Our commitment to sustainability

Last week in Norwich a major redevelopment scheme near the city centre which included 1,250 housing units was refused planning permission by the Secretary of State for Housing etc after the city council’s decision to grant approval had been called-in.

One of the reasons behind the refusal was the unsatisfactory nature of the housing provision: it was predominantly in the form of small one- and two-bedroom flats with single aspects. It had been considered that building 1,200 tiny flats ticked the box marked “build more housing units”. The obsession with the number of units over the housing capacity provided is unhelpful. To my mind building 400 three-bedroom homes is preferable to building 1200 one-bedroom homes – apart from anything else it saves 800 kitchens, 800 bathrooms, and 800 front doors. I accept that it would provide accommodation for 800 fewer ‘households’, but the Norwich housing market is over-supplied with unlet small flats since so many empty office buildings have been converted into cellular residential blocks and several student housing schemes and other speculative buy-to-let developments have been completed in the last few years or are still under construction.

I believe the key to rationalising housing provision and balancing need and capacity is to make sure the market is open and fluid enough to cater for all types of demand. I see no point in trying to control theoretical under-occupation by rigid controls. I don’t think there is any good reason why people whose families have grown up and moved away, or where death or separation have left a sole occupier, should be forced to downsize if they can afford to live in and maintain a larger property that they have bought and worked hard to maintain; the council tax incorporates financial penalties on the occupation of bigger properties as it is. Over time, people upsize and release smaller properties onto the market and eventually downsize and release larger properties. The mechanism is not fluid enough because prices are too high at every level of the pyramid, but that is generally a consequence of normal supply and demand. That can really only be moderated by an increase in supply coupled with better value and a consistent approach to the affordable homes ratio.

[Re: John’s post about housing development in Norwich]

That’s interesting. It seems obvious that it is important to pay attention to what is wanted as well as what might look good to planners. A small flat might be fine for students who are living away from their parental home.

Malcolm wrote: “Should we therefore, on environmental grounds, require single occupants in properties with three or more bedrooms to vacate them and allow a family to become the occupants, moving to a smaller home?” I wonder if Malcolm would be happy to downsize. Should it also be a requirement in parts of the country where there is plenty of housing available?

No, I would not be happy to move from my present home. Nor would I advocate forced downsizing. What I was pointing out was that if people are intent on reducing what they consider damages the environment there are many measures committed individuals can take, cars and houses included.

I have lived in the home we developed for over 40 years and like it, so I’m staying. I’ve just ordered some peonies, phlox and hellebores and most of next year’s seeds have arrived. I drive quite a lot fewer miles than I did, in my quite nice car that I do not propose replacing, so in consequence pollution is reduced. And I have just renewed my bus pass.

I thought as much, but you posed the question about whether, on environmental grounds, we should require single occupants in properties with three or more bedrooms to make way for those with families. I doubt that many people will want to downsize.

And perhaps those who own several cars, especially older and hence more polluting, should be required to own only one? One has to ask if multiple car ownership in an age of increasing concern with environmental health can ever be justified.

I think the common sense of downsizing is a sufficient motive in itself in appropriate situations and it will depend on individual circumstances and preferences.

There are several reasons to downsize later in life but it shouldn’t be left too late as it gets harder as the years pass. There are also good reasons not to move, and many people have little choice over whether or not they can move.

We tend to look at this from the point of view of people whose property is too big, has poor accessibility externally or internally, is difficult to maintain, or is not in a convenient location. In practice, most people probably live in an adequate property, in a satisfactory location, and convenient for their needs and income, so they have no need to change upwards or downwards in size. They might better expend their energies in making their existing property simpler to occupy and look after through some newer appliances, less furniture and contents, some alterations inside and out for lower maintenance, and a general refresh.

Moving home is a troublesome and costly process. In environmental terms it is also wasteful unless there are personal health and safety benefits.

We can only drive one at a time.
So should all older and more polluting cars be withdrawn and scrapped? Might be an option to propose for those who can afford a new electric or hybrid, but many cannot.

I presume that scrappage schemes will provide an incentive for owners of older cars to trade them in. What is needed is a scheme that allows an owner to trade in their polluting old car for a secondhand cleaner car, which would help those who cannot afford a new car or do not want to buy a new car that will lose thousands of pounds in value the first time it is driven.

