The article discusses the environmental impact of producing and dustributing the toilet paper, but not the impact of manufacturing, installing and upkeeping the bidets. By my totally uninformed guesstimate, it would take a lot of toilet paper saved to balance the impact of one bidet installation. The article argues that bidets are better for the environment; I would need to see an estimation of how the bidet installation balances against toilet paper usage to be convinced by this.
Bidets don't involve dead trees, require less ongoing transportation, and run concurrently with the costs associated with plumbing in general. The better question would be: what could use and installation of a bidet possibly involve that would make its impact greater than ongoing use of toilet paper? It's a toilet gadget, probably comparable to the plumbing in the toilet tank in terms of maintenance and durability. So a single bidet installation is likely good for 5 to 7 years.
5 years of toilet paper means about 500 rolls per person. A family of 4 would use 2000 rolls so about 400 kg of paper. The cost to transport, produce, package, and dispose of that much toilet paper is clearly higher by the end of the device's life.
Yes, you've made the same argument as the article, estimating the impact of producing the toilet paper but not that of producing the bidet.
What is the impact of acquiring (mining?) the ceramic and metal parts, and then manufacturing these into a bidet and fixings?
I think it's likely that the impact of the bidet is lower by the end of its lifetime, but an argument which says, 'manufacturing and installing a bidet has a similar impact to producing x rolls of toilet paper, and so after y years then the bidet can be considered better for the environment' would be much more compelling to me because it doesn't look like it's trying to hide half of the argument
Umm, using a bidet doesn't exclude at all using toilet paper. It's an "enhancement" to the cleaning process. I often see this misunderstanding in places where bidets aren't the norm (or the law). So, a play on words on the Scientific American article's title would be "Wipe AND wash" and not "Wipe or wash?".
'Wipe AND Wash' would be apt for an article dealing with the hygiene aspect alone. However, bidets are not used along with toilet papers in most parts of the world.
The article focuses on the environmental aspect.
6 comments
[ 6.9 ms ] story [ 33.2 ms ] thread5 years of toilet paper means about 500 rolls per person. A family of 4 would use 2000 rolls so about 400 kg of paper. The cost to transport, produce, package, and dispose of that much toilet paper is clearly higher by the end of the device's life.
What is the impact of acquiring (mining?) the ceramic and metal parts, and then manufacturing these into a bidet and fixings?
I think it's likely that the impact of the bidet is lower by the end of its lifetime, but an argument which says, 'manufacturing and installing a bidet has a similar impact to producing x rolls of toilet paper, and so after y years then the bidet can be considered better for the environment' would be much more compelling to me because it doesn't look like it's trying to hide half of the argument