Slashdot Mirror
States Push Makers' Role In Disposing of Electronic Waste
AaronParsons writes "An interesting NY Times article describes currently available programs for post-consumer electronics. One of the many interesting points in the article is that electronics manufacturers should be held responsible for recycling their products post-consumer: 'Maybe since they have some responsibility for the cleanup, it will motivate them to think about how you design for the environment and the commodity value at the end of the life.'"
I live in Washington and take my old computers to RePC. They charge a fee, $5 to $10 a unit that depends entirely on the labor to rip it apart into its "differently recycled pieces." They have huge heaps of PCBs in one pile, metal caes in another, I assume crushable plastic was hiding behind those.
If you get the federal government involved they will put a tax on the manufacturers (which we will pay for our new toys), and then they'll go spend it elsewhere (e.g. social security). That's inane. I'm sorry the mega-corps have to deal with all the state laws, but they have lawyers for that sort of thing already.
Even if the money collected were in a closed loop, (which it won't be), having the consumer put the five dollar bills in the hands of the company doing the work seems vastly more efficient than anything that we could do with "national taxes by weight/volume/content," "recycling-prepaid" stamps and typical regulation details.
I find it interesting that we're willing to push this as an ad hoc solution but not a paradigm. Maybe all manufacturers should be forced to take responsibility for the amount of waste their products generate, not just the makers of soda cans & computers?
One of the many interesting points in the article is that electronics manufacturers should be held responsible for recycling their products post-consumer: 'Maybe since they have some responsibility for the cleanup, it will motivate them to think about how you design for the environment and the commodity value at the end of the life.'"
How the crap do you do that? Lets see, Intel makes a top of the line CPU called the Core i7, however within 3 years, that CPU will be considered mid to low end. So what is Intel to do? Stop making CPUs until they manage to make the fastest one ever then abandon the CPU market? Heck, most of the waste was caused by the government mandating the DTV switch. Technology evolves independent of the manufacturer.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
You tree huggers can vote me down all you want but, you know that this is bullshit!
Where does this BS end? McDonalds to be held responsible for the recycling of cups and bags? GM to be held responsible for the recycling of their cars?
Sure it sounds great to you because it doesn't inconvenience you, yet. I suppose that you will continue to turn a blind eye to the reality of this until you yourself are held responsible for something that you create and sell on but, must recycle years later.
The company has sold the product to a new owner. The owner of the product is responsible for its disposal! Quit chewing granola for just long enough to face reality.
Kind of makes planned obsolescence come back to bite the manufacturer in the ass, doesn't it?
The end user will be the one paying for it in the long run anyway.
We need to start treating it like one.
Wouldn't this be a good idea for all products?
Yes.
The only downside I see is higher prices
No, the price remains the same - the disposal cost exists whether it's paid by the manufacturer or the consumer. The only difference is that it all needs to be paid up-front, rather than the disposal cost being paid after the product's useful life.
Manufactures already have programs to take back their junk in order to comply with the WEEE EU directive. This has been law now for more than 5 years. Rather than discussing this idea as something theoretical lawmakers in the US would be well advised to study if an how this works in Europe.
Now, compare that process to the man-made process of building, say, a computer. From the dust, we assembles a computer. After it becomes old and useless, we bury it in a landfill. The computer does not decompose and does not return to the dust. Worse, some of the junk that we bury in these landfills actually poison the land.
Clearly, man-made processes contain only 1 part of the 2-part process. That 1 part is the composition. Man-made processes have traditionally not involved decomposition.
In order for us to be truly "green", we should mimic nature and should always use a 2-part process: composition and decomposition. Each product that we buy must be designed to facilitate the often neglected 2nd part: decomposition. Of course, we, as consumers, should pay the full cost of both parts. Right now, we typically pay just the 1st part: composition. Indeed, the ultra-cheap $600 computer produced by slave labor in China would likely cost $1200 if we included the cost of decomposition.
This issue is not mere idle philosophy. When we finally exhaust all the available copper and other metals in the mines, we must dig up all the crap in the landfills and recycle it to extract the metals. This recycling is the aforementioned decomposition. We eventually must pay the cost of decomposition.
It actually feels quote good having better air, better food, better healthcare, longer live expectancy, lower crime rates and fewer tetraethyl-lead-induced retards like you whose definition of free world is being free to fuck up everything and be proud about it.
If this is what it takes to return the United States to a proper service economy instead of the rampant consumerism we've had forced down our throats for the last 30+ years, then I'm all for it because I'd personally be willing to spend a bit more for a product that can be repaired easily and that doesn't fall apart the day after the warranty expires unlike the crap I've seen for the last decade.
Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
Gotta love Slashdot... someone makes an honest, intelligent point that goes against the Green/Liberal/Anti-Government/Anti-Corporation mindset and they're instantly modded FLAMEBAIT.
Please, he makes a good point: Why should manufacturers be charged for materials that they have given up all rights and ownership to?
So if a person refuses to recycle something, it's somehow the manufacturer's fault? How is the manufacturer supposed to know or control whether the consumer lets their product rot on a shelf for 10 years or throw it into a river two days later?
By charging the manufacturer for how the consumer disposes of their product, you are now granting them the _responsibility_ to take charge of how the consumer disposes of it, which is nearly impossible to enforce with Orwellian-style RFID tags in every product.
What exactly are any of you suggesting that the manufacturers do different, or is this just a way to milk some more easy money from those 'fat corporate pigs?'