One of the neighbours has two cars, one is kept in the garage and the other is parked in a ‘residents only’ parking area. To ensure a parking space on return, the one in the garage is driven out and parked in the empty space left by the other one parked in the ‘residents only’ area and returned to the garage until the next time they go out, when the whole process is repeated, much to the annoyance of the other residents.

If trading in your main car for a less polluting car, and the trade-in is scrapped, then that would help the environment. But if your main car is environmentally friendly and you have little used extra cars, for whatever reason, then there is little or no point.

Beryl – Some people might be tempted to park in front of their garage.

Only as a last resort John as the garages are in two rows of 5 directly opposite each other.

And not I nice thing to do 🙁

Would it help for residents’ parking bays to be reserved for named individuals (or their guests)?

Theoretically it would if there were sufficient parking spaces for each and everyone of the garage owners, but as the garages are mainly used for storage there is usually one car too many when everyone is home. Often during weekdays workmen (and sometimes guests) attending one of the houses will park wherever they can find an empty space.

I think we have veered away from the main topic which is about sustainability 🙁

I was gently despairing about this but certainly support Which? paying more attention to sustainability.

What concerned me was that on of the products featured in the magazine report is a smart appliance. What will happen when it no longer speaks to the phone? I hope that it will continue to function as a dumb machine when the novelty wears off.

I think mobile phones are one of the obvious examples of what you call premature replacement. And many people use older computers. We need to think very carefully about what we need to buy but, when so many have “discretionary spending” – more money than they need for normal living – they will spend it. I guess those living near the breadline would be using old phones, white goods and an old car because they cannot afford to replace them.

The amount of use that a product is used is a measure of whether it represents good use of resources. I use my mobile every day and many younger people make much more use of their phones. I do not regret replacing my previous smartphone after nearly five years because the new one performs better and is safe to use for banking and other financial purposes.

It was wasteful for me to buy a cheap electric hammer drill/chisel to demolish a wall prior to rebuilding because I’ve only needed it ones in over 20 years. I had intended to give it to a charity but it was declined because it is 230 rather than 110V and the latter is needed to comply with safety requirements for non-domestic use.

BEUC report a German view on this (BEUC is an umbrella organisation for European Consumers’ Associations):
https://www.beuc.eu/blog/thanks-to-the-eu-were-moving-closer-to-a-repair-society/
“Second, more should have been done on the repair front. The measures state that in some cases only professional repairers will receive spare parts and repair instructions. This leaves behind consumers who want to repair things themselves. Why would a consumer not be able to replace the light bulb of his own fridge? In a survey carried out by the Federation of German Consumer Organisations (vzbv), 25% of respondents said that they had repaired a broken appliance themselves or with the help of a friend. Money is not always the sole reason behind self-repair. Fun and satisfaction also play a part. Psychologists call it “the experience of self-efficacy”.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_19_5895
“For the first time the measures include requirements for repairability and recyclability, contributing to circular economy objectives by improving the life span, maintenance, re-use, upgrade, recyclability and waste handling of appliances.”

Spares and instructions must be available to everyone, although there should be disclaimers for diy repairs in case they are done incompetently.

This will need to be an international initiative otherwise the producers a more than likely going to ignore the pleas of just one state. Which?, hopefully, will be working with those sister organisations under BEUC to ensure we get a consensus and action. We cannot really expect to go it alone and succeed.

Thanks Malcolm. I have read these articles but they may be of interest to others. I can certainly identify with the ‘fun and satisfaction’ of doing my own repairs.

The concept of a circular economy fascinates me: https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org In principle the idea seems worthwhile, and proper recycling certainly is, but commercial pressure could turn this into a business model where older models are traded in for newer ones. We already see examples such as customers trading in their ‘old’ phone for a new one after two years. Businesses like this approach because it helps their cash flow. I hope my fears about the circular economy are not justified.

It frustrates me when I am not able to obtain spares. I used to buy laptop batteries from Apple but now that batteries for Apple products are not deemed user-replaceable the only way of replacing a battery is by getting the job done by an Apple Store or one of their authorised service providers. When I was having to charge my phone every morning I bought a third party replacement battery and fitted it with the help of an iFixit video. Not the easiest job I have tackled it, but the new battery performed excellently for a couple of months. It then deteriorated and would not hold a charge for more than a few hours. Since the phone was about five years old I decided to buy a new one. Some time later I found that the failing battery in the old phone had swollen, bursting open the case:

The refusal by Apple to supply spares to independent repairers and the public has resulted in a great deal of consumer pressure, certainly in the US.

