Free Returns Come With an Environmental Cost (theverge.com) 58
Packages leave a trail of pollution, and some end up in landfills. From a report: The biggest flood of returns will come on January 2nd as people head back to work after the holidays, when UPS expects to handle nearly 2 million return packages. That's a more than 25 percent jump from the packages it handled the previous year on January 2nd, which UPS has dubbed "National Returns Day." Amazon, which has driven the new shopping trends, just expanded its free return policy and is also delivering more of its own packages than ever. Luckily, there are things both individuals and companies can do to cut back on the boomeranging packages. [...] About half of the "uglies" that American consumers return go back on sale again, according to research by Optoro, a company that helps retailers like Ikea streamline their returns processes. Retailers might send things back to the manufacturer that they can't put up for sale again, or they might try to unload it to other companies who sell it at deep discounts.
Wherever the unwanted purchase goes, taking it there means more trucks pumping out more planet-warming carbon emissions and other harmful pollutants. Hauling around returned inventory in the US creates over 15 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions annually, Optoro found. That's more than what 3 million cars might put out in one year. Then there's the trash. Five billion pounds of returned goods end up in US landfills each year. Even if something was in good condition when the buyer put it in the mailbox, shipping it back can damage the item. Sometimes retailers realize that throwing out a returned item is the most cost-effective way to deal with the thing, instead of paying for it to be cleaned, repaired, and returned to the shelves. Further reading: The Painful, Costly Journey of Returned Goods -- and How You End Up Purchasing Some of Them Again.
Wherever the unwanted purchase goes, taking it there means more trucks pumping out more planet-warming carbon emissions and other harmful pollutants. Hauling around returned inventory in the US creates over 15 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions annually, Optoro found. That's more than what 3 million cars might put out in one year. Then there's the trash. Five billion pounds of returned goods end up in US landfills each year. Even if something was in good condition when the buyer put it in the mailbox, shipping it back can damage the item. Sometimes retailers realize that throwing out a returned item is the most cost-effective way to deal with the thing, instead of paying for it to be cleaned, repaired, and returned to the shelves. Further reading: The Painful, Costly Journey of Returned Goods -- and How You End Up Purchasing Some of Them Again.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You clearly haven't accepted your "original sin" of merely existing, off to the re-education camp with you!
Re: (Score:3)
I don't see it as any worse than buying online in the first place. Fleets of trucks delivering goods to many households in the most logistically efficient way is arguably better than thousands of individual car trips to bricks and mortar stores for the same goods. I'm not sure why the same concept does not work in reverse, other than returning something may still require a short car ride to a postal service.
It can be argued that people return more stuff if the online vendors make it easy, OTOH, many peopl
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see it as any worse than buying online in the first place. Fleets of trucks delivering goods to many households in the most logistically efficient way is arguably better than thousands of individual car trips to bricks and mortar stores for the same goods.
When I buy from a brick and mortar store, I don't make multiple trips to get what I need. I make a list and try to pick everything up in one trip from the same location when possible, and usually after work on the way home. There's a large shopping center near me that has a Target, Walmart, Best Buy, Costco, Lowes, etc. No need to drive all over town to get what I need.
Amazon doesn't always ship in the most efficient way. I've noticed that Amazon will often put a small object inside a larger than necessary
OTOH (Score:2)
When I shop online instead of going to brick and mortar stores I have a larger selection and I can read the reviews, increasing the odds that I get exactly what I want, reducing the need for returns.
Re: (Score:2)
I make a list and try to pick everything up in one trip from the same location when possible
That works for groceries, not so much for electronics. Certainly it is best to shop all in one trip regardless though, or ideally when you are out doing something else anyway.
There's a large shopping center near me that has a Target, Walmart, Best Buy, Costco, Lowes, etc. No need to drive all over town to get what I need.
Same here. Tomorrow I'm going to drive to Lowes and get some drywall anchors I don't have on hand in the correct size. I may get some fast food on the way.
