Slashdot Mirror
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."
Shouldn't the CD-R manufacturers bear some cost as well? And what about my worn out tires...
WANTED: Good sig, funny, concise yet somewhat esoteric.
That HP would support this, seeing as how so many Compaq and HP computers are worthy only of Disposal...
Craenor
As far as I know, the NEC Powermate Eco is the only computer that has been built with the foresight to have recyclable parts. A look at just how bad things have gotten (re: computer salvaging) can be found here.
Anything that increases the barrier of entry is a good thing to a huge business competing with many small ones.
Oh, and can I please do one of those soviet russia lines again?
"In Soviet Russia, PCs dispose of YOU!"
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.
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.
How sad is it that this hugely important piece of legislation is not swayed by the voters but rather by the money required to buy them.
It makes me ill.
Kill Trolls Dead. Here's
HP wants its customers to pay for PC disposal, but it knows that regular people would oppose legislation forcing them to do such things. So they make a chivalrous 'pro-environmental' move to legislate that the corporations should pay for disposal.
But of course the regular people will still pay because the corporations will just factor disposal cost into the purchase price.
It's the same result as making people directly pay for disposal, but HP looks a lot better and there's no public outcry.
Nevertheless, I give kudos to HP for recognising that we can't just ship off all our old computers to China and must act responsibly to dispose of them in an environmentally and socially responsible way.
In Virginia there's a tire disposal fee you pay when you get new tires.
Best Slashdot Co
Judging from the pile of antiquated technology in my basement, I wasn't aware that computers were actually disposable... come on, I know some of you have the same corner of your basement where there's still a 286 motherboard in a pile somewhere.
The real reason they are doing this is because they want to raise the barriers to entry for new competitors. It doesn't require much of an investment to become a PC manufacturer (anyone can assemble the parts and sell them online out of their house). The HP/Compaq juggernaught can afford this, smaller manufacturers cannot.
If you're Republican, and are offended by my comment or mod it down, it proves you have a small weiner.
Don't say I didn't warn you...
Am I the only one who remembers PC components with a near-infinite lifetime? I just threw out, not because it died, but because my S.O. complained about the floor space, the very first Linux box I ever built. A 386sx with 8MB of RAM, ISA NE2000 clone NIC, and a 420MB Seagate disk. It still booted. The motherboard dated around 1990. Nowadays, it seems that stuff is replaced within a few years, NOT because of the endless MS upgrade treadmill, but because things simply crap out...
With a spate of recent PC component reliability problems (HD warranties, bad capacitors, etc.), we're shifting to a more disposable PC market (ever wonder why a whole system, incl. monitor, can be had for less than $500 ?)
The solution is to purchase quality components, avoid the "upgrade your HW or die" FUD, fight off PHBs who want shiny new P4-3GHz boxes, and instead concentrate on value.
THAT'S the solution to PC recycling costs - stop throwing so many away!
I'm still using a box I built from components thrown away by various clients, it suits me perfectly.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Which is more price-prohibitive?
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
Our way of life--self-centered consumption with no thought for the implications thereof--is not sustainable. That is to say, our current lifestyle fails the test of self-consistency.
This lifestyle will end. It will end in either an uncontrolled catastrophic manner, or in a quiet disciplined manner. But it will end.
Clearly you are already aware of this. You state that the lifetime costs of "just about everything" are prohibitive. In this statement, I agree with you.
Therefore, prohibition of "nearly everything" is merely an acknowledgement of facts of which we are already aware. Those things whose lifetime costs are price-prohibitive would appropriately be prohibited. Immediate cash price will simply reflect true cost.
"If we dig precious things from the land, we will invite disaster.
Near the Day of Purification, there will be cobwebs spun back and forth it the sky.
A container of ashes might one day be thrown from the sky, which could burn the land and boil the oceans."
Translation of the Hopi Prophecies sung in the film "Koyaanisqatsi".
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
If you guys had bothered to read the article you would have noticed that recent coveraage over HP's practices in China were one of the motivating factors in making this decision. And yes it's much easier to pass a cost on to a customer when it's law. Let's remember that computers are highly toxic Your average 19 inch moniter have 9 lbs of leaded glass to prevent radiation exposure. Here's my favorite quote
Hard scientific data?Here you go
Here
I mean really to be conservative, means to conserve. Being a conservative means that you actually want to leave a cultural and environmental legacy to your children. When's the last time you were able to go fishing in Silicon Valley and eat the fish? Certainly not in the last 20 years due to the high heavy metal content of the fish. Every state in the union has health advisories on the heavy metal content in rivers. Take a look here at the US governments own studies
>EPA Maryland for example. Notice that every ssingle pollutant is an industry pollutant. This even impacts the land of a Thousand Lakes (Minnesota)Fish Consumption
I love posters that can't think about the consquences of their actions. Once you have kids you begin wondering about the type of legacy you leave behind. I guess we can just tell our kids "Sorry the environment is toxic but some slashdotter wanted to save $35." Get real
Thalasar
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.
Why not design computers to be remanufacturable? That is, parts can be reused (like with toner cartridges), chemicals extracted, resold, whatever. Maybe HP realizes they can do this in other businesses, why not computers? EU is driving a lot of this, and yes cars are next. Okay maybe not for a while.
If the price of a box is artificially low because of abuse of the commons, or the disparity in flow characteristics of capital versus labor, or other official or unofficial subsidies, we end up paying for it one way or another.
If we leased the thing instead of buying it, the OEMs would have incentive both to design for remanufacture, and to keep prices down.
Why am I giving you all this information? Because this is not a simple recycling problem, period. This goes all the way back to the root: electronics manufacturing and assemblt of PWBs. The EU is flexing their muscles by pushing the RoHS and WEEE directives. HP has been planning for these two directives since they were scheduled for a vote in the EU (and RoHS has since been passed). The entire time their plan has been to push it down to the supply chain parnters. This has not changed in over a year, nor will it going forward. Why should it? With HP's purchasing power, they say "jump" and their suppliers say "how high, SIR!"
"Content's a bitch."
If all the small PC stores were required to put these requirements and costs in place, they would have a harder time competing with the big boys. This type of law would drive out a lot of the smaller competition. Keep the cost of business up and the barrier to entry high. Keep the smaller competition down and out.
There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
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
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.
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.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.