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?
Wouldn't this be a good idea for all products? The only downside I see is higher prices, but I think the motivation companies have of cutting costs would benefit the world.
"Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain
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.
Bah, this has been common in Europe for some years. Also, where I live, if your dispose of your electronics properly you get to pay less garbage collection tax.
We need to start treating it like one.
Currently, product waste is an "externality" - the cost of recycling/disposing of the product is borne by someone other than the manufacturer. When buying a new item, virtually all consumers don't take into account the cost of disposal, but it still needs to be paid.
Making the manufacturers responsible for recycling/disposal of their products means that they will need to increase their price to the consumer, thereby showing the true cost of the product at purchase time.
BTW, I'm told New Zealand currently has a similar law (for all products, not just electronics), and it works quite well.
Is what it really means. So the state doesn't want to be liable for what is in their landfills and as such passes the responsibility onto manufacturers because the state cannot go after every consumer but can damn well go after a manufacture. As such costs go up as everyone pays for the small percentage of people tossing stuff wrongly.
It is an easy sale for governments, big bad evil companies versus poor little school children drinking polluted water.
Just like the deposit tax on bottles, we all pay it, but who benefits? Supposedly all of us, but who gets the money and who benefits by it not being done?
I have no problem with manufactures being encouraged to make cleaner products, I do have a problem by the lies foisted onto the public how its the manufacturers responsibility to ensure disposal of the device after its use. How long before the disposal becomes a requirement by law? These laws can eventually turned into a system where all we do is lease everything we use because the manufacture can use government mandates stating that product "X" must be turned in NOW because the state claims that something about it doesn't fit current environmental laws, all at the behest of some good lobbying.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
So please tell me oh wise AC how you are supposed to make something that doesn't get obsoleted in a few years? Should we all be using Pentium CPUs right now because if we upgrade to a Pentium II there will be a Pentium III eventually and then a Pentium 4, etc. And even during the times that Intel stalled on making CPUs, AMD took the lead and advanced new technologies (like x86-64). Should we all be playing on Atari 2600s? Because you know if we get a NES we would eventually have to upgrade to a SNES, then a N64 then a GameCube then a Wii.
Technology changes. What is current today will not be current 3 years from now.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
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.
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
There is a lot of money in recycling - the industry continues to grow. Don't tell me that this effort needs to cost anybody anything aside a few extra acres for a new company with new jobs. Anything else is an excuse for raping the public in some nefariously placed capitalistic manner.
Further, as a people, we have every-right to mandate laws that will help reduce the waste stream and provide a better quality of live for our citizens. Its not big government - its clean air and water so we don't die via poisoning ourselves. There is no room for the big-government argument here. Mandate recyclable, non-toxic materials, and let a new industry make a profit from it - maybe then China cant sell us bad paint, poisoned toys and sheetrock, etc... and we actually retain our health and American prosperity instead.
And its noted in several posts that companies are already doing this on their own - with their own initiatives because they are tired of the same old arguments as well; Moreover they realize there is great money in it with no need to rape the consumer further than they do already.
To Hell with the disposable generation - the industrial age must grow up and realize its not about consumables as much as its about sustainability. A new, Green economy needs to also consider durable and non-durable goods alike.
Currently, product waste is an "externality" - the cost of recycling/disposing of the product is borne by someone other than the manufacturer.
Yeah, externalities, essentially, dumping your dog's crap in your neighbor's yard hoping they won't notice.
Cradle-to-cradle describes the process of designing for full lifecyle. McDonough distinguishes "re-cycling" from "down-cycling" the process we generally use today that recycles plastics such at PET into playground equipment and fleece.
Designing for re-use, disassembly, and re-use gives companies such as Interface a competitive advantage while reducing externalities.
Free markets can be good at this, but externalities must be internalize, or it is simply not a free market. This is a valid role for governments, working to ensure a level playing field that doesn't give anyone an unfair right to abuse the commons. Once that level playing field is established, eliminating perverse subsidies, smart companies *will* go to more cradle-to-cradle designs because it makes great sense on so many levels.
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?'
I usually take them to Best Buy, just because I really hate the place and the management. I normally walk them into the customer service desk and set it in front or on top, tell the worker I'll be right back and just leave. I've never had anyone question me, heck, half the time they pretend not to even notice you so they don't have to deal with you. I like to imagine the look on their face at closing time when someone realizes that the item is not even a model they stock.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?