Dirty Drawers
John Tierney, who somehow managed to grab space in the New York Times science section, is now taking cues from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the geniuses who gave us the "We Call it Life" ads. Remember those? The tag line was: "Carbon dioxide: They call it a pollutant. We call it Life." CO2 can't be bad, you see, because "we breathe it in" and plants "breathe it out." Uh huh, right. And, similarly, water is a good thing -- until you're drowning in it!
Now, the CEI is gloating over a recent Consumer Reports article that found that some top-loading clothes washers are more expensive and less effective at cleaning since the advent of government regulations mandating increased energy efficiency. CEI is so bent out of shape, in fact, that they're asking folks to send the Undertreasury of Energy their underpants in protest. Yeah, that'll teach 'em to make regulations!
In his latest column (Green Isn't Clean In the Laundry Room), Mr. Tierney, who prides himself on "questioning the conventional wisdom on science" eats out of CEI's hand, dutifully reporting that:
Even a cursory reading of the Consumer Reports item shows that the biggest problems were found in conventional top-loaders. It did not find many problems with front-loaders, which clean very well and which not only save energy but water too. What's more, even among top-loaders the more expensive, high-efficiency models score well.
But that's too nuanced for Tierney. In the polemic he has formulated, government, with the connivance of environmentalists, has made all clothes washers worse and more expensive, period. For CEI's part, here is what Sam Kazman (an attorney) wrote in a 2001 New York Times opinion piece:
As for the high-minded concern for low-income families, it's worth remembering that CEI is a libertarian organization that would yank every last shred of government support out from under low-income families just on principle.
So, to sum up: Yes, washers are getting more expensive, but isn't that what competition within the marketplace is for -- to bring those prices down, over time? Finally, both Kazman and Tierney dismiss the fact that the costs are offset by energy and water savings. And Tierney doesn't see fit to mention that many utilities and water districts now offer rebates to consumers who buy more efficient units, further reducing the cost. No surprise there; such considerations undermine an already weak case.
Now, the CEI is gloating over a recent Consumer Reports article that found that some top-loading clothes washers are more expensive and less effective at cleaning since the advent of government regulations mandating increased energy efficiency. CEI is so bent out of shape, in fact, that they're asking folks to send the Undertreasury of Energy their underpants in protest. Yeah, that'll teach 'em to make regulations!
In his latest column (Green Isn't Clean In the Laundry Room), Mr. Tierney, who prides himself on "questioning the conventional wisdom on science" eats out of CEI's hand, dutifully reporting that:
Thanks to new federal standards, washing machines are using less energy — but as a result they cost more and clean less, as Consumer Reports concludes in its new issue:So many things are wrong here, but let's start with the fact that Consumer Reports found plenty of machines that wash very well indeed while meeting the new energy standards. The fact that some don't would seem to be the fault of the particular manufacturers, not the government, no?
"Not so long ago, you could count on most washers to get your clothes very clean. Not anymore. Our latest tests found huge performance differences among machines. Some left our stain-soaked swatches nearly as dirty as they were before washing. For best results, you’ll have to spend $900 or more."
Which is precisely what Sam Kazman of the Competitive Enterprise Institute predicted six years ago when the Bush administration enacted the new efficiency standards with promises that new technology would clean clothes better and save money.
Even a cursory reading of the Consumer Reports item shows that the biggest problems were found in conventional top-loaders. It did not find many problems with front-loaders, which clean very well and which not only save energy but water too. What's more, even among top-loaders the more expensive, high-efficiency models score well.
But that's too nuanced for Tierney. In the polemic he has formulated, government, with the connivance of environmentalists, has made all clothes washers worse and more expensive, period. For CEI's part, here is what Sam Kazman (an attorney) wrote in a 2001 New York Times opinion piece:
The new rule is likely to restrict the availability of low-priced top loading clothes washers, replacing many with European-style frontloaders. Yet many people hate bending down to load laundry, and like being able to quickly open a machine in mid cycle to add a misplaced sock. Low-income families will also lose out, given their difficulty financing the new washer's higher prices.Yes, well, God forbid you should have to bend down or throw that sock in the next load! Not in the Home of the Brave, we don't!
As for the high-minded concern for low-income families, it's worth remembering that CEI is a libertarian organization that would yank every last shred of government support out from under low-income families just on principle.
So, to sum up: Yes, washers are getting more expensive, but isn't that what competition within the marketplace is for -- to bring those prices down, over time? Finally, both Kazman and Tierney dismiss the fact that the costs are offset by energy and water savings. And Tierney doesn't see fit to mention that many utilities and water districts now offer rebates to consumers who buy more efficient units, further reducing the cost. No surprise there; such considerations undermine an already weak case.
2 Comments:
You are either missing, or choosing to ignore, the entire point that Tierney and Consumer Reports was making: government interference has forced the manufacturers to produce machines which do not adequately perform their intended functions. This is fact, and you cannot spin it any other way.
Yes, there are machines on the market that perform very well. But you cannot ignore the fact that a $400 topload washer built today will not clean as well as a $400 from two years ago. And while you would like to blame this on the manufacturers, blame can only be placed upon the government and the idiotic activists who forced the changes. The only things that have changed in these machines is water consumption and water temperature, and those changes were mandated by the government.
It is also a legitimate argument that not every family can afford a high-end, high-efficiency laundry pair.
Finally, your argument about competition driving prices down is weak. That indeed may occur, but it will come at the expense of product quality and a new generation of disposable appliances will be born. How do you think the manufacturers will remain profitable at these reduced prices and profit margins?
Brad, thanks for the comment. I don't think Consumer Reports and Tierney were making the same point exactly. CR was just evaluating the products; Tierney was using that evaluation as an indictment of environmental regulations. CR was, in fact, explicit in saying it endorsed the goals of the regulation (if not the outcome).
That should be something we can all agree on; namely, we need to conserve both water and power. If the market doesn't drive things in that direction of its own accord, is it reasonable for government to move it that way via regulation? I'd say yes. You and Tierney, I have a hunch, would say no way.
As for competition and prices, I would argue that the rules of economics persist even after the parameters have been changed. The company that can produce the least expensive washers that meet the new regulations while still performing well will win the most customers. Their success will be copied and competition will ensue. It will take time, but prices will go down. In the meantime, rebates and energy/water-savings help defray the up-front costs of new washers -- something Tierney studiously ignores.
A drop in product quality is not at all inevitable, but could occur with or without regulation.
Finally, tell me you're not blaming the advent of 'disposable appliances' on environmental regulations, because that doesn't make any sense at all.
Post a Comment
<< Compass Main