I look forward to all phone and laptop batteries being user-replaceable and the likes of Apple being forced to sell spares.

“I look forward to all phone and laptop batteries being user-replaceable and the likes of Apple being forced to sell spares.”

Wouldn’t that be nice? But it seems to me that the designs of phones are laptops are heading in the opposite direction, to designs that give no easy options for the replacement of any parts, other than perhaps batteries. But even changing the latter requires case opening operations.

Perhaps the best sensible option is to design and build items for a long working life and avoid issues such as planned obsolescence, e.g. from lack of software support.

My ~2010 X201 laptop (see:-http://www.notebookreview.com/notebookreview/lenovo-thinkpad-x201-review/ ) installed a W10 upgrade yesterday and still seems to be working fine. It is still my main “work” PC, because I could never get W10 to run properly on a newer (X240) alternative.

Most of my other PC’s now run Linux and are unlikely to be ever affected by software end of life issues. I’ve owned my oldest regularly used PC since buying it new in 2008, but it is now only used for retro gaming under XP.

You can buy a Fairphone. which is claimed to be more sustainable, both by the manufacturer and others. In a commercial world, products need to sell or we need legislation to require that batteries are user-replaceable or that software support continues for longer.

The iPhone 5s model in my photo did not support iOS 13 but this model continues to be supported, seven years after the phone was released. Apple has done this by releasing security updates to the previous operating system and iOS 12.5.2 was released in March. That’s better than other makes and better than other iPhones. Had I been able to buy a genuine replacement battery I might still be using that phone.

Perhaps we should push for legislation that requires manufacturers to provide security support for X years after launch. That would be a level playing field. How we persuade owners not to replace their phone after two years or less might be harder challenge.

I’ve various old computers that I use periodically, albeit not online. I have a flat-screen iMac dating from 2002. It’s a quirky all-in-one display and I use it to display photos at events.

Modern washing machines typically use lower temperatures but longer cycles to achieve the same cleaning performance. This saves energy and the lower temperature means less damage to the fabric. Temperature settings could be meaningless, as explained in this Which? article: https://www.staticwhich.co.uk/documents/pdf/62-65_washingmachines-331452.pdf

There are two problems that could explain the problem with your washing machine, James:

1. Manufacturers often provide quick wash cycles which are appealing but to wash effectively at lower temperatures you need longer washes.

2. When washing at lower temperatures it is important to do a periodic ‘maintenance wash’ at the maximum temperature, as explained in the manual. Without this a slime of bacteria and moulds will build-up unseen in the innards of the machine.

It might be worth giving Bosch a ring but I suspect they will make similar suggestions and also suggest that the machine is not overloaded. The main problem with my Miele is inadequate rinsing, which means that I often have to run a second short wash programme. It probably uses more water than the single cycle in the 34 year old Philips machine that it replaced.

I have no experience with modern dishwashers but if the performance has deteriorated this could be due to blocked filters or limescale in the spray arms. If food has been allowed to dry it might help to run the short rinse cycle to soften it before the wash cycle.

As I said above, I now wash my ALL clothes at the hottest AND longest programmes available – I have never been tempted to use the short or eco washes, since even the longer ones fail to wash the clothes properly. The manual does indeed mention a ‘maintenance’ wash – with washing machine cleaner, and we do do this. However, these strong noxious cleaning detergent eventually end up under the field behind us – which can’t be good for the environment – it seems like Bosch taking credit for reducing energy and water use, but just passing environmental harm on to other concerns.

We live in a very soft water, with virtually no limescale (or very little other mineral content), and in any case, the dishwasher performed poorly (despite Which? Best Buy) from day 1, 6 months ago, and be have only gradually got it performing acceptably by switching to hotter and longer programmes.

Hi James – The way that we damage the environment concerns me too. Maybe if we all had septic tanks like you do we might be more careful about what chemicals we use.

I do not know what Bosch cleaning detergent contains and cannot find a ‘safety data sheet’ which would list potentially hazardous chemicals. Maintenance washes can be done at 90 or 95°C with ordinary washing powder (or tablets), which usually containing a bleach – unlike liquids or gels that do not. It should not be necessary to use washing machine cleaner and the instructions for my own machine don’t suggest using a cleaner.

