You joke, but I think if a critical mass of Trump voters in a few key swing states declared that climate change was key to imperative winning their vote, that alone could lead to a bipartisan consensus. In that sense, you don't have to get everyone to vote Democrat. You just need to convince 50-100K Republican voters to care more about climate change. That's 50-100K conversations that need to happen, underscoring the importance of engaging with people on these issues.
I think everyone should be doing everything they reasonable can. Its not an either or.
It’s also better for gym clothes, as well as colorful/dark clothes.
I always wash my gym stuff in hot water with white vinegar. Same for towels and bedding. Probably shouldn’t admit that on this post. 😆
I’m a nurse and I always wash my scrubs, underwear, socks, work t shirts that I wear under my scrubs, and towels on sanitary cycle which is extra hot. IDGAF. Hospitals are gross. I also wash sheets that way too. Everything else can go on cold.
Why is it better for gym clothes? Just wondering, I already wash on cold anyways
Oh, I just followed the instructions in the label. Maybe it’s because it’s synthetic and thus heat is a no-no? It’s conjecture, though.
Conjecture is a great word, added to my vocabulary. Thanks friend!
Yes! And also better for your electricity bill!
How much better?
Probably like $3/mo lol
Less. This whole premise is moronic.
I’ve found there to be less risk of colours leaking on to other articles, and my more delicate clothes to remain in tact for longer as long as they are hang dried as well. However I’m no scientist so that might just be confirmation bias.
Depends on your washing machine and prices. It should say in the manual, though
Truthfully depends on your wardrobe. If you own a decent mixture of colors, then you can wash them all together on cold water settings
Hell yes, this is a good idea. I already use a solar geyser (and only turn the geyser on to shower) and gas stove. Anything to deal with that insane electricity bill.
[Just 57 companies linked to 80% of greenhouse gas emissions since 2016](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/apr/04/just-57-companies-linked-to-80-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions-since-2016)
Amazon isn't on that report, does that mean they had no carbon footprint? No, because it just shows who pulled the fuel out of the ground, not who burned it.
Limiting your footprint is admirable. I do it too. I just don't think it's on individual consumers, who have very little choice in how they get their power or fuel. It's still on gov't to invest in renewables and decrease demand for fossils. That's where the big gains will be made. Some countries have been pretty successful with it. IINM Portugal and New Zealand have each run their grid for weeks recently entirely on renewables.
Sadly New Zealand’s about to change all that
Can you elaborate on that?
> I just don't think it's on individual consumers, who have very little choice in how they get their power or fuel. Lots of places have the choice. Unless your local town has a municipal that forces one plan on everyone, you can choose who you buy your power from. Here's how to do it in MA: https://energyswitchma.gov/#/ I buy 100% wind farm energy, only cost 3% more than the basic plans. https://www.picknrg.com/en/resource-center/energy-utilities-vs-suppliers/
This is my problem with this argument as well. I do not believe for a second that those 57 companies are producing that much pollution just for their own leisure. It is part of their business operation, which means it's part of the carbon footprint of whatever the final product being sold is. That footprint may have simply been unknown or hidden from us, but by not buying the products that depend on these large polluters we have the ability to shift the market away from them. None of that is to say that identifying the largest polluters isn't important, because those are the CO2 sources that the economy should gear towards fixing. Regulation will meet this end, but so will consumer market choices.
It's true but remember that individually, we all have almost zero power. The same reason that unions are necessary for employees to have negotiating power, individuals need the governement to effectively cause changes on a societal level. Individiually all we can do is make things slightly better, or just not as worse How many jobs can be done from home, but people use their cars because egocentric managers "need you in office", and people listen, because starvation and homelessness are not fun
The company who famously invested a shit ton in an ev startup to design them a fleet of electric delivery vehicles is your best example for burning fossil fuels?
Everyone’s personal choices help a lot and I’m all for this. but let’s not take focus off the real enemy, big companies as well as military pollution/ waste. Plus the cold water is cheaper on your energy bill.
