greenwashing
A headline in The Economist this week grabbed my attention - "Washing without water". The article proceeded to outline a new technology for washing clothes using minimal water and nylon beads, indicating that the carbon footprint of the new system is "40% smaller than the most efficient existing systems for washing and drying laundry". Sounds great.
But, the article didn't satisfy my curiosity about this new technology and its efficiency. Doesn't the production of synthetic fibers, including nylon, require fossil fuels? Aren't the processes by which such fibers are produced very energy intensive? Did the calculation of the carbon footprint include these considerations? Since the article didn't contain this information, I looked elsewhere. Hello Google.
The most pertinent of my findings is summarized by the following table:
| Fiber | Energy use (MJ) per kg of fiber |
| Flax | 10 |
| Cotton (conventional) | 55 |
| Wool | 63 |
| Viscose | 100 |
| Polyester | 125 |
| Acrylic | 175 |
| Nylon | 250 |
Since 250 MJ of energy is not very tangible to me, I did some conversions. According to Wikipedia, gasoline contains about 32.0MJ/l. So to make a kilogram of nylon requires the amount of energy contained in about 8 liters of gasoline, which is enough to drive 100km in a new Toyota Camry.
In conducting my research, I also discovered that the price of nylon has risen substantially, 25% in the US, in line with rising energy prices and that demand for nylon has decreased in recent years (more information can be found here). Although unproven, I'm left with the impression that the new washing technology is an attempt to find a new market for nylon in reaction to current market trends.
But, although interesting in itself, my questions remained since the quantity of nylon used in the new washing machines was not quantified in the article. So, I explored the company's website. There, despite not finding the information I sought, I discovered two things:
- The 40% reduction in carbon footprint may have included the manufacturing of the nylon, but it's not really clear. The company states that the "calculation also includes the environment cost of the Xeros nylon beads which will be recycled, never just thrown away." Sounds like the study may have relied on a true life cycle analysis (LCA) of the product, but I can't find a link to said study so can't verify what is meant by "environment costs".
- The company is assuming that the nylon will be recycled. This assumption is only valid if the infrastructure and education needed to ensure that consumers actually recycle the beads is launched along with the product. Somehow, I'm skeptical. Many things are recyclable. Many of these things are not recycled.
Long story short, the new technology may not be as sustainable as the company claims. I get the sense that greenwashing may be at play here (pun not intended, but I must admit that I like it), but I don't have access to the information I need to substantiate my gut feeling.
Which brings me full circle - shouldn't the The Economist provide the reader with this information? As far as I can tell, all the information provided in the article can be gleaned from the company's website. Needless to say, I'm not impressed with journalism that regurgitates information without any critical investigation. Isn't journalism about asking questions and finding answers? Isn't that the value-added? I can read a website for free. I pay for news for the additional information. So, if the additional information isn't there, what am I paying for when I buy The Economist?
Perhaps, as James Fallows argued in 1991, The Economist is relying on its sacred cow status to retain readers.The criticism launched in 1999 by Andrew Sullivan, namely that "there's a funny thing about the Economist. The closer you look, the weaker it gets. Beneath the blizzard of one-liners ... and snazzy graphs, it contains less original reporting than many other news magazines", rings true. I haven't noticed it in the past, but perhaps I never took the time to look closely enough.