It’s best to use powder or tablet detergents when possible, but these can fade dark colours, meaning that liquids or powders for coloured fabrics should be used.

My Bosch dishwasher is about 15 years old and both the ‘Eco’ and ‘Quick’ cycles are useless. Thankfully the ‘Normal’ cycle is effective and I occasionally use the ‘Intensive’ setting which takes less time.

I thought about posting about the same article, John. I don’t know the answer. As well as SUVs, many drive around unnecessarily in 4×4 vehicles, estate cars, vans, motorhomes and even small minibuses. At some times they may be necessary but most of the time they waste fuel and can be a nuisance for others when parked in urban areas.

In some cases the fuel waste may be offset in other ways. For example, someone driving a powerful car capable of towing a caravan might take their holidays in the UK rather that flying abroad for their holidays.

We have a love affair with cars and I have just seen an unfamiliar black shiny SUV pass the window.

We could “waste” less fuel by using our vehicles less and by using public transport – but that needs to be adequate. We cannot expect people to scrap their SUVs, 4x4s, minibuses, estate cars (or “touring, like mine), motorhomes, nor powerful cars. No good just selling them to someone else. I don’t know how we know they drive them around “unnecessarily”; I just go out in my enjoyable 3l touring when I need to, at a paltry 40mpg.

I don’t know how we know they drive them around “unnecessarily”

Well, if a 16 seater minibus is used for just a single person most of the time, or a large, 4 wheel drive SUV is confined to the school run for most of its existence, then I think we can tell.

I remember when we first bought an all-wheel drive Toyota. This was many years ago, and I’d related the purchase in the original forum. There was a very hostile response from one person, who wanted to know just why I needed a huge 4by4 in the town. I pointed out, rather gently, where we lived and he quickly retracted his objections.

I don’t see many (or any) people who own 16 seater minibuses and just drive them around on their own. And if a 4wd SUV is only used for the school run they are not going to be doing many miles. Like my people carriers their footprint is not necessarily larger than a car. But whatever we might like, owners are not just going to discard them. So, do we ban them? How do we decide to dictate what people can and cannot own,who should hav one and who should not? Larger houses than they need with high energy costs – will they be banned? Flying abroad on holiday? Cruises? Bit tricky, isn’t it?

“Results from a 14-month collaborative study (Utah State University) show that 75 percent of a vehicle’s combined emissions occur within the first three minutes of being started after it has sat for 12 hours for more” which tends to suggest that “if a 4wd SUV is only used for the school run they are not going to be doing many miles” is probably the wrong perception of a serious problem.

And you might be surprised at just how many people have access to a minibus and drive it mainly for themselves. It is, in fact, the way I learnt to drive although, to be fair, the roads generally were a little less crowded then.

With regard to the final aspect of your argument, I’m thinking far more about the environmental impact of this sort of behaviour. And you’re right: it is tricky.

Malcolm – You have told us that you own two old diesel people carriers and a big BMW, and have repeatedly suggested that we need to make more use of public transport. Maybe a non-driver would be a better advocate. I once went to an outdoor conservation event attended by David Bellamy and was quite surprised that there was a large hog roast.

My top priority for public transport is decent park & ride services using electric buses, in cities with air quality problems.

I don’t think a non-driver would be any better advocate than anyone else who thinks about these issues. That implies drivers have no right to express a considered view. They do.

I can only drive one car at a time, of course, and my BMW is no bigger than most estate cars and served a purpose when I bought it over 5 years ago. It still does, and I do a relatively low mileage.

I have repeatedly advocated spending public money on electric and other public transport so we can all use our cars less. But it needs to be tackled properly.

Perhaps the claim that large numbers of 16 seater minibuses are driven around regularly with only one occupant could be substantiated?

As far as I am aware the engine type and size is more likely to determine cold emissions, whether it is fitted into an SUV or any other vehicle. Pollution then will depend upon how far you drive But there is more to environmental impact than just the noxious emissions formed when starting. CO2 is an inevitable consequence of combustion and is emitted continuously, so the further you drive the more you emit; and less if you only do short journeys. We need to think of this problem overall.

I wasn’t aware we were conserving pigs. We breed them to eat. And David looked fairly well fed. Maybe the fire was the focus of the conservation comment?

