madrat wrote:So even if our new Dyson that was built halfway round the world lasts as long as our old one it will still have less of an impact.
Without all the facts how can you say that? To my mind Madrat, it's not possible to arrive at that conclusion other than swallowing all the marketing spin that's pumped out. When you look at the actual facts there's no way to arrive at that conclusion.
Asides from which, I think you'll find that a lot of the bags are now made to be bio-degradable.
But TBH I don't really care about that. I'd far rather do the job right on the first pass and save the electricity required to do it again and, again. I'd much rather spend my own hard earned on a machine that was built to last. And, I'd much prefer the connivence of it too.
After being down this road of the environment since long before it became a public concern, going on 20 years, I reckon I have sussed the difference between some jumped up marketer telling me something is green and something that really is eco-friendly and, in the case of bagged cleaners versus baggless, the argument just doesn't stand up to scrutiny for several reasons already outlined in my previous post.
I agree that it's a nice idea in principle, but it doesn't work in practice as so many do not. You get nothing for nothing, it's a basic physical law that is very hard to escape from.
But to end it, I will once again reiterate one simple question, why do you think that none of the "premium" vacuum manufacturers and not one commercial cleaner manufacturer uses a baglesss cleaner?
It's not so hard to work it out.