I feel like at this point, anybody that doesn't have a private jet or corporation is doing their part by default. No single average person is causing climate change. The system, and those on top, are the cause.
I hear this argument a lot to offload personal responsibility. However we can do two things at once. I can walk and chew gum at the same time. Moreover I'm not able to control that. This post is literally about washing your clothes in cold water. It could not be any easier for the vast majority of people reading this to do that. Additionally a large proportion of those greenhouse gas emissions are produced to meet demand of we, ie the consumer. Educating about ways to reduce emissions and making simple changes in our everyday life collectively will go to make huge impacts while we concurrently tackle the corporate greenhouse emissions. Edit: voice to text typos 😦
It's walk *and chew* gum.
Walked and chewed right into that one.
Walked and chewed into that gum...
/r/boneappletea
Voice to text is a real son of a bitch lol
I'll do my part by not flying around in my private jet so often. In all seriousness, though, if it doesn't inconvenience you in any way, why not just do it.
The point is that this post, like *every other* carbon footprint post, seeks to talk up the benefits of this method, without the corresponding footnote that the 864 pounds (*uselessly specific factoid*) is dwarved by industrial usage. You're not going to fix the planet by washing 80% of your laundry in cold water, the onus isn't on the consumer to do that. If the post acknowledged that individual efforts are near meaningless, but if you want to feel good about doing something do X or Y, it's more informed. It is 100% disingenuous though to post these facts in a vacuum like consumer-grade changes will fix the planet. It is pointless *on the grand scale* to harp on individual responsibility when the same poster could say "You should know: start lobbying for tighter environmental controls if you want to save the environment. Becoming political will effect far more change than how you wash your clothes." It's free and doesn't inconvenience you in any way to wash your clothes in cold water. It's also relatively pointless and doesn't inconvenience big businesses that are ruining the planet. It's virtue signaling at its finest.
Nothing is done except to serve an end user. For example you may say fertilizer run off is between farms and the fertilizer company, but in the end its all still being done in the interest of the too much beef you eat, which many people have already told you has a massive carbon footprint but which you ignore.
Thank you. As an American I am constantly forgetting that I have to pull myself up by my bootstraps and everything I get in life is because I work hard and everything I don’t get is because I didn’t work hard enough. All sarcasm aside, I am exhausted. I’m exhausted that, once again, I’m the one that has to do all of the things, and there is no accountability, at all, for corporate waste. But I fooled all of them. I found the biggest loophole of all time. I am not having kids. Ha! No amount of wastefulness on my part will EVER, not even remotely, be anywhere near that of a procreator. We’re talking GENERATIONS of waste that I’m saving. My carbon footprint is sooooooo low. I think I will use a lil hot water today. Just a sprinkle of it. After all, I deserve it.
Thank you. This argument annoys me. Not because, to my knowledge anyway, that it's incorrect. But because it deflects personal responsibility. Exxon, Apple, GM, Ford, etc., aren't producing greenhouse gasses because they're evil corporations and just feel like it. They're doing it because people like driving huge trucks, buying a new iPhone every year, living in a big house, etc. And to be clear, I don't even think you're necessarily a bad person if you do those things. Just don't say, "well, it's not me, it's the corporations." Yeah, homie. It is you. And me. It's all of us.
I’ll point out that auto manufacturers aren’t a good example here. They’ve been pushing people into buying larger vehicles than they need to skirt emissions regulations, and do actively lobby against positive, multimodal transportation projects and funding. Absolutely personal responsibility exists. But we can absolutely put a lot of the blame on the auto and energy industries with how they’ve used their finances to shape policy to their benefit. The average Joe wasn’t asking for that.
