Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Big Diaper absorbs billions of extra dollars from American parents

thehustle.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 311 posts

Re: How Big Diaper absorbs billions of extra dollars from American parents

#261

Post by sfpotter »

xbryanx wrote: post #195
the_gastropod wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think as a general rule: a reusable thing is more environmentally friendly than a single-use thing (especially when the reuse cycles are high). Yes, there are exceptions. But you’ve got the bizarre case to make here, if you want to suggest single-use diapers (that also use water, require transportation, are fabricated, packaged, etc.) are a more efficient use of resources.

My primary point is that it's not a slam dunk for either side. Nothing's obvious about the "impact" here. I you're interested in picking a product based on its environmental impact, there are going to be many factors to consider. Just peruse this 200 page report from the UK government on the subject: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7c4096ed915...

This study has serious methodological issues. I would encourage you to carefully peruse it yourself before citing. This is far from the only issue, but the fact that someone who works at Procter and Gamble is on the study's advisory board is... fun.

Re: How Big Diaper absorbs billions of extra dollars from American parents

#262

Post by sfpotter »

thatfrenchguy wrote: post #201
the_gastropod wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think as a general rule: a reusable thing is more environmentally friendly than a single-use thing (especially when the reuse cycles are high). Yes, there are exceptions. But you’ve got the bizarre case to make here, if you want to suggest single-use diapers (that also use water, require transportation, are fabricated, packaged, etc.) are a more efficient use of resources.

Eh, you have to wash poop off them in a washer at high temps, so it’s a bit harder to compute. IIRC if you use the dryer it’s a wash: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7c4096ed915...

This study has issues. Take a closer look at it. See my other comment on here responding to someone else who linked to it.

Re: How Big Diaper absorbs billions of extra dollars from American parents

#263

Post by sfpotter »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #166
the_gastropod wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think as a general rule: a reusable thing is more environmentally friendly than a single-use thing (especially when the reuse cycles are high). Yes, there are exceptions. But you’ve got the bizarre case to make here, if you want to suggest single-use diapers (that also use water, require transportation, are fabricated, packaged, etc.) are a more efficient use of resources.

I don't think it's that crazy. It's fairly well documented that a reusable cloth shopping bag has a break even with plastic shopping bags at around a 100-200 reuses, something most people won't reach. With diapers, you have wash water, electricity, and a gas dryer in the mix. Then you have people in this thread talking about services to pickup and wash them for you. How many trips car trips is that- 2 a week?

Cloth shopping bags are a really bad comparison here.

Some things working in favor of cloth diapers here are general greening of the grid, mitigating issues with electricity consumption.

Beyond that, line drying diapers works very well and even preserves the life of the diapers.

Cloth diapers hold their value extremely well and can easily be bought/sold/given away on sites like OfferUp or groups like Buy Nothing.

ALso, "2 car trips per week": do you have no idea how this works? No diaper service in their right mind would send out cars to make bespoke trips to individuals. They're done using a big truck on a schedule to amortize the cost of pick up and drop off as much as possible.

Re: How Big Diaper absorbs billions of extra dollars from American parents

#264

Post by abustamam »

vjvjvjvjghv wrote: post #238
thatfrenchguy wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but you can hunt for discounts to reduce that bill quite a bit

I was just objecting to the typical phrase "it costs just as much as a coffee" making it sound like nothing worth thinking about. This stuff adds up to real money over time. I have explained to several people that their Starbucks habit costs more than their car insurance (and also may give them diabetes depending on the drink). It's even worse with Doordash or Uber.

Yeah it's an interesting argument. Also, coffees (especially Starbucks coffees) rarely cost $3 anymore. Maybe if you just get a regular brewed coffee but when I think of Starbucks I don't think of their coffees on tap, I think of their $7+ lattes or frapps that are less coffee and more dessert. Anyway, I digress.

Point being, a small expense once is one small expense. A small expense daily can easily become a huge expense.

That being said, I'm not gonna be prescriptive and say that no one should get their daily coffee. But they need to be aware what it costs them. If they know the cost and are ok with it then by all means, order away! I hope your friends are at least now making a conscious choice to spend $1000+ a year on coffee :)

Re: How Big Diaper absorbs billions of extra dollars from American parents

#265

Post by Macha »

em-bee wrote: post #97
noemit wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She had me on a schedule and would hold me up. Yep at 3 months babies can't even sit up. She said at the start she would hold me up until I went, even if it took hours, and if I went she would reward me. She Pavlov'ed me. I think she said I would cry or babble in a certain way, or if she even suspected I needed to go she would put me on the potty and hold me up.

that's pretty much the chinese way of doing it. i don't know about the schedule or starting time though, actually i think they start almost right after birth. since traditionally the grandparents help with taking care of children they have more time to sit around with a baby in their lap. the chinese also invented split pants that are open at the bottom making it possible to just grab a child when you see it ready to…

> although dresses were worn much longer than necessary for toilet training, so they must have had another purpose or benefit too

Easier to reuse across a wider range of child sizes (either the same child over time, or siblings). You don’t need to worry about e.g. leg diameter or crotch/knee heights like you would with trousers, so can get by basically just folding it to fit height and waist. In an era where people modified and repaired their own clothes more rather than having modern cheaper but more disposable clothes, that would matter more.