I read recently that manufacturers were cutting back on the production of SUV’s and reducing the number of models in their range. The reason given was so that they could concentrate on the manufacture of all-electric vehicles. I don’t know how true this is or whether it was just a story made up by the press to fill some space.

We once lived next door to a family that had four large 4WD cars on their frontage, all facing forward. They were all white and the place looked like an ambulance station. Black now seems to be the new white.

Some other views are given here https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/analysis-just-how-green-are-electric-vehicles
The CO2 “emissions” of an EV depends upon the generating fuel mix. The UK still has a substantial fossil fuel component. We also need to consider the amount of CO2 used to manufacture the EV and its batteries, and when that substantial extra CO2 is offset by the mileage it is driven.

Other unpleasant emissions need consideration in built up areas of course.

My choice, if I had to change my car, would be for a plug in hybrid providing it could only run on batteries in built up areas – presumably satnav would handle that – and had sufficient range to deal with those journeys. I would have to accept poorer performance on the open road, dragging around the extra weight.

Very good, Phil.

Older people often struggle to get out of low seats and opt for cars with a higher seating position. I’m OK at the moment but must think about seating position when I replace my present car.

Malcolm – I recall that we were very much in agreement about tackling air pollution, particularly in cities. I take your point that non-drivers might not be the best advocate for public transport, but they could be a useful members of a working group charged with working out how we move forward.

Much is said about the benefits of moving to electric vehicles and there will be immediate benefits in reducing pollution, but the reduction in carbon emissions will only be realised when we stop burning gas and biomass to produce electricity. We are certainly agreed on the need to produce more electricity though how best to achieve this is going to be a major challenge. Burning biomass to produce electricity is undoubtedly better than coal electricity produced in this way is not renewable, as has been pointed out by many people.

David Bellamy was very much opposed to global warming but subsequently changed his views.

John – Thanks for the update about SUVs. I presume that smaller vehicles with a higher seating position are considerably more economical than SUVs.

When looking at the sustainability of cars the use of materials and pollution including carbon emissions should take account of manufacture and disposal.

We must remember many cars are for families, often with young children. My two sons need to carry round prams – quite bulky these days – along with other related paraphernalia that take up more room than even a small SUV can provide. The car must meet the need.

Some older people do have difficulty with the low seating position in ordinary cars. Fortunately not me, yet. But one nice feature of my deux Espaces is their higher and more upright seating positions that make entering and leaving easier. And, even though they have 7 seats and turn into very useful load carriers they take up no more road space than many cars do.

Smaller cars with higher seating positions don’t seem to create the right image for the SUV enthusiasts.

I am not terribly interested in SUV’s so I have not paid much attention to their specification but I think some of the bigger ones, such as BMW, Audi, and Land Rover Discovery PHEV’s, have more than enough power to haul their extra weight around with high performance. I think that must be the major appeal of the type because four-wheel drive, higher ground clearance and off-road capability are not required for driving on UK roads. Everything in an SUV is scaled up and the weight of the extra metal and glass, plus the larger engine and battery configuration in a PHEV, must add considerably to the overall weight of the vehicle consuming more fuel, producing higher emissions, and having a bigger carbon footprint in manufacture.

As someone with one leg that doesn’t fold properly at the hinge I find getting in and out of a high threshold car more difficult than with our car which is quite low slung and I can lower myself into it gently. People must try before they buy.

It wouldn’t be difficult for manufacturers to produce a long-lasting, economical and roomy saloon with enough space for four adults, wide-opening doors and fully adjustable seats. But would it sell?

It’s not me who is arguing against personal transport, Malcolm and I’ve also commented on the need for cars that are easy to get in and out of.

The government can take action (as with the forthcoming ban on petrol/diesel) cars but I don’t see much scope for many people voluntarily changing their purchase and use of cars. More than anything else I would like to see reduction in commuting, so hopefully the pandemic will have a lasting effect.

I agree; driving fewer miles by car would be a huge step forward. I doubt many people like sitting in queues of traffic (causing more pollution) and driving a long way to work, nor wasting time and money, at the expense of home life. We need a real initiative to move business and other organisations into more widespread areas so your job can be nearer where you live, or you can find affordable accommodation in an area with work.

