HP Wants Manufacturers To Bear PC Disposal Costs

Makarand writes "The Mercury News is reporting that HP, which had earlier persuaded the Governor to veto an innovative e-waste measure, has changed its mind and is throwing its weight behind California's e-waste bill which would require PC manufacturers to bear the cost of PC disposal. This reversal by HP is close upon the heels of a a series of articles, carried by the Mercury News, detailing how the industry relied on cheap overseas labor to make a profits and at the same time distanced itself from the responsibilities of dead PC disposal."

Comments

Why not model other recyclables?

[bill]

Why not model it after the recyclable can and bottle programs that New England states and other areas have adopted? The consumer pays 5 cents extra per can or bottle, and then is refunded when he returns it to a recycling facility.

Obviously, the scope and content of the program would be different, and more challenging. And the logistics is a lot bigger problem. But with PC prices hitting $500 and less, perhaps a program like that would be feasible.

Recycling

[andyring]

Yeah, and Pepsi should pay to get rid of my Mountain Dew cans, Sherwin Williams should pay to take care of those old paint cans in my basement, Goodyear should pay to get rid of the old tires in my garage, Johnson & Johnson should pay to dispose of the mercury thermometer in my bathroom and Napa needs to pay for my old antifreeze and motor oil.

Laws like this do nothing but raise costs for consumers. Does anyone in their right mind think HP, etc., will simply eat the cost of this? No. The only reason they're doing it is because it's in California (home base of American liberalism), and if they don't, they'll be totally demonized by militant environmentalists and human rights activists playing on your emotions rather than hard, scientific data.

Re:Recycling

[JoeBuck]

In Germany, the scenario you describe is the law: manufacturers are responsible not only for the cost of recycling waste from their products (all products, not just PCs), but assuring that it is actually done, either by taking back one's own waste, or by paying someone else to do it.

Most companies, especially small ones, comply by joining the Grüne Punkt (Green Dot) program, which takes care of the waste for the company. It doesn't really create a barrier to entry, because the fees are based on weight of packaging material and don't cost a small company any more than a big one.

Re:AOL, GM and FORD

[McFly69]

What about all those frigin "free" AOL disks being sent to our homes? I suggest AOL to be forced to for recycling (like a 5 cent deposit for cans). The idea is basically an extenstion of what certain people are already doing. Similar ideas been already mention on slashdot and CNN

Basically my idea is, when people recieve these "junk" AOL disks, they should be able to drop of these disks, at a certified, recycling plant to get a small return (for their recycling effor). Like 5 cents per a disk. The 5 cents would be paid by AOL. This way, the dump sites would have less waste to dispose.

Something like this would require a federal law to be implimented and enforced. Perhaps the US Post Office (and other mailing places) would take the deposit and return when the cd's are returned.

Any ideas on this?

Call me a Cynic, but...

[Orne]

I try to be fair to these companies, but the salmon on doubt keeps nibbling on my toes... For a thought experiment, suppose California's e-Waste bill goes through, and suddenly the responsibility for disposal is removed from the consumer?

First, I won't be surprised if California signs this one, as it would clear the State from the costs of disposal, clearing up lots of tax dollars for the other social programs in their nearly-bankrupt budget. The Politicians can then say, look at all the money this bill saved!

Second, I don't see "distributor" named, I see "manufacturer". With a quick Google search, I can see that Hewlet Packard happens to own advanced supply-chain-management software, where HP can purchase cheap parts from other manufacturers, put them in their machines, then scoot them out the door. Quote: "A plastic printer cover, for example, may start its life overseas as goop at a resin manufacturer, which works with a plastics compounder to provide the material to an injection molder. That injection molder, in turn, sells its finished parts to a manufacturer, which puts the product together for HP."