Re: How Big Diaper absorbs billions of extra dollars from American parents

#266

Post by sfpotter »

kqr wrote: post #210
tetromino_ wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But cloth diapers are obviously much better for the environment It's obvious only if you save and reuse the same set of cloth diapers for 2 or more babies. (Which places some constrains on brand, durability etc.) If you have only one kid, I am not sure which side is environmentally more friendly; growing and processing all that cotton (not to mention the plastic for all the waterproof covers) uses a lot of water an…

> only if you save and reuse the same set of cloth diapers for 2 or more babies. ... or buy and sell second hand. Reusable nappies treated well retain surprising value.

They really do! Anyone who's thinking that a set of cloth diapers begins and ends with a single family has really got a pretty limited imagination.

Re: How Big Diaper absorbs billions of extra dollars from American parents

#267

Post by sfpotter »

phatfish wrote: post #240
tetromino_ wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But cloth diapers are obviously much better for the environment It's obvious only if you save and reuse the same set of cloth diapers for 2 or more babies. (Which places some constrains on brand, durability etc.) If you have only one kid, I am not sure which side is environmentally more friendly; growing and processing all that cotton (not to mention the plastic for all the waterproof covers) uses a lot of water an…

I assumed the environmental angle was the reduction in waste going to landfill with all the extra plastic generated, by the diaper and the small bags that are usually used to reduce smell and keep things clean during changing. The energy saving would not be as clear to me, but i wouldn't be surprised if reusable were a better choice there as well, just not as clear cut. The amount of waste generated by disposable dia…

The energy saving is clear and gets better year after year as the grid continues to green. You can also line dry cloth diapers which saves a lot of energy.

I never had any trouble with cloth diapers. You can always have a blow out with any diaper, but I didn't have any issues beyond that. Of course, there's some technique, but it's easy enough to find a YouTube tutorial if you need it. Snappies and decent covers help.

Re: How Big Diaper absorbs billions of extra dollars from American parents

#268

Post by abustamam »

caminante wrote: post #257
abustamam wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every family is different. I haven't been a parent for long but at the end of the day there's no one way to optimize everything. You'll either spend time, energy, or money. Something that saves you money may drive you insane. The $100/mo is not worth your mental health. My wife breastfeeds and pumps. She doesn't love it, but she doesn't mind it. Also, I'm no pediatrician but vitamin loading via formula seems off to m…

You seemed to defend claims that breastmilk trumped formula on price. That's wrong and shortsighted, yet people keep repeating these myths. Adding new parameters contingent on discretionary priorities and resources is vastly more subjective. Enjoy parenthood.

I didn't say that. I just said formula is not cheap. I never ran the numbers because I didn't care to.

I am enjoying parenthood, thanks :)

Re: How Big Diaper absorbs billions of extra dollars from American parents

#269

Post by simulator5g »

beAbU wrote: post #223
joenot443 wrote: post #33

Have any parents tried Elimination Communication? Basically teaching your baby to inform you that they’re ready to go, and taking them to the toilet immediately. This is something my partner wants to try when we eventually have kids. Something I’d never heard of until last week. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elimination_communication

My partner wanted to try the same thing. And cloth nappies and exclusive breastfeeding, and infant hand signals, and every other zeitgeist baby thing you can think of. In principle EC sounds interesting, but then our daughter arrived, it has balls to the wall survival for 3 months bow. We ended up bottle feeding, use disposable nappies and sometimes we put her on her side to sleep so that she can fall asleep easier.…

What's wrong with sleeping on your side? Most people find it very uncomfortable to sleep on their backs. No doubt this applies to infants as well.

Re: How Big Diaper absorbs billions of extra dollars from American parents

#270

Post by magicalhippo »

simulator5g wrote: post #269
beAbU wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My partner wanted to try the same thing. And cloth nappies and exclusive breastfeeding, and infant hand signals, and every other zeitgeist baby thing you can think of. In principle EC sounds interesting, but then our daughter arrived, it has balls to the wall survival for 3 months bow. We ended up bottle feeding, use disposable nappies and sometimes we put her on her side to sleep so that she can fall asleep easier.…

What's wrong with sleeping on your side? Most people find it very uncomfortable to sleep on their backs. No doubt this applies to infants as well.

> What's wrong with sleeping on your side?

There's a chance the baby rolls from the side onto their stomach, and that is associated with an increased chance of dying[1].

So in general better to avoid if you can.

[1]: https://www.nichd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/publications/p...

Post reply on HN