Explaining the car climate crisis with a dishwasher
What does a dishwasher have to do with cars? I have no doubt that’s the first question that springs to your mind. And no, the answer isn’t just a clickbait title — at least, I hope that’s not your opinion after hearing my thoughts.
I hope to use the example of a dishwasher (because most Westerners own or have access to one) to illustrate one fact: more accessible, innovative technology doesn’t reduce energy use. Instead, it increases it.
That’s not the fault of the technology.
It’s ours.
Dishwashers as an example of the climate crisis
Let me tell you a quick story. It definitely won’t seem relevant, but hear me out.
We don’t have a dishwasher in our house. There are only two of us, my wife and I, and there are very few instances where a dishwasher would be practical, useful, or even save any noticeable amount of time. Besides, our kitchen is far too small to waste valuable cupboard space.
But recently, we stayed in another house for a couple of weeks. This house is much bigger than ours and does have a dishwasher.
Stick with me.
I made a cup of coffee, poured it into a mug, and drank it. So far, everything is precisely the same as in our house.
But then I came to wash it up, and it’s here that things changed. In our house, I would have grabbed the sponge, turned the hot tap on, swilled the dregs out, wiped the mug with dish soap, rinsed it, and left it to drip dry or dried it with a towel. And then, I use the same mug again if I have another.
Not so in the dishwasher house. I walked over to the sink, fully in automatic mode and ready to repeat the same process I mentioned above. It isn’t exactly time-consuming or rocket science.
But then I spied the dishwasher — just out of the corner of my eye — a little temptation — and one I gave into immediately.
Rather than washing my mug, I gave it a half-hearted rinse and plopped it on the top rack of the dishwasher. And then, I left it ready for the nightly wash cycle and got another out of the cupboard for my next coffee.
Over the day, this led to four or five mugs piling up. Having a dishwasher was suddenly justified — ‘Look at all this washing up I have to do!’ And yet, it was no more than usual. I could have done the same amount of cleaning using the existing sink without spending money on an expensive and noticeably less efficient (unless full, which it wasn’t) dishwasher.
This brings me to a principle I notice in everyday life. It’s based on something my old boss told me: “Everyone always chooses the laziest option they can afford.”
A bit offensive, I know, but it stuck with me. And you know what? It’s absolutely true. My dishwasher example proves it.
Energy use and distance travelled
Believe it or not, this principle applies everywhere in the world. It explains the popularity (or lack thereof) of literally everything — supply and demand. It also applies directly to the transportation industry, which has been relevant for millennia but has only recently taken responsibility for its environmental and health damage.
Here’s what I mean. For example, I currently live out in the sticks in southern Ontario. It’s by no means rural — just about suburban in Canadian terms, around 20 minutes from the nearest major town and shopping areas. Out here, it’s very easy to claim that living in this part of the world without a car is impossible. It would take an entire day to walk to and from the supermarket, and there’s no way we could carry home the vast quantities of supplies we need on a daily basis without our car.
Or could we?
Because, flipping that thought upside down, one could also argue that we only live here because the invention of cars made it much easier than it would otherwise have been.
Or, if we hadn’t invented cars, would that mean we wouldn’t live here?
Probably not. We wouldn’t know any different.
The main farmhouse was built in the 1800s, long before the motorcar became popular with the masses. Back then, these areas were even more isolated than they are now. The best they could have hoped for was a strong horse, but more likely, a couple of oxen for transportation.
They seem to have managed okay. Why can’t we?
The answer is, of course, that we’re too comfortable. Life is still hectic and involves plenty of endless running around, but sitting on a heated seat with my heated steering wheel driving 20 minutes into town is a much more attractive suggestion than freezing, frostbitten fingers on the four-hour journey there and the same amount of time back. No thanks.
In other words, we make the car and all its journeys sound justified because of the uncomfortable alternative. It’s unbelievably easy to cover large distances, even in terrible weather. Where we would otherwise have stayed at home or ensured we loaded up on supplies in one go, we don’t bother because it’s so easy to drive back into town if we forget something.
Our energy usage is therefore much higher because our lives are more comfortable.
Now, I’m not suggesting we all revert to horse-and-cart transportation. But I am saying that if we want to truly make a difference in climate change, we must treat car journeys (and all others) with the same respect we would afford rugged animal-based travel. Otherwise, we’ll endlessly use more and more energy, regardless of the output of an individual trip.
I have another example in the same ‘comfort’ vein. Heating.
Almost all the world used to heat their homes with fire — burning wood or coal or something along those lines. A home wood fire is probably the most polluting thing in existence, so we certainly shouldn’t return to those days.
Now, though, it’s much easier to heat the entire home to a comfortable temperature. When humans only had chimneys, fireplaces and wood stoves, houses were smaller. The flames had less space they needed to heat.
The invention of central heating, radiators and forced air, meant homes could be bigger. And so the heating systems, although they’re much more efficient and less polluting, have much more work to do. Which is worse for the environment? A small home with a wood fire? Or a home three times the size with a standard gas boiler or heat pump? (I don’t know the answer, but I’m keen to find out!)
Another example, this time bringing it back to journeys. Most people used to travel relatively long distances on horses when they were alone. Of course, that’s assuming they knew how to ride. A dedicated horse with a skilled and experienced rider could perhaps have travelled 50 miles per day. If the rider exchanged horses at multiple stops, they could travel even further.
That’s quite impressive, but the inevitable result was that most people never travelled far from the village they grew up in. It would simply have been too expensive and taken too long.
Nowadays, a car on the highway will cover 50 miles in an hour or less. If someone were to drive all day (which I don’t really agree with from a safety perspective, but that’s another topic), they could easily cover 400 miles or more.
Our cars use so much more fuel because we can travel that distance. And we make those journeys because we can, sending fossil fuel exhaust fumes back into the atmosphere because we can. Right? We would never have even considered travelling 400 miles on horseback except in the direst of emergencies, surely?
Once again, we find our energy consumption isn’t related to the method of transportation but to the mindset with which the transportation is used.
Caution for the future
And that brings me to the future of cars. I’m in complete agreement that significant changes need to be made, and soon. While a few exciting sustainable developments are currently making the headlines, we’re overlooking one thing.
And I think it could be a major problem.
It’s us.
Electric cars, utilised and implemented correctly, could make travel even easier than it already is. Almost unlimited access to everything and the potential ability to recharge anywhere with an electrical connection make them the stuff of sci-fi dreams.
And as these cars get more efficient (regarding their environmental emissions), will we emit less carbon dioxide?
Or, like the examples of the rest of human history, will we jump on the ease of travel and take our cars further than ever? Will we cut back on our impact on the planet, or will we say, “This car does very little environmental damage — I may as well travel further”?
Because this, of course, completely negates all its benefits. In fact, even if the individual vehicles emit less, using them more frequently may mean we see little difference at all.
So, instead of putting all our hopes on technological improvements, let’s first look at ourselves. We need to maximise the efficiency of our travel, full stop. That starts today. And that means putting more effort into planning trips and minimising journeys.
Dishwashers aren’t the end of the world. But our attitude to using them might be.
