Growth of E-Waste May Lead to National 'E-Fee' 199
jcatcw writes "A bill in Congress would add a recycling charge to the cost of laptop PCs, computer monitors, televisions and some other electronic devices, according to a story at Computerworld. The effort to control what's called e-waste could lead to a national 'e-fee' that would be paid just like a sales tax. Nationwide the cost could amount to $300 million per year. Already, California, Washington, Maryland and Maine have approved electronics recycling laws, and another 21 states plus Puerto Rico, are considering them."
It's not around me, so what happens? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:And that.... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's pretty similar to the plastic bag tax. Many resisted it at first but it really did put it into perspective for shoppers. Everyone here reuses their bag-for-life, and when you really do have to buy a plastic bag you make sure it's used a few times. I don't usually welcome new taxes - and why would I - but it's nice to see something being done for the greater good.
Why stop at e fees? (Score:3, Interesting)
Why not force manufacturers and service providers to pay for the waste they generate from their items? If McDonald's had to tack on a fee for every napkin or every Big Mac box, you can bet that they'd cut down a lot on waste to keep people from not being able to afford eating there.
Re:Rather than just recycle them... (Score:3, Interesting)
"Imagine a Beowulf cluster" aside, then they get stuck with the costs of having to recycle them. Your average joe might be able to get away with just chucking them in a dumpster, but higher profile institutions have to do things by the book.
Re:'bout time (Score:1, Interesting)
Also need to build in a credit system that would reward manfacturers that build products that are serviceable. The current philosophy of having almost any failure in a unit resulting in disposal is ludicrous.
How do the poor pay for computers now? (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure it's moving to an up-front cost instead of an end of life cost- but it's still there.
It would seem that if you've got $500 to spend on a computer, then having to pay $515 is unlikely to deter you.
The much more likely result is that computers will be $15-slower so that they can maintain the same price points.
Re:And that.... (Score:3, Interesting)
About the only thing that hasn't changed are the case screws. Except for screws, telephone/cat5/cable lines, threw out lots of obsolete hardware last summer. Take up space for no good reason. Buying a new computer is usually cheaper when I consider time involved. Besides, with energy costs, have one computer be the be-all server is more efficient than having several old computers do the various jobs. Better yet, cut down on servers - let google handle email. Modern laser printer costing more than the minimum includes print server too - no need for seperate computer sucking up energy.
Yada, yada, yada.
Re:Make it (partially) refundable (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, it SHOULD. But right now, for most materials, it doesn't. It requires a government-imposed extra fee in order to show a 'profit'. But that profit is just a bookkeeping game to cover up what is actually and obviously a waste of resources.
The core meaning of 'unprofitable' means: consumes more energy than it produces. So when a thing fails to make money, that's the market's way of telling you that you are wasting your natural resources... your time foremost among them.
Until such time as recycling processes are actually profitable, it's better to bury the junk in a landfill. There it will stay until an engineered bacteria or nanobot or digester robot or whatever gets invented to reprocess it cheaply.
Re:Make it (partially) refundable (Score:3, Interesting)
After decades of metals and plastics being buried, can you conceive just how much money is locked up in landfill sites? The mind salivates, or would if it had the glands.
I'd want to mine them, not mush them.
Re:And that.... (Score:4, Interesting)
So am I! Let there be a law that says that the commerce system has to close the circle. That means anybody can take the device or item back to a seller and that seller would have to send it back to the maker. Yes it would add to the cost to close the goods distribution system, which is presently an open loop. Finally the gadget would get back to the manufacturer who could then decide what to do with it. Rebuild, re-use or recycle it. Every item sold after a certain date would be stamped with a return tag, making eligible to be returned, eventually to the maker thereof. No government involvement needed save for the passing of a well written set of laws closing the distribution system loop.
garbage dumps (Score:3, Interesting)
Until such time as recycling processes are actually profitable, it's better to bury the junk in a landfill. There it will stay until an engineered bacteria or nanobot or digester robot or whatever gets invented to reprocess it cheaply.
That's short sighted. By dumping toxic stuff in the dump all you're doing is passing the cost of cleanup onto others, either those who don't produce or use it or to future generations. And that's discounting the risk of drinking water being contaminated along with other stuff such as the distruction mining causes.
FalconA better system (Score:3, Interesting)
Two big advantages:
Yes, of course, the manufacturer will up their prices a little. But, that makes the fee proportional to the actual cost, instead of a flat government fee.
Ideally you could apply this to ALL consumer goods - including televisions, monitors, and automobiles.