Wouldn't you think that since HP out-sources so much of their manufacturing, what's to stop them from saying, "I didn't manufacture this, our records show Wang's Plastics did, so it's their responsibility to manage disposal!" HP, and all the other big "Silicon Valley" computer companies will just pass the buck back to the original manufacturer, HP will keep their profits, and the little supplier will be hosed.

Re:Manufacturers bear the costs?

[Icculus]

Can't have the lifetime costs built into everything - that would make just about everything price-prohibitive.

It might at first, but it would also give manufacturers an incentive to create more friendly or reusable products and materials. This would allow them to charge less and gain market share. Check out Cradle to Cradle (which was reviewed on /. a few months back). It talks about this topic in depth.

As another poster noted, you pay for it one way or another whether in up-front monetary cost or in destroyed environment and depleted natural resources.

Re:false analogy.

[squiggleslash]

First, your bad analogy might be true. What kind of non-big oil affiliated lubricant can anyone purchase? Who else but big oil can recycle used oil?

Way to change the subject. The comparison was with oil changing places, which has always been done by anyone from small garages to huge chains like Valvoline. When the oil recycling fees came in, those small garages kept on going. To continue the comparison, your complaint about my analogy is akin to complaining that small, white box, PC manufacturers can't pay a recycling fee because they don't manufacture the Intel CPUs and VIA chipsets, unlike, er, HP.

Second, waste oil has buyers. Who's going to want to purchase your broken cell phone or PC?

Other than suggesting that oil recycling taxes are unnecessary, what's your point?

Third, PCs are only a small chunk of the waste stream, unlike automotive oil. We've been throwing out electronic gadgets with transistors, solder, phospohrs and all for a long time now without concern. PCs have only been around since 1980 or so. Waste oil from automobiles was a demostrated hazard which had no larger contributors, except maybe carcenoginic aditives to gasoline.

That's great. The fee shouldn't end up being particularly high then.

First, show me evidence of a problem. While improper disposal of PC's in China is reprehensible, I'd like to see some direct evidence that PCs on their own are poluting groudwater or other resources elswhere.

Well, to begin with, we've been throwing out electronic gadgets with transisters, phosphors, and all, for a long time now without considering the consequences. This rubbish, as you correctly state above, is not something anyone wants - it's hard to recycle, unlike, say, waste oil. The issue has gotten bad enough that we're trying to dump the stuff on countries like, er, China. This may help us in the short term, preventing our groundwater, etc, from being polluted, but...

Yep, I've got the mother board for the first XT I bought in my closet and it would work if something better were not in it's case. Other computers I have are all 486 and above and are just as useful today as they were the day I bought them thanks to free software. Just the same, I'll take my things to the right place if you can show it's required.

Now, that's real nice of you. You know something? I'm the same way. I have a Dragon 32 floating around somewhere, and my original 386DX25 motherboard is still in the closet. My home network is a hodgebodge of old Pentia and laptops, Sun workstations, and one, relatively modern, VIA C3 based machine. Of course, I run Linux and OpenBSD. People like us will benefit from these taxes, we will not be forced to subsidize the "upgrade every year" mob as we do at present through our income and (conventional, non computer related) sales taxes. That means, over all, we'll pay a little less. Those who buy a computer every year will find themselves paying a little more than they did previously, and that'll be good too, because what they pay will more fairly represent the costs that PC introduces.

In the mean time, quit talking bollocks. I've taken care of my things and don't want to pay a tax or see small vendors put out of business because large compnaies like HP and M$ have been irresponsible.

You've shown no evidence that small vendors will be put out of business by a tax like this. What evidence do you have that their slice of the market will suddenly reduce? That their prices will disproportionately rise above those of larger vendors? Last I looked, the oil recycling fee charged by my local garage was the same as that by Valvoline.

And, far from paying more taxes under this system, you, as a consciencuous PC user, will pay less - well, insofar as anyone pays less taxes. Your local and state governments will not be overly burdened by the costs of getting rid of everyone else's unwanted PC hardware - that burden will be paid for.