Rather than us debating whether we should have bigger cars or smaller, we should be simply looking at substantially reducing our everyday need to use them and, when we do, drive much shorter distances. That would, I believe, drastically reduce emissions and, for EVs, the need for too much more electricity generation.

However, it is far far easier to say “we’ll ban the sale of new petrol and diesel cars by 2030” than to do the hard work necessary in providing a solution for the future.

I do hope one step forward that Covid has shown is the ability for many people to work from home, at least for most of their working week. My family have found this works well and they are also more productive and tend to work a little longer hours. But great for the work/family balance. But not enough on its own.

Another consequence of this is less need for office space, so conversion to flats should help relieve the housing problem.

I’ve been enthusiastic about working from home since the start of the first lockdown. Part-time working at home worked well for me, though obviously it is only viable for some employees. I did not do too much working from home in case someone questioned whether I needed my own office. 🙂

Though I am enthusiastic about electric vehicles, how much pollution will be produced in their manufacture? That’s one reason I’m not planning to rush out any buy one until my present car deserves replacement.

”Though I am enthusiastic about electric vehicles, how much pollution will be produced in their manufacture? ”
The Autocar link I gave above says something about this:
”Using the average CO2 output of the European electricity network, Ernst concluded that an electric car using a 60kWh battery made in Europe would have to travel some 700,000 kilometres (435,000 miles) before it is “greener than an average petrol car”. However, Ernst also says that a fully renewable European grid would reduce the EV’s CO2 lag to just 30,000km (18,640 miles). ”

Not good, is it? Perhaps we are putting the cart before the horse? I still believe a major step would be to encourage a substantial reduction in private mileage.

malcolm r says:Today 15:14

”Using the average CO2 output of the European electricity network, Ernst concluded …. ”

His calculations are open to significant debate and the article also says “There’s no doubt that travelling in EVs has a smaller CO2 footprint than even the best internal combustion engine cars because the efficiency of a battery-electric drivetrain is around three times that of a normal petrol car and more than twice that of the latest Toyota Prius hybrid.”

Manufacturing batteries is CO2 intensive, as is manufacturing cars themselves – of whatever variety. The difference is that diesel and petrol cars continue to spew the stuff out for their lifetimes.

The Autocar article gave appropriate comments along these lines, which is why I referenced it and did not just extract.

What is often forgotten when comparing the “efficiency” of electrical propulsion vs. fossil fuel is the inefficiencies in the electrical generation, transmission and conversion chain. This significantly affects the actual efficiency. Looking Europe wide and still in the UK, a significant part of the generation fuel mix is gas. https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/data-portal/electricity-generation-mix-quarter-and-fuel-source-gb. Fossil fuel.

To get 1kWh of energy into the car battery requires nearly 2.7kWh of the fossil component with a typical current fuel mix, the rest coming from renewable sources. You could argue that at night renewables are less – no sun – so maybe the balance is worse. I haven’t examined that. So the fossil fuel equivalent efficiency of an EV is not dissimilar to a modern petrol and diesel car.

That balance will change as the generation sources change, but it is not great at present and, with increasing demands on the horizon for electricity for cooking and domestic heating, with insufficient green energy in the pipeline, it does not look that good for the next few years.

On pollution, there is no question that EVs and PHEVs are far better for the health of the air in towns and cities. But while fossil fuelled power stations contribute insignificantly, I hope, to that, they emit CO2 which is bad for the planet and global warming.

The very significant CO2 footprint of EV batteries is not a feature of fossil fuelled cars. It is a substantial extra and, as the article claims, could take many years to recover the advantage.

This is not a simple issue in which to make comparisons. I remain of the view that our best way forward is simply to use less energy for personal transport by substantially reducing our need to use it and therefore the mileage. A bit like insulating your home. That means less need to travel, giving up some pleasures, using an improved public transport system.

I’d rather we used energy for essentials like heating, cooking, lighting, and necessary manufacturing and services, for example, until we achieve the supply of energy from genuine renewables that can feed our discretionary uses.

https://conversation.which.co.uk/home-energy/product-sustainability-durability-testing/#comment-1623571““Results from a 14-month collaborative study (Utah State University) show that 75 percent of a vehicle’s combined emissions occur within the first three minutes of being started after it has sat for 12 hours for more” which tends to suggest that “if a 4wd SUV is only used for the school run they are not going to be doing many miles” is probably the wrong perception of a serious problem.”