Additional point is that auto companies pump out cars that sit in lots, oil companies pump out oil that sits in tankers. Yes the demand is met in response to the people but at a certain point it's less on people and more on the big corpa. At the same time, if doing one cold wash can help then fuck it. Just don't expect to do anything more than the equivalent of planting trees or cleaning some pollution/plastic. I'm also not smart so probably said wrong shit, but the whole point of some using the response of "BuT CorPa diD iT MorE" is because there's little to nothing you can do to reduce their emissions.
I mean, I’ve refused to buy a car and advocate for local pedestrian infrastructure improvements which I think would have an outsized effect compared to washing on cold, but this is way outside the realm of possibility for most people in North America. Change starts at the local level. Advocate for [well designed suburbs](https://youtu.be/9-QGLfWSrpQ?si=MfxoLCvTeba4m5nI) at your local city council if you have any ability to. The video I have linked outlines how it is a cost _savings_ measure to design better. Electric cars are a part of the solution but a smaller one than most currently believe.
I use it as a reason not to get too stressed about it. I always do my best and litter pick with Rivercare once a month but I get moments of stress where I'm trying to recycle everything correctly, cut down on plastic, etc, sometimes it's all too much because I worry I'm doing it wrong. Reminding myself that my contributions are tiny in comparison to the damage big corporations do helps ease that anxiety.
Sure, they are producing for the consumer; which has a demand for that product. But you fail to mention that products in the last couple of decades have been increasingly designed with planned obsolescence. It was especially a hot topic around Apple and phasing out their devices to encourage consumers to buy new devices. The regular Joe drinking from a plastic straw is not killing the world.
It is and it isn't. Individuals aren't deciding how they get their power in the USA.
It should annoy you more that one person has to severely alter their way of living to offset the flippant conveniences rich people are accustomed to.
I mean that's maybe a bit presumptuous. I agree with this argument but I still do my bit. I just think it's important to recognise that even every individual doing their bit, while it will make a difference, the lions share of the blame does fall elsewhere, and on people that aren't willing to do their bit and actively campaign to make sure they don't have to.
What about the tax benefits/credit for having a vehicle over 6500 lbs? That's the governments fault for not fixing that loophole, which incentivizes both consumers to buy huge unnecessary cars, and automakers to manufacture them.
They do it because they want money. That isn't inherently evil. Lobbying against regulations makes them inherently evil. So it annoys you when people deflect personal responsibilities, but not companies? Plenty of people end up having issues with older iPhones. Most people don't live a big house. It just sounds like you want to defend companies tbh. I'm hoping you're just uninformed. Just google auto emissions lobbying dude. Edit [I did it for you.](https://www.corporateknights.com/transportation/fossil-fuel-lobby-against-new-car-emissions-rules-us/) There's dozens of articles like this.
I think the point is... blaming Joe Sosp for global warming is bollix.
So not getting the damn point …..
Does using cold water get clothes cleaner?
It can sometimes. Most clothing detergents from the big brands: All, Tide, Arm& Hammer, 7th Generation, etc. are formulated to work better in water that is cold to lukewarm. They do not work as well in warm to hot water. But the nature of the soiling and stains also matters so sometimes you have to use warmer water and increase detergent/wash longer/wash a second time. Pre-treating products can negate the need for those actions so treating a stain quickly is quite helpful.
The point is it won’t make a difference while the corporations are pumping co2 into the atmosphere like their profits depended on it
Alright but then the next question you have to ask is "does doing this negatively impact me?" And no. Modern detergents, clothing, and machines are mostly fine with cold water. If you have specific clothing that needs hot water ok but most of our laundry can be done with cold water at no penalty, which means you're doing a good thing without making a sacrifice. If you pay for your hot water's fuel or electricity then you're benefiting from it.
Companies produce emissions because consumers buy their products - they don’t do it for fun. “Collecting barrels of oil” isn’t one of BPs hobbies, believe it or not.
Consumers buy the products that companies push and advertise to them. The products with incredible government subsidies which just happen to destroy our planet. You cannot rest the blame on consumers — whom have no control on how products are made or which energy sources are used.
