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?
While this post is written in an inflammatory style, I would have to say that I agree with it. It makes no sense for companies to have to recycle things that they made years down the line. There are some things that /will/ go obsolete no matter how "green" you design them. Heck, governments create part of it too (look at the DTV transition). You make a product and you sell it, once it is sold you should have no liability for the product unless it was defective or unsafe along with limits on when you can get damages. For example, 30 years from now if we find that the glass used in the iPhone caused skin deformities but Apple could have no knowledge of that, it makes no sense to sue Apple for that. Similarly, when I want to throw away an old computer, its not the computer makers fault that I want to throw it away.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
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.
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.
Sorry, but you are talking bullshit.
I used to work for some waste management companies.
Recycling makes lot of sense and while it does create pollution, it creates much less pollution than producing new raw materials. This is especially true for all kinds of metal, paper, glas and more expensive forms of plastics (like polycarbonate).
Since the raw material supply is finite, recycling will return even more money in the future than it does now already - and 2009 technologies allow recycling to be pretty profitable in first place. Thus it makes sense to invest in recycling technologies now (or being caught with your trousers down in the future).
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Why not just bill people for their garbage?
The disposal costs of this stuff aren't an "externality" -- they're just low, plain and simple. It has become very fashionable for environmentalists to try and pull one over on people using the power of government, and this smells like the same tactic. Companies have lots of money, nobody will get mad if "we" make them plan to recycle stuff they make later.
Well, I'll get mad. I don't want to pay more for it up front, I don't want the government to mandate that every product be planned for a 3 year obsolescence, and I don't think any of this crap is the government's job to begin with.
If there truly is some cost of disposing of electronics, rather than trying to tie it back to the original manufacturer (who will wisely go out of business once they have a looming mountain of garbage they are on the hook for... thereby getting a double windfall, since they over-charged you for the goods originally, and will not be around when its time to recycle it), make customers bear that cost, and make it clear what the composition of the item is at purchase time.
This is statist/environmentalist activism, not economically sound action.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
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.
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 ?