That will apply to all vehicles, whether used for school runs or otherwise. Same initial concentration of unpleasant emissions but those doing longer journeys than just the school run will then emit even more emissions. I suggested the distance a vehicle is driven is the issue.

Some suggest somewhat less than 3 minutes while the catalytic converter swings into action. Corning are looking at materials to work more quickly, presumably at lower operating temperatures.

@gmartin, George, this was not about partnering. UL LLC. are part of Underwriters Laboratories in North America who are involved in the preparation of standards and product testing. As far as I can see, this webinar is about how to carry out accelerated life tested and could well be informative to Which? as to how this might be done by them in future.

When we think of sustainability an essential part will be product longevity, so estimating that is a useful piece of information. test.de do that for washing machines; I’m surprised Which? don’t have an arrangement to make that available to UK consumers.

Thanks Phil. I assume Which? set the regime for testing with their commercial laboratories and requiring life testing of certain products could be one of their asks.

I am concerned that Which? do not, seemingly, have any formal involvement with the British Standards Institution and do not attend their specialist product committee meetings. I would have thought from their experience of product testing, perceived failures they report, and not least the constructive suggestions regularly made in Convos, that they should have a good deal to contribute on behalf of the consumer. And, of course, a good deal to learn.

I must confess, from responses often received, I am not sure how knowledgeable and experienced many are.

I wonder what Which?’s real philosophy is, John. A best buy EV was an £80+k Porshe. A phone given best buy status has only 18 months of security. Cheap appliances are given best buy status when it should be clear that they are unlikely to have particularly long lives, nor be repairable.

Their seems to be a disconnect within Which? Or are they just riding two horses to please all consumers.

I find coffee from a cafetiere using ground coffee from a packet perfectly good. If I want freshly ground beans I have a cheap Braun grinder that takes no time to produce the grind of my choice.

Why do a need a hissing monster bedecked with dials and costing a fortune – up to £1299 in Which’s promotion – including those where you have to buy coffee in “pods”? More waste of both materials and money.

Perhaps time to consider what their real attitude is to sustainability?

Coming next in the The Weekly Scoop – how to cut your risk from strokes by drinking tasty alternatives to strong coffee?

I bought a filter coffee machine in 1987 and used it until a couple of years ago, when I bought a new bean to cup machine, which produces much nicer coffee. What about the environmental harm caused by those who purchase luxury cars rather than more modest ones?

We are still members of the Consumerism Association, John. At least sustainability gets a mention these days.

The next time Which? do a wine tasting maybe they would include CHÂTEAU PÉTRUS Grand Vin Pomerol 2013 £3,150.00 (£420 per 100.00ml – ah, that sounds better) before driving home in the Porshe EV to make coffee in a £1299 gadget.

A Porshe? Like Panasoanic it sounds like a cheap counterfeit.

In two weeks time in the Weekly Scoop, how to further reduce your risk from strokes by getting more exercise, e.g. by leaving your expensive EV at home and walking to the shops.

I recommend Fortnum & Mason’s Hawaiian Coffee Beans [125g tin for £50.00]. Nothing less would be appropriate.

Lower-priced coffees are also available from Colombia, Peru, Jamaica and The Yemen with really cheap varieties from Ethiopia and India [227g for £10.95].

I slum it with Honduran coffee from M&S at £3.50 for half a pound. As it happens I’m enjoying (really) a cup from my £10 cafetiere right now. I might have a glass of CHÂTEAU PÉTRUS later on if the sun ever gets over the yard arm.

I reckon that a coffee machine that lasted 30 years and was used frequently was a sensible purchase. The plastic parts were in a state of decay but the gold-plated filter was still in good condition.

Most of my coffee comes from Waitrose, courtesy of a friend who buys it when it is on offer. Coffee beans keep well but come in non-recyclable packs. When I feel safe to go into shops I will explore our zero waste shop that sells loose beans.

I’ve had my cafetiere for 9 years. It is double walled stainless steel and, barring an earthquake, is unlikely to fail.

I wonder when the next machine recommended will roast fresh green beans and, being smart, know which cupboard to get them from?

I wonder where these are stocked – perhaps the next taste test will tell us:

”What are the most expensive coffees in the world in 2021? It’s made by elephants, literally. The Black Ivory Coffee Company in Thailand feeds elephants with Arabia beans. The excreted beans are then roasted and processed into coffee, the perfect brew to wake you up. If elephant dung isn’t your thing, no worries. Here are other expensive coffee brands priced by the pound.