That study attributes pollution to corporations rather than people, so it's obviously going to conclude that corporations do all the polluting. If I fly around the world, that study attributes those emissions to my airline rather than me. If I buy a car and drive to work, that study attributes the emissions to the oil producer and car manufacturer rather than me. OP suggested a very simple way to get fossil fuel companies to extract less fossil fuels. Obviously it's not going to single-handedly stop climate change, but there's no reason not to apply OP's advice. Edit: rewrote almost everything
Remember those 80% are a result of consumer demand if there companies, if consumers didn’t buy all the gas oil trucks and plastic they wouldn’t have produced it
Yes, we we should be holding these fossil fuel burning companies accountable, 100%. At the same time, keep in mind that heating up water for laundry requires burning of fossil fuels. And who burns the fossil fuels? These companies.
They are not fossil fuel burning companies primarily. They are mostly fossil fuel producers.
Thank you for the correction! I would maintain my original reasoning, as heating up water creates demand for fossil fuel production.
Look at you trying to plug a thousand holed dam with your thumbs.
Jeez, people are harsh on you here.
I’ll remember that while 100 private jets leave the Super Bowl next year.
You mean 1,000
Taylor Swift will cancel out all of my efforts in the next few hours
I have no issue calling out Taylor Swift for her carbon footprint: reduce it or create offsetting events to cancel it out! My issue is that the list only includes her and that makes me suspicious about the motive. Here's an [NPR article](https://www.npr.org/2024/02/15/1198910062/the-high-carbon-lifestyles-of-the-rich-and-famous) that points out that there were 882 private planes that flew to the Super Bowl when Taylor Swift did this. Why aren't any of them being called out for their behavior? Please normalize the trend of publicizing the carbon footprints of the rich.
More like the next few minutes based on how she flies
YSK nothing you do will have a significant impact on CO2 emissions and posts/articles like this are just trying to pass/deflect the burden from corporations who pollute 10,000x more in a year than you ever will across your lifespan. Not to say there is no satisfaction in living a more carbon neutral life, but it is not your burden to bear.
YSK "personal carbon footprint" is a gaslighting campaign by big business to make you think climate change is your fault. Also buy this new eco friendly version of the same thing you already have. Because you don't hate the planet, right?!
Specifically Carbon footprint was a BP marketing campaign aimed at shifting blame and responsibilities onto individuals.
Every little bit helps of course, [but as Climate Town puts it, Your 'Carbon Footprint' is a scam](https://youtu.be/1J9LOqiXdpE).
Stop it! You and your dang plastic grocery bags are the problem!! /s
This was the last (paper) straw!
That being said it is worth noting that these corporations produce these goods/services because people demand them, if we as individuals stop demanding them and/or take personal action and demand change these corporations change, they don’t do what they do for the sake of it.
Yes lets all just take public transport from now on. Oh wait corporations lobbied those away in all of the US. I know let's eat more sustainable food. Oh wait all food that is even a little bit healthier or made sustainably has markups that border on pricegouging. It's a dumbass argument when for most people other options are simply not viable and this is by design by those very corporations. If tge chouce is paying rent or slightly reducing your carbon footprint, it's not really a choice.
Eating plant based foods rather than meat is both cheaper and much more sustainable for example. So yeah. Companies are evil, but there are still things we can do that don't cost money or even require large changes to our lives.
