Environmental and Social Aspects of Domestic Bathing - Ethical Engineering for International Development and Environmental Sustainability - page 216

7.5 Comparing Methods

Consumer needs are no less real for having a history, no less deeply felt for having been part
of the world that global capitalism and colonialism have made. Needs, once made, do not
casually go away and cannot be legislated or ordered out of existence. Their making and
unmaking is beyond the capacity of any one institution or power. (Burke 1996 , p 216)
Let us start this section by returning to the mantra 'take a shower instead of a
bath'. The third way in which it is problematic is the assumption that everyone, in
the prosperous westernised countries, takes a daily shower, whereas there are few
who, now or in the past, have been able to take a daily bath.
The Energy Saving Trust ( 2014 ) has recently published its report 'At Home with
Water' on the results of voluntary responses to a questionnaire. 'Launched in 2010,
the Water Energy Calculator is an online self-completion tool that takes respondents
through a series of questions about their household water consumption habits' (p 7).
The analysis fi nds (p 18) that 'On average, respondents reported that each person
takes 4.4 showers and 1.3 baths each week'. Of course, quite apart from the volun-
tary self-reporting bias, these numbers conceal substantial variation within the sam-
ple. I fi nd from many conversations and general discourse and observation that,
nowadays, taking a bath is predominately done by those who are elderly, are very
young or in other ways have special needs. For the rest of the population, domestic
bathing has become showering - alternatives are hardly thinkable, or at least at the
margin. Virginia Smith ( 2007 , p 330) in her scholarly history 'Clean' goes so far as
to say 'The history of twentieth-century personal hygiene could easily be written as
the rise of the cheap and convenient domestic shower …'.
Yet the true comparison, for those wishing not to contribute to an environmental
perfect storm, is between shower, bath, basin and any other methods that changed
environmental and social conditions may bring into play.

Comparison Table Table 7.3 gives approximate numerical values of energy use
and CO 2 e emissions for the main kinds of bathing. The season is winter with incom-
ing mains water temperature of 8 °C assumed. The CO 2 e fi gure includes the contri-
butions from the energy utility and, at the rate of 1.23 gCO 2 e/l, from the water
utility. The production of dampness with the need to extract it is important but hard
to quantify and has simply been noted qualitatively in the last column. The embod-
ied energy, and attendant CO 2 e, in the production, maintenance, disposal and
replacement or upgrading of equipment, is also an important term which cannot be
quantifi ed.

Comments on This Table and the Earlier Discussions

￿ The current popularity of fast-fl ow showers is ecologically very harmful.
￿ One can learn to appreciate the gentle sensation of a low-fl ow shower.
￿ A basin (possibly plus bowl) wash is ecologically much more benign.
￿ A bath is a special occasion.
￿ Moisture and how to minimise its production and extract it effectively are
important considerations.