I could probably order the anchors from Amazon, but I want them this weekend. Otherwise I could just go for the food and wait for the anchors (and I hate shopping malls, not havi
Re: (Score:2)
I believe my record was three Amazon packages in a day. When they say that Amazon ships things in grossly inefficient ways, they're seriously understating the problem. And these were not delivered at the same time of day. Amazon's courier service dropped two of them off, one in the morning, one at night, and UPS delivered the th
Re: (Score:3)
But you bought three things, that you may or may not have intended to be delivered on the same day. In my experience they usually warn you if multiple items are likely to ship separately. If you are lucky and they are popular items, and fullfilled by Amazon not 3rd party vendors, then they may all come from the same warehouse. But if you have three items all coming from different places, it's hard to see a significant advantage trying to consolidate them just for the last mile.
Supply chain logistics is v
Re: (Score:2)
Captain Obvious (Score:2, Funny)
No shit, Sherlock. It's almost like moving mass takes energy and increases entropy and the Universe frowns on trying to get a free lunch.
TANSTAAFL.
The human race comes with an environmental cost (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
I love how this has been modded both "insightful" and "troll." You can lead a person to water, but you cannot make them think (about whether that water is even safe to drink).
Implementation is just a detail for the little people to concern themselves with, after all.
Re:The human race comes with an environmental cost (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:The human race comes with an environmental cost (Score:5, Informative)
Access to voluntary contraceptives?
This is almost too easy, but I, like all trolls, require the sustenance of continued karma. So I'll point out the obvious.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/12/04/state-legislators-stop-being-cowards-mandate-state-funerals-all-spermatozoa/ [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
WAPost has the worst paywall ever. Was there a quote you'd like me to read?
Re: (Score:2)
State legislators, stop being cowards. Mandate funerals for all spermatozoa.
Before I subscribed (via Amazon at $3.99/month) I used to bypass their paywall pretty easily via Incognito mode. I don't know if it still works there.
Re: (Score:2)
Nahh, you have to tempt them, so 'FREE HAPPY FUN drugs with birth control built it". Now come on, let's get serious, many people do not want to have children and many children are just the product of intoxicated laziness, so. Free happy fun drugs, with your birth control, when you are getting high, don't produce the next unwanted feeling low generation, don't make your high the next generations low.
When it comes to product returns, send them to auction houses at collection points for many companies returns
Re: (Score:2)
The last time I looked at census results in any detail, approximately 17% of women made it to 50 with zero children. (50 is the age which the UK Census people consider the end of child-bearing years, though that remains under review.)
I wasn't surprised to learn that the numbers have not changed measurably since the introduction of assisted conception technologies. They're statistically invisible - the number of unassisted births is so much higher.
Re: (Score:2)
We have pretty much already won that battle. Look at the global fertility rate. Most population increase is just due to people living longer now.
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe it is about time we cut down on the former to cut down on the latter.
Are you volenteering?
Funny thing (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe it is about time we cut down on the human race
Turns out that humans are the best thing that ever happened to the planet Earth, even with you included.
The planet really had no-one else to watch over it before. Or to remember what was.
Re: (Score:2)
The planet really had no-one else to watch over it before. Or to remember what was.
I'd mod that insightful but no points today.
70% of emissions come from 100 companies (Score:3)
OTOH if the goal is to distract, confuse and frighten then these articles send the message to consumers that if they ask their politicians to do anything about climate change then their lives will be made worse.
As for why we see these sort of articles, well running stories that describe real, effective means of combating climate change (like the "Green New Deal") are generally Verboten, but you're more than welcome to run stories about banning plastic straws and charging consumers to return stuff. So if you're looking to run an environmental themed story your options are limited by design.
Re: (Score:1)
And stop pushing idiotic crap like the Green New Deal. I and many others want nothing to do with socialism and social justice dressed up as environmentalism. It doesn
You're giving consumers too much credit (Score:2, Insightful)
This isn't a problem that can be solved with the free market. The free market is going to head for the path of short term profits like it always has. That's because the "free" market is a myth. Monopolies, gov't bail outs & subsidies, back door deals and collusion all mean the market is never
Re: (Score:2)
The rich and powerful don't need you. Maybe you'll be dead before that happens, you've got 20-30 years or so tops. Keep in mind this doesn't happen all at once. 70% of the manufacturing job losses in America were due to automation & process improvements. It's been happening under our noses while the right wing blamed immigrants.M
The same arguments were made at the beginning of the industrial evolution, yet life just keeps getting better almost everywhere.