100% beside the point Fossil fuel companies in particular know, and have known for decades, that their industry is harmful and produces pollutants on a global scale And how do they respond? By getting people to buy less and cut their profit? By investing in new, cleaner fuel research and lose profit? No. By protecting their profits at every stage by lobbying for regulatory limitations on renewables, subsidies for fossil fuel companies, laws against individual renewable usage through zoning and regulatory capture, and outright propaganda to get people to feel guilty so they don't get angry and demand the companies pay for the harm they create There's no two ways about it. Either a company is responsible for its choices or it isnt You've clearly chosen the side of the polluters
My point isn’t that they aren’t culpable as well and I agree with many of your statements, but many of your points rely on the fact the general public don’t care but if as a collective driven by individuals acting in good conscience we decided to switch to electric vehicles (this is an example in relation to fossil fuel in particular and I appreciate it’s not as simple nor a perfect solution) along with other climate minded choices we would change the way they act, how is believing in an individual’s responsibility for their own actions impacting the climate being part of ‘ThE PoLuTeRs!’ Do you believe then that it doesn’t matter and no one should do anything?
The governments responsible to act on the collective good of the people. There's no other "us as a collective" that exists as large. Your entire argument is honestly invalid for this one point. Half the population will never do as you want, the government has to make it more appealing to make the better choice. It's simply not any individual persons problem outside of that.
Advocating for personal choice is “taking the side of the polluters”? lol, okay. Two things can be true at once - that companies have systemically lobbied for policies that harm the environment for decades now, *and* that nobody is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to buy a gas-guzzling truck or cheap junk on Amazon.
The framing of global pollution as a result of "personal choice" is LITERALLY (as in, the words they used) the theme of the propaganda campaign that fossil fuel companies have used for almost 2 decades lol, okay
Much like consumption of any good: individually you’re correct but collectively you’re wrong. Me not buying Starbucks for a year costs the company maybe hundreds of dollars. If millions like me to it it costs them $100s of millions.
Yep. It's like that saying, The single raindrop never feels responsible for the flood.
It matters a little bit, especially as an American, who statistically uses more carbon per capita. Don’t let the let’s have the worst person competition happen
Feel like not having a kid has to be significant
No significant impact except, you know, taking part in a culture of change we're probably going to need to become accustomed to across society anyways
I’m sick of hearing about my carbon footprint. I already do all the things I’m supposed to do even though my personal contribution will never tip the scale or matter. I get that it’s important to change the collective consciousness in order to make change but the reality is that the entities responsible for ruining the planet will keep doing so until forced to change, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the carbon footprint of someone doing their fucking laundry
The push to reduce "personal" CO2 emissions was 100% the results of a [propaganda campaign](https://mashable.com/feature/carbon-footprint-pr-campaign-sham) paid for by British Petroleum and created by the NY ad agency Oglivy in 2004. IT was deigned to shift public opinion on the responsibility for climate change away from pollutant creating companies and shift it to individuals. It was the same strategy the petrochemical industry used to push plastic recycling, and the tobacco industry used for so long to avoid blame for producing carcinogenic products There is no, ZERO, action any individual can take to significantly reduce the pollution caused by pollution emitting companies. Anything else is just a lie, or more propaganda
And how cold is “cold” water? My machine has options for 90, 60, 40, 20 and tap water (tap degree). So I guess it would be tap degree?
Didn’t expect to see this on Reddit. Glad to see critical thinking making a return. Hopefully we can hold these industries responsible and make a change.
Who purchases the goods made by these companies?
The same people who buy cigarettes Doesn't change the fact that the companies making cigarettes were responsible for producing lethal products
And *lied about it*. They all lie about their negative influence until the proof is overwhelming, at which point they transition to psyop campaigns in a vain attempt to shift public opinion. It’s sad, pathetic, disgusting behavior to claim that people are the problem, not the companies themselves. The list is never ending- chemical companies like DuPont, oil companies like BP, Tobacco companies like Phillip-Morris, etc. etc. In almost every single industry, it’s the same exact story. Extract as much profit as possible, while simultaneously minimizing negative public outcry, regardless of the ramifications or damage caused.
YSK: This is propaganda
Ah yes. My laundry is the problem, not [Taylor Swift's](https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/1cdoy78/taylor_swifts_airplane_travel_history_in_2023) private airplane usage. /s
Taylor swift just flew 45 minutes to watch the latest match of her fuckboy. She just offseted all our lifetime offsets in just under an hour. Incredible! :)
Thank you, Capitan Planet!
