States Push Makers' Role In Disposing of Electronic Waste 199
Posted
by
timothy
from the pretty-well-known-huh dept.
from the pretty-well-known-huh dept.
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.'"
This is a terrible idea (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Paradigm (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
How the? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
This is Bullshit (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:This is a terrible idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Planned Obsolescence (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
earth is a closed loop system (Score:4, Insightful)
We need to start treating it like one.
Re:Paradigm (Score:3, Insightful)
Why should a manufacturer that has created a product and sold it on to a new owner be held responsible for its disposal.
Simply because the consumer/owner has subsequently reclassified the product as waste does not return ownership to the manufacturer. Nor should it return responsibility for its disposal to the manufacturer.
This is a very simple concept but, the incredible ignorance of the growing masses is dragging all of us down into this ridiculous argument.
'Wha wha. I shouldn't be responsible for my own stuff. It should be the manufacturer, they made it.'
'Wha wha. I shouldn't be responsible for my own actions, it should be my parents. They made me.'
Re:How the? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
The problem is a matter of properly accounting for the full cost to society. If I have a tree on my property and it falls in your yard, I have to pay for disposal. If I'm burning leaves in my yard and catch your house on fire, I'm on the hook. This makes sense.
If I'm a mega-corp and am pumping pollutants in the sky, nobody really gets on my case for it. I could increase the local cancer rate and any class-action suit against me would be tied up in courts for years as I force you to try and prove the connection. The lawyer fees are chump change compared to what I'm saving by not cleaning my emissions.
If I'm a beverage bottler, I'm pumping out a billion plastic bottles a year. It's holding five minutes worth of beverage and will be on this planet for ten thousand years or more. Currently there's no law telling me what I'm doing is wrong but it has as much impact as my previous example of burning leaves and setting your house on fire. Because the problems are bigger and harder for us to grasp, they're harder for us to deal with effectively.
Nobody is telling manufacturers they aren't allowed to remain in business but they are being told that they have to consider the environmental impact of their business model just as carefully as they look into their market research.
Re:Every product needs this (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Planned Obsolescence (Score:3, Insightful)
Technology changes. What is current today will not be current 3 years from now.
Re:Paradigm (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh for the love of god. 90% of the tech shit you buy these days is designed to fail in two or three years. Yea, a lot of crap makes it past the three year mark, but most of it is DESIGNED to be thrown out. i.e. they are engineering waste.
Re:earth is a closed loop system (Score:3, Insightful)
This already is law in the EU (Score:3, Insightful)
Manufactures already have programs [sony.net] to take back their junk in order to comply with the WEEE EU directive [wikipedia.org]. 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.
Re:How the? (Score:3, Insightful)
Nature's Way: Composition and Decomposition (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Paradigm (Score:3, Insightful)
So aim for hte low hanging fruit - excessive packaging....
Re:Already in Europe(tm) (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
Might force elimination of Obsolescence by design (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:How the? (Score:2, Insightful)
It is likely that landfills will eventually be mined for the valuable resources that they contain.
Re:How the? (Score:1, Insightful)
Nobody is telling manufacturers they aren't allowed to remain in business but they are being told that they have to consider the environmental impact of their business model just as carefully as they look into their market research.
Why does the consumer not consider the environmental impact of their purchase and later decision to reclassify the product as waste? Why does the consume not consider the pollution created in the manufacture of the products that they demand and take ownership of?
It's the big bad corporation's fault, not mine. Right?
Sorry, the problem is not the lack of laws restricting the manufacturer or even the manufacturer themselves. The problem is the consumer.
Nothing stops the consumer from recycling the plastic bottle that they bought, owned and consumed. They simply choose not to bother. The manufacturer did not throw it into a land fill or into the gutter, the owner and consumer did.
YOU did. Stop trying to ascribe blame to anyone but the responsible party.
Re:This is a terrible idea (Score:1, Insightful)
Hello Democrats, goodbye personal responsibility.
Next up, the price of a Big Mac goes up as McDonald's is forced to pay for municipal sewage processing.
More laws, bigger government, higher taxes, fewer freedoms.
Think Libertarian
Re:This is a terrible idea (Score:1, Insightful)
Actually he was agreeing with you. It should have read, "they'll go spend it elsewhere (e.g. much as they do with social security)."
