Japan Introduces Consumer-Paid Computer Recycling

Azuma writes "According to the Japan Times, starting Wednesday, new Japanese legislation takes effect that compels personal computer manufacturers to collect used PCs from households and recycle their parts, with consumers footing the bill, which will total anywhere from 3,000 yen ($28) to 4,000 yen ($37). So from today onwards, if you buy a new computer in Japan, your new computer should have a new logo besides commercial ones such as Intel Inside... 'Recycling Fee Prepaid'."

Comments

recycle?

[ender_the_hegamon]

who gets rid of old computer parts, anyway? I still got a box of 486 processors on the shelf...

Pfft.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's all? I wish the US would do the same. $27 is not that much, and it really does help out the enviorment.

Sometimes, I wish we all were Japanese! :)

send the working used computers to africa and asia

[stroustrup]

with linux installed ofcourse. That way, both poor countries and linux will grow more and more powerful

how about consumers DIY?

[maliabu]

the legislation seems to be talking about manufacturers. what is to stop consumers from simply dumping a computer in the bin or landfill or whenever is convenient?

Um, Japan?

[r_glen]

No no no... you've got it wrong
You're supposed to PAY ME for recycling!

Re:Bad idea

[spoco2]

Oh crud. Less than $40 added onto the price of an over $1000 investment is negligible, and really is a worthwhile effort to drop wastage.

Re:Bad idea

[EpokhusMinimalist]

You dont know what you are talking about. This will hardly affect computer sales in Japan. The costs are insignificant and this is an excellant way for the government to control the way in which these old computers are destroyed. I dont see how 28 bucks is going to stop someone buying that 4000 buck VAIO

Re:Bad idea

[kfg]

Indeed, and it stifles the economy in years down the road as well when all those jobs are lost to cleaning up the enviromental impact of improperly disposed of waste.

In this light we suddenly realize what a boon the terrorists provided for the international community by devestating the World Trade Center.

I can see the bumper stickers on the future cars of the building industry:

"Support the economy, support arson."

Some jobs, as it happens, while a personal boon to the job holder represent a loss of wealth. That is why you will see natural disasters couched in such terms, rather than being reported as a gain to certain individuals and industries. Man made disasters are just as much loss and natural ones.

You may not, of course, see it this way, but I'd hazard a guess you'd change your mind if someone stole and wrecked your car (stimulating the auto industry and creating jobs) or dumped a ton and a half of trash in your living room (stimulating the waste disposal industry).

You just miiiiiight see that as an overall loss of wealth.

KFG

Re:Not even that ...

[Capt'n Hector]

and the sentence before....

The customer pays a fee that covers the "reverse logistic" of shipping the unit from the customer location(s) to the Apple recycling vendor.

recycle? re-use is better

[iggymanz]

Sell that old crap on ebay! People like me buy it! I've got FIVE used computers (2 Intel, 3 RISC) here that I use to make me money, each running a different OS (plus one more I bought new, I'll never do that again).

Re:recycle? re-use is better

[evilviper]

It's good to re-use products, but that only works for so long. It was just a while back that I upgraded my firewall from a 386 to a pentium system.

Do you want the 386? Do you think anyone else does? Obviously, products reach the end of their usable life, and all products eventually need to be recycled. It's good that Japan has a program in-place, and there should have been such a program in the USA for the past 20 years.

(plus one more I bought new, I'll never do that again).

There are plenty of reasons to buy new products. Warranties and reliability come to mind. Also, there is the issue of effeciency. Despite what people may believe, for the performance of modern computers, they are many times more effecient than older computers. Buying older systems can very likely cost you loads more on your electric bill. Then there's always the people that need good performance, not older systems that are just good enough to browse the web.

Re:Bad idea

[christor]

The point here is not the creation of jobs but rather the efficient allocation of the cost of computer disposal. By making those who manufacture (and consume) the product bear the costs created by that manufacture, (a) consumption of the product does not come at the expense of a net loss in overall welfare and (b) manufacturers have an incentive to make disposal of their products less costly. Disposal could be made less costly by improving the technology of disposal and recycling or by engineering the product to be easier to recycle or junk. In the absence of this sort of measure those industries that make products that cost a lot (in terms of human health or real dollars) to deal with as waste are subsidized by the universe of payers for disposal services - or, in the absence of adequate regulation, fall upon those whose health is adversely affected.

The upshot - this only slows down the industry if the industry was being artificially subsidized in the first place.

Japan is not like America

[Anonymous Coward]

People really don't like to own used goods in Japan unless the item is a console game.

Especially things like washing machines and refrigerators in which the previous owner put who-knows-what. It's why most apartments don't have appliances installed when you move in.

Hmm

[ajs318]

Why the hell should I pay someone to take stuff away from me? If anything, they should be paying me to let them have it!

Currently, however, it is cheaper for manufacturers to mine raw materials out of the ground than to recycle existing materials. However, the Earth's resources really belong to our children and their children, so mining is really a form of theft {albeit from victims who may not yet have been born}. This is only likely to change when raw materials start becoming scarce, but by that time it may well be too late.

What is required is a tax on the extraction of virgin raw materials where a recycled substitute is available: a tax so heavy that manufacturing companies will pay good money for anything they can recycle, in order to avoid as far as possible having to mine new raw materials. It would also be necessary to place a tax {or an outright ban - cf. ivory} on imported finished goods made where virgin material extraction was untaxed.

Of course this will affect domestic and international trade. So did the abolition of slavery. What's your point? Just because you've been getting away with doing something which is so obviously wrong for a long time, does not make it right.