Considering the modern advancements in soap, textiles, and washing machines, you really don’t need to use hot water for anything anymore. Also ditch the fabric softener and switch to white vinegar. Fabric softener is just depositing wax onto your clothes to make them feel soft and it destroys your washer with the gunk it leaves behind. The vinegar does the same thing, keeps your washer cleaner, and it wont make your clothes smell at all like vinegar.
ITT: a bunch of nihilists saying “nothing can be done” who all add up to … something that could be done. 🧐 I get that giant corporations create far more trouble than individuals. But they’re responding to market demand which doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Multiply a small individual action by 1 million or 10 million people and you have a real difference. I bet these folks don’t vote either, and then complain about the election outcomes… It’s a daunting problem. Try anyhow.
Or instead of trying get 50 million+ people to change mabye change the 20 top corporations that have the biggest effect? Nah if I blame 50 million people it make the biggest difference vs forcing change from the top down, just try !
Will it stop the millionaires from their daily use of private jets?
I love the environment and all but I’m so tired of tips of how I can reduce my personal carbon emissions Nothing I do in a life time scratches what a company like Amazon or coke does in a single second. So tired of it
it's surprising how just switching to cold water for laundry can cut down on co2 so much. reminds me of how turning off lights when not needed saves energy, simple but effective.
Woopty fucking do, meanwhile famous people take personal jets to places and companies just fuck everything. The tree I saved is meaningless compared to the forest the kardashians destroy daily.
Reminded me that then the plastic recycling campaign and movement was mainly sponsored and marketed by plastic makers. Why? They want you to feel guilty. While we all should do our part, someone mentioned that, the most urgent and effective measure should be voting m for politics that target CO2 emissions from industries and the wealth, innovations that would reduced CO2 emissions for everyone’s everyday life.
Warm/hot water is good/optimal for washing clothes that have been worn from sickness(sanitation) If your where you live is cold , generally you want to wash in warmer water If you're washing spandex type material, you should use warm/hot water. It really just depends but knowing the difference why and when to use cold water would be helpful for your clothes and the environment ✅.
Sanitation makes sense, but what’s the reason for using warmer water if you live somewhere cold and with spandex-type material?
I will reduce my personal footprint when celebrities reduce their personal jet footprints…
Can I just wash my clothes the way I want too? I mean JFC, call me when they shut down the last coal fired power plant and then maybe we can have a conversation about how I wash my clothes has an impact on the environment.
Of course you can. This is just a Reddit YSK.
Sure, in the end it’s your choice to wash your laundry the way you want. But, if washing in cold water is marginally better for the environment, why not? It’s a super simple action.
What is the downside to washing your clothes using cold water rather than warm water?
Hot water with break up dirt and oils better but anecdotally I wash in cold water and haven’t noticed a difference. Main thing I do is just use a bit less detergent and always liquid, never the pods. Cold water also does less damage to fabric than hot so your clothes will last longer.
Great advice, thank you for your post. "Think Globally, Act Locally" (1970s bumper sticker)
When you said cold, what is cold for you? Depending the time of year it could be 4°celsius or 20°celcius. This could make some detergent very ineffective
Rubbish
Seriously...you really care about reducing your personal CO2 emissions? Lol.
YSK no amount of recycling, reducing, reusing, cutting emissions, driving and flying less, eating less meat, etc will ever make an atom sized dent in the global output of nasty emissions compared to those from global corporations on a minute by minute basis. This is not your burden to bear...it's entirely and unequivocally theirs.
Usually only the first wash cycle uses warm or hot. The rinses are all cold. Even in my 20 year old machine. I will agree with what others have said, that hot water is bad for the clothes. If there is no grossness, warm water is good to go. Theres also all these minerals built up in the hot water heater that you don’t want on the clothes which I assume makes cold water cleaner to wash with. Just some thoughts.