Story in ten years: Today congress appropriated 24 billion dollars *from* the electronic-waste-management fund for use in normal day to day operations. They'll do this even when it's obvious that money should be spent on building cleaner and better recycling facilities, because... that's what they always do.
How is this flamebait? (Score:4, Insightful)
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?'
Re:This is a terrible idea (Score:1, Insightful)
And you will have to pay for your children's funeral costs at birth.
Re:This is a terrible idea (Score:5, Insightful)
THIS is where the real problem is.
The Feds should stop beating up on the industry and instead beat up on the Municipal governements.
Dealing with trash is what they are supposed to be responsible for.
I shouldn't have to do anything more than put my electronics in the
recycling bin with the rest of the stuff they're supposed to be
recycling. Although my town has odd limits on stuff you would think
would be pretty trivial to recycle already.
In general, they seem to be cost cutting a bit too much and forget that
the garbage men are ultimately there to help prevent the next outbreak
of the BLACK DEATH. Automated trucks that leave the street covered in
trash kind of defy the point.
Re:This is a terrible idea (Score:2, Insightful)
I'll second that. I tend to keep a lot of electronic parts for reuse myself so whatever I throw out is pretty bad and yet with that kind of stuff I just set it out a day or two early and not bagged. It very rarely makes it to the landfill. Likewise I'm not above rescuing other people's stuff from the landfill if I see a part or two I might like. I'd hate to see this most efficient method of reuse go away!
Perhaps if people were a bit more thoughtfull and put things out with a free sign instead of chucking it in the can...
Re:How is this flamebait? (Score:1, Insightful)
>You'll have to refresh my memory: How is this _anything_ like asbestos?
Easy enough. Asbestosis is a problem with the lungs where the incredibly small, sharp, tough particles get caught in them and can't be dislodged. Since there is no surgical procedure to remove them, and lung transplants are still... problematic, it is a permanent problem that gets worse with age.
When simply sitting, as in house siding, it wears well, and is incredibly fire resistant. In that state it is as harmless as the C64 sitting in your garage.
Like your C64, a house is not a permanent thing. Wood rots, power bricks melt, foundations crumble and NMOS processors overheat. One day, both the house and the C64 will be disposed of.
Lead, and other heavy metals, are completely harmless when trapped in your C64, but when they leak into the water supply they cause damage that, like asbestosis, is irreversible.
While consumer electronics don't usually last as long as houses, both are eventually clean up issues, and when done incorrectly, both are very harmful to succeeding generations.
I'm not advocating irresponsibility on the part of the consumer, nor in any way implying that the federal government should be involved.
I do however advocate that the customer who wants something electronic, and the company who wants to sell it to them come up with a method by which to get both their needs met that doesn't poison my grandchildren.
Re:Paradigm (Score:3, Insightful)
Manufacturers should be responsible for the disposal of their products because, eventually, everything they make will be disposed. Free markets FAIL when the market can ignore the cost of shared resources. This includes air and water and things talked about by the EPA, but it also includes material resources and landfill space.
Requiring manufacturers to pay the true cost of production is the best way to enable a free market that is actually sustainable. The alternative is regulation that dictates the methods and materials used for production, which is significantly more government regulation.
Re:This is Bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)
Where does this BS end? McDonalds to be held responsible for the recycling of cups and bags?
Yes, great idea! I agree 100%. If McDonalds has to pay an up-front cost when the sell a styrofoam cup that won't degrate for 1000 years, or they could choose to pay a much smaller up-front cost for a soybean-derived cup that's just as durable for the five minutes it's needed, but will break down within 5 years in a land fill, they just might choose the more environmentally-responsible option.
Manufacturers have to pay the true cost to produce their products. That's the best way to retain the best possible free market in the face of diminishing shared resources.
Re:This is a terrible idea (Score:3, Insightful)
The Feds should stop beating up on the industry and instead beat up on the Municipal governements.
Dealing with trash is what they are supposed to be responsible for.
Why, precisely, should the manufacturers not be responsible for toxic waste that they generate? This is especially true since if they manufacture things to have a short lifetime so they can sell more products, they are deliberately generating more trash and profiting from it. These manufacturers are profiting at the expense of our health.