There was 80 years of unemployment & strife (Score:2)
That's been a pretty common pattern in human history. A Dark Age where a ruling elite prevent progress in order t
Return of a story (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Captain Obvious is back from the holiday break (Score:1)
Re:Captain Obvious is back from the holiday break (Score:5, Interesting)
And yet, somehow, a number of people believe we can do everything organically.
I hate to break it to you, as much as my personal garden may be organic, it doesn't scale to 7.5 billion people. Nitrogen fixation basically eliminated mass famines in industrialized nations and allowed previously unimaginable population growth.
Composting, using no-till or tilling under cover crops, crop rotation--those can be important. But the blunt issue remains: you need atoms of nitrogen, in the soil, in the correct molecules, in order to be taken up and eventually made available for the construction of amino acids and proteins. If you look at the history of agriculture, you'll notice that we were running headlong as a species into the limitations of manuring and composting.
Re: (Score:2)
I've had this argument many times, typically I'll ask, "So do you have investments in a shovel factory, or what? 19th Century agriculture can only support a 19th Century population, so that's a lot of graves that will need to be dug."
Re: (Score:3)
I think that a key bit of understanding is missing from general views of agriculture today, namely that agriculture, like any other resource harvesting process, is a mining process.
When you look at it that way, you realize that the soil can't just give and give forever. There's a movement of particular atoms of elements, and a balance that needs to be maintained. Every plant removed is a refined forn of nitrogen (et al.) removed from that cache of raw resources. If you don't refill the cache, no more refine
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not going to watch a YouTube video to guess what your argument might be. Tell me why it scales, in your own words, or quotes at least, and we can discuss it.
I'm totally open to being proven wrong. I just don't want to guess your line of reasoning, because, you know that quip about assumption..
UPS vs 200*SUVs (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If UPS truck can deliver 200 packages it has lower environmental cost than 200 SUVs driving back to store to return package.
You are more likely to optimize UPS trucks (switch them to electric) than optimizing all SUVs/cars.
And UPS (and FedEx, Purolator, DHL et al) will certainly always want to make more money. If electric trucks help them do that, more power to them. That makes it even more better than me driving to the mall.
But you can be at peace (Score:1)
If you are not a religious environmentalist your "free returns" are not a sin.
Welcome to reality (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Isentropic computing has no environmental cost, by definition, but nobody's figured out a use for it or a really practical way to do it at scale.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why change anything at all, there is no need. Eventually homo sapiens will disappear from this world and in a few billion years, no one will even know (or care) that we were here.
solution: stop peddling shit + fix human brain (Score:1)
This Is In Part Why I Had a Firepace Built/// (Score:1)
I just held two mass cardboard burns the other day and will probably do a third tomorrow. Carboard burns pretty hot so I have to be careful not to "overheat" the flue, but that's easy to manage.
If you can't burn your cardboard you might have a friend who would like the free burnables. Barring that I know most cities have some form or cardboard recycling, free and not free.
Ferret
Re: (Score:2)
Backyard Burning https://archive.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/web/html/index-3.html [epa.gov]
What's Burning in Your Campfire? https://www.fs.fed.us/t-d/pubs/pdfpubs/pdf04232327/pdf04232327dpi300.pdf [fs.fed.us]
Just another shill piece (Score:2)
This seems like another push to end free returns, and make them costly to end users. So when we get a semi-decent product from BestBuy with dented parts, we shall then think ("Should I lose $6 to send it back, or can I live with some dents on my product?").
Of course there is no "free" shipping in real life. It is all included in the costs. On the other hand large online retailers do get much better rates than us puny buyers. When they quote you $6 to return that article, it would not actually cost them as m
going goin gone (Score:2)
Do you know of anything that comes without (Score:2)
an environmental cost?
I am asking as I don't.
Watch out for Amazon too! (Score:1)