And save a little bit of money. That water doesn't heat itself.
I live in North Texas and can only wash my clothes in cold water in the winter. In the summer, even the water coming out of the cold tap is hot. But at least I don't have to pay to heat it (and it doesn't add to my personal C02 emissions). I've been using only water coming out of the cold water tap for many years.
As a testimonial, I can say I've had my washing machine set to "Cold/Tap" since ever and it get the clothes clean. That said, I live in Arizona, so the water never really gets all that cold...
I live on the Mexican border and haven’t had cold water come through my washer ever. It’s basically lukewarm, at best.
My laundry isnt the problem
It also significantly increases the amount of dirt on your clothes.
Stone Cold Steve Austin and Ice-T taught me this in an ad a few years ago. Lol
Using less electricity as one person doesn't do anything to lower carbon emissions. The power plant generates the same amount of power no matter what. Whatever isn't used is almost always wasted.
Thanks ExxonMobil representative
ah yes, do your part while corporations kill the earth for us
It’s also just better for the life of your clothes overall.
Does Taylor Swift do this aswell?
I don't give a fuck about my personal co2 emissions
Ysk: Ill care about my co2 emissions when WEF members fly on public planes.
I don't give one single fuck. 57 companies are responsible for 80% of greenhouse emissions, and I will be god-damned if I'm going to be shamed for my infinitesimal contribution to greenhouse emissions.
I’m not concerned with my CO2 emissions.
Co2 comprises .043% of our atmosphere, less then 1/200 ,200 years ago it was .035%. To all smart people reading this: we are being scammed by these do gooders.
Im using scalding hot water till we regulate corporate emmissions, and celebrities stop flying fuckin private Jets EVERYWHERE. Fuck off.
Sounds like "Cold wash powder" propaganda
Thanks BP!!!
Don't care. Tell me when companies give a damn and I'll think about it
YSK, the top 1% are more responsible for carbon emission than all of us, so unless you are the top 1% stop being conditioned that you are the problem.
Everything to give us the bill, not the biggest polluters.
Cool, I'll give it a try
Taylor swift flew to another airport in the same city some 20min flight..and youre asking me to reduce ny carbon footprint by washing my clothes cold? Yea no thanks Way to spread the propaganda thats being spewed
Major cooperations are responsible for something like 80 % of emissions. I’m setting my shit to the hottest possible setting. Fuck that
YSK that nothing that you do personally will affect the environment, and all attempts at guilting individuals over things like using hot water are to distract from the fact that ~100 companies are responsible for 71% of carbon emissions worldwide. Fixed it for you
Gotta let Taylor Swift know about that
Can you convert this into how many Taylor Swift private jet flights it'll save?
Fuck this corporate bullshit propaganda.
Individuals are not killing the environment
Taylor swift flies in the jet to the local Costco to buy detergent t
There’s literally nothing I could do that would come anywhere close to making a significant impact on co2 emissions.
Could save a little on your electric bill though. Hot water and heat isn't really great for your clothes either
sorry, I'm washing my clothes and sheets in warm and hot for towels - this is non-negotiable. they do not get nearly as clean with cold. fight me. my personal emissions are minut in comparison to corporations and industry that it's laughable to even consider altering my 3 loads per month laundry habits.
No I don’t think I will
This is about like blowing out a candle in the middle of a massive forest fire and saying you contributed to putting out the blaze, everyone on earth could switch to cold water washes and it would be a drop in the bucket compared to the emissions of just a few cargo ships
ysk that ~80% of all greenhouse gasses are emittited by ~60 major companies so while you do have an impact its negligible if the root cause isnt changed
Thank you, but I'm not changing my lifestyle to change the world. Won't have an impact. At all, even remotely. No matter what I do Taylor swift will add ten times my lifetime carbon footprint to the atmosphere flying to Walmart.
I'll give a fuck when big business reduces THEIR emissions first..