Black Ivory Coffee – More than $500/pound
Finca El Injerto Coffee – $500/pound
Hacienda La Esmeralda– More than $500/pound
Kopi Luwak – $160/pound
Saint Helena Coffee – $79/pound
Jamaican Blue Mountain Coffee – More than $50/pound
Fazenda Santa Ines – $50/pound
Starbucks Quadriginoctuple Frap – $47.30/cup”

Who’d a thought thirty years ago we’d all be sittin’ here drinking CHÂTEAU PÉTRUS?

Aye. In them days, we’d a’ been glad to have the price of a cup o’ tea.

A cup o’ COLD tea.

Without milk or sugar.

OR tea!

In a cracked cup, and all.

https://conversation.which.co.uk/home-energy/product-sustainability-durability-testing/#comment-1626939X
Was this not originally 7 years? Maybe I misread it.

Rowenta FK18, purchased 16/5/87 for £27.95 and used until about two years ago. It replaced a Melitta filter coffee maker that died after only seven years. I shortened and corrected my post. It served me well but eventually looked very scruffy thanks to deterioration of the plastics.

I had a Rowenta filter machine that lasted well. What I did not like was that it did not give coffee that was quite hot enough and if the jug was left standing on the hotplate the coffee gradually became more bitter. I find a cafetiere does exactly the same job but without the disadvantages.

The Which? review commented on this. The lower temperature and permanent gold-plated filter were the features that encouraged me to buy this model. If left on a hotplate, coffee will become darker and more bitter, so what I usually did was to turn off the hotplate and heat up a cup of coffee in the microwave oven when needed. I presume that oxidation is a factor because hot coffee keeps for longer in a full vacuum flask.

I thought I might have to scrap the Rowenta coffee machine after ten years because the jug cracked under the metal band attached to the handle. Fortunately I was able to buy a spare jug of improved design. Long-term availability of spares can greatly increase the life of products.

The Pure DAB radio beside the coffee machine dates from 2003 and hopefully will continue working until the BBC moves to DAB+.

I sent 2 filter machines similar to that to the charity shop only a couple of years ago. Older than yours wavechange they were in almost perfect condition. They might have been tried out once or twice before finding themselves at the back of the cupboard.

We are also the proud? owners of a Krups Espresso mini C also in near-perfect condition bought 30 years ago after our first holiday together when we drove down to Italy, loved the coffee so bought a wooden grinder to grind our own on our return. It was used a couple of times, but the results didn’t warrant the amount of cleaning it required after use, and I have been reminded it lives at the back of high shelf, out of sight.

Apart from the lukewarm results, we have always had a problem finding coffee beans or ground coffee we like better than what comes out of a jar. Coffee beans are too expensive to keep buying, trying and discarding and they never taste as good as they smell.

The smell of beans and ground coffee is the best part. 🙂

Ease of use and cleaning are very important, I agree. I was given a DeLonghi pressure machine about ten years ago and although it produces decent coffee it was hard work and rarely used. It’s still in good condition so it can go to a charity shop when I can find the instructions.

I suspect unwanted gifts are responsible for a great deal of waste.

I remember walking past Davy’s, the grocers in Sheffield centre, who had a gas-fired coffee bean roaster in their ventilated window that gave off a wonderful smell, better than the actual taste of coffee.

Absolutely, Malcolm. I remember the wonderful smell of roasting coffee at our village grocer, even though the flavour was too much for me when I was young. I did not have much money as a student but enough for a weekly packet of freshly ground coffee.

The long awaited new regulations are a start but I hope that Which? will push for more action.

From the article: “For example, a tricky repair such as replacing a dishwasher’s drain pump will be available to the pros, while an easier and safer fix, such as fitting new drain filters, will be available to everyone.” Maybe we should be allowed to be a judge whether we have the capability to carry out tasks.

Precisely my point. There are very many competent people who are not domestic appliance repair specialists. You can tackle everything on your car; we should be able to do the same with any product we own. But we must take full responsibility for the repair, whether or not the manufacturer supplies instructions.

@jon-stricklin-coutinho, Jon, what is Which?’s attitude and is it lobbying for much less restrictive legislation?