• jmill@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    More water and energy efficient to run, yes. If you have to replace them every couple of years the resources used to make new ones need to be included too though, and that will have a big impact on the comparison. That said, I have had a modern front load pair for at least 5 years now, no issues.

    • klay1@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      22 hours ago

      there are calculations and tables on exactly this, when a machine is to be replaced. Including production and shipment of a new one etc., some should be replaced. Look it up!

      • jmill@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 days ago

        Of course. Those resources are just a much larger impact percentage wise on an appliance replaced every two years vs 25.

    • WolfmanEightySix@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      In the 2008 economic slump, the U.K. had something called a “car scrappage scheme”. Shit was the most wasteful thing ever. Also saw really cool classics cubed.

      • jmill@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        2 days ago

        USA had the same thing, “Cash for Clunkers”. Some of the cars we were better off getting rid of. Some of them not, whether because they were rare or classic, or old but still more fuel efficient than a truck or SUV. Sure increased the average price of a used car though.

        • cenzorrll@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          You could find driveable used cars for ~$700 before. Even accounting for inflation now, all you can find now are mechanic specials and parts only.