160
What "frugal" tricks have you found to just not be worth it, either in time or money? (lemmy.world)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/frugal@lemmy.world
169 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I've noticed sometimes that there's some half-baked videos or blogs or whatever that purport this or that frugal trick, but if you look at the time or math, it's not actually frugal for you.

What are some examples of that you've come across? The things that "aren't worth it"?

For me it's couponing. (Although I haven't heard people talk about it recently--has it fallen out of "style", or have businesses caught up to the loopholes folks used to exploit?)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

The linked study includes disposal in their calculations. Disposables still come out ahead.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Thanks for clarifying. I don't have time to dig into it now. The data's from 2006. I think it's fair to say that improvements in energy efficient laundry machines (and detergent) in the last 17 years have been significant - and at a glance laundry-related energy costs represent the lion's share of reusables' footprint per this study. I'd love to see more up-to-date data and see if disposables still come out ahead, which would surprise me

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    I'll see if I can find some better ones. This was just the first one I plucked out of a random citation, because I knew I would get eviscerated without one. But I've been seeing the advice about disposables as far back as I can remember. It was even a trick question in an eco quiz when I was a child back in the 90s (i.e. "Which of these things are better ecological choices?").

    Interestingly the 2006 study itself is an updated version. Disposables did even better in the 2006 study than in the older one: Due to advances in manufacturing and in materials science, they were able to start producing them using less material (which decreases the carbon footprint during manufacturing, shipping, and disposal).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    If you're interested, here's a 2009 Australian environmental study in which reusable diapers come out on top: https://www.parliament.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/2096268/08.1-Attachment-Life-Cycle-Assessment-Reusable-and-Disposable-Nappies.pdf

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago

    I feel compelled to point out this important bit of context for anyone who doesn't read the paper:

    Overall, based on the four environmental indicators used in this study, home-washed reusable nappies have the potential for the least environmental impact if washed in a water-efficient front￾loading washing machine in cold water, and line-dried.

    The UK study similarly found that colder water and line-drying would sufficiently reduce the carbon footprint to a lower level than disposables.

    But seriously? Who does that?

    For regular clothing, where you can use a more powerful detergent? Sure.

    But for something that goes directly against your child's most sensitive skin, which will need to be laundered with gentle detergent?

    Maybe we can find a paper on how to do all that without heat but with proper sanitation? Remember, laundry detergent is designed to clean, but not necessarily to sanitize.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent