Consumers lose once again

[MaskedOne]

Re: Consumers lose once again

If you make it, you take responsibility for it at the end of its life cycle.

There is actually a potential backlash that I have issues with here. If say...

Apple (chosen entirely at random, really, truly.... yeah, I'm lying)

Is responsible for the product after <insert random entity> buys it (beyond certain warranty requirments) then they get a new legal theory to try and impose regulations on <insert random entity's> use of the product. Now this may not bother me (not a fan of apple) but <insert random entity> might subscribe to the old fashioned idea that if they purchase a physical product then said product belongs to them...

Also, yes, this issue can be pre-empted somewhat with careful legal phrasing but trust in legislature isn't my strong suit.

[thalassa]

Re: Consumers lose once again

You don't know, going in, for the most part.

Plus, there's often no alternative.

[DanieMarie]

Re: Consumers lose once again

If you are aware of such practices or others then it is your responsibility not to buy the product. That's the way free enterprise works. The manufacturers who produce the best product at the best price gets to stay in business. If you support manufacturers who produce crap or use methods you don't approve of then you are the one creating the problem.

I don't. But I do a LOT of research into the things I buy. A lot of people lack the time, know-how, and resources to do the kind of research I do to find out things about the purchases I make. It's not always clearly labelled or public information. Often, it involves delving deep into investigative journalism, academic research, and other stuff along those lines.

The market does not correct itself. The 19th century proved that. Companies should have a responsibility to price fair labour and the environmental impact of production into their goods, or better yet, engage in sustainable practices. They should also publish *correct* information about the impact that their production has on ecosystems, workers, and communities (I say "correct" because a lot of companies do publish glossy PR on this stuff, and it is *not* correct). However, a lot of companies will not do this out of their own free will, which is where regulations come in. There has to be some kind of line that should not be crossed that keeps us from ruining the world. At the moment, that bar isn't high enough, because we *are* ruining the world.

- - - Updated - - -

You don't know, going in, for the most part. Now, with textiles, there's also a big producer of waste called the fashion industry, prompting people to dress differently every year whether their clothing has worn out or not.

The worst part is, it's a total sham. If you take a look at runways, fashion magazines and street style from the past couple of decades, it becomes pretty clear that there are absolutely no real trends anymore. You can wear whatever you want, as long as you hold your head high. Take the 70s for example. The 70s have been "back" three times in my relatively short lifetime, and the 70s wasn't even that long ago. And if you wore 70s style during the times it wasn't "back," you could always just say it was "vintage." Fashion decided that we should change styles every 6 months, then every 3 months, and that pretty much made the whole idea of trends implode on itself.

[thalassa]

Re: Consumers lose once again

There is actually a potential backlash that I have issues with here. If say...

Apple (chosen entirely at random, really, truly.... yeah, I'm lying)

Is responsible for the product after <insert random entity> buys it (beyond certain warranty requirments) then they get a new legal theory to try and impose regulations on <insert random entity's> use of the product. Now this may not bother me (not a fan of apple) but <insert random entity> might subscribe to the old fashioned idea that if they purchase a physical product then said product belongs to them...

Also, yes, this issue can be pre-empted somewhat with careful legal phrasing but trust in legislature isn't my strong suit.

Its not that difficult--Require companies (in this case, electronics companies) to offer consumer-based recycling for their products. When I'm done with my phone or my computer or my ipod, whatever, I should be able to take it back to where I got it from and they take it off my hands to dispose of it in a way that is a minimum burden of the environment. Good companies already do this anyhow.

[Hawkfeathers]

Re: Consumers lose once again

I don't. But I do a LOT of research into the things I buy. A lot of people lack the time, know-how, and resources to do the kind of research I do to find out things about the purchases I make. It's not always clearly labelled or public information. Often, it involves delving deep into investigative journalism, academic research, and other stuff along those lines.

The market does not correct itself. The 19th century proved that. Companies should have a responsibility to price fair labour and the environmental impact of production into their goods, or better yet, engage in sustainable practices. They should also publish *correct* information about the impact that their production has on ecosystems, workers, and communities (I say "correct" because a lot of companies do publish glossy PR on this stuff, and it is *not* correct). However, a lot of companies will not do this out of their own free will, which is where regulations come in. There has to be some kind of line that should not be crossed that keeps us from ruining the world. At the moment, that bar isn't high enough, because we *are* ruining the world.

- - - Updated - - -



The worst part is, it's a total sham. If you take a look at runways, fashion magazines and street style from the past couple of decades, it becomes pretty clear that there are absolutely no real trends anymore. You can wear whatever you want, as long as you hold your head high. Take the 70s for example. The 70s have been "back" three times in my relatively short lifetime, and the 70s wasn't even that long ago. And if you wore 70s style during the times it wasn't "back," you could always just say it was "vintage." Fashion decided that we should change styles every 6 months, then every 3 months, and that pretty much made the whole idea of trends implode on itself.

I agree - I recently saw an interview with a DJ from New York where he pointed out that 1967 was a huge year in music, and produced a revolution, and we haven't had it since. He said, we have classic rock stations now playing late 60's, 70's, and some 80's music. Can you imagine a station 30 years from now playing "classic 2015"? No. Today's stuff is all throwaway and remakes and nothing new under the sun. I think fashion's done kind of the same thing. We're in a long stage right now of just milling around waiting for something to actually happen. So meanwhile, people buy brand-specific instead of style-specific, and you'll see high schoolers all wearing one brand of shoes, etc. They really look the same as any other, but there's that desire to be in fashion, and therefore the constant churning of new items and wastefulness, without any real change accompanying it.

Planned obsolescence does create jobs, and this is part of the issue. At one time when no one had a refrigerator/tv/you-name-it in their home, manufacturing/selling/designing/delivering them was huge business. Then everybody had one, and they were made to last 30 years, so where'd all those jobs go? They start promoting "new & improved" items so people will upgrade. It's all a very vicious circle.

[thalassa]

Re: Consumers lose once again

At one time when no one had a refrigerator/tv/you-name-it in their home, manufacturing/selling/designing/delivering them was huge business. Then everybody had one, and they were made to last 30 years, so where'd all those jobs go? They start promoting "new & improved" items so people will upgrade. It's all a very vicious circle.

They sure as heck didn't start inventing flying cars and Rosies.

[Azvanna]

Re: Consumers lose once again

Its not that difficult--Require companies (in this case, electronics companies) to offer consumer-based recycling for their products. When I'm done with my phone or my computer or my ipod, whatever, I should be able to take it back to where I got it from and they take it off my hands to dispose of it in a way that is a minimum burden of the environment. Good companies already do this anyhow.

I was thinking of writing to my MP to lobby government for a regulation like this. The problem with microbeads in beauty products made it abundantly clear to me there's no responsibility on anyone to follow the lifecycle of their product through to the end. What if all new products introduced to the market had to supply a third party report on how the waste from their product after consumption would impact the environment?

[DragonsFriend]

Re: Consumers lose once again

There are places to recycle electronics every place I have lived. Even the small town in the middle of farming country close to where I now live has electronics recycling centers. These are run as private businesses for a profit. There are reusable components, silver, gold, and platinum in just about every device and the people who are recycling these devices are making a profit. If you force the manufacturers to do it you take the income away from the private businesses that are doing it now.

[thalassa]

Re: Consumers lose once again

If you force the manufacturers to do it you take the income away from the private businesses that are doing it now.

Most manufacturers would contract it out. Private companies would probably get more business...but not the type they necessarily want. Phones and tablets aren't as cost effective unless you can turn them over at a high volume...and the precious metal volume of phones (and other electronics) has been decreasing over time, which decreases the profit (a very interesting read)

Most places I've lived have never been interested in the little stuff (which is why this stuff gets sent to China and done without workplace or environmental protection and causes huge pollution and worker illness problems) because there's not enough money to be made off of it. The municipal recycling center will take my fridge and my TV because they have to, the private sketchy joint will take my car and my copper pipes from a plumbing project because they can turn a profit. And that's about it.



Because this is the reality of e-waste:

If you're like some 80% of Americans, you'll simply toss your obsolete gizmos into the trash. After all, that Jurassic 15-in. (38 cm) computer monitor doesn't look as though it's packing up to 7 lb. (3 kg) of lead. Every day Americans throw out more than 350,000 cell phones and 130,000 computers, making electronic waste the fastest-growing part of the U.S. garbage stream. Improperly disposed of, the lead, mercury and other toxic materials inside e-waste can leak from landfills.

If you're part of the 20% trying to do the right thing by recycling your e-waste, there's something else to worry about. Old phones and computers can be dismantled to get at the useful metals inside, but doing so safely is time-consuming. Thus, many electronics recyclers ship American e-waste abroad, where it is stripped and burned with little concern for environmental or human health. And authorities rarely stop the export of potentially hazardous e-waste. The U.S. is the only industrialized country that refused to ratify the 19-year-old Basel Convention, an international treaty designed to regulate the export of hazardous waste to developing nations.
source

[thalassa]

Re: Consumers lose once again

Its not that difficult--Require companies (in this case, electronics companies) to offer consumer-based recycling for their products. When I'm done with my phone or my computer or my ipod, whatever, I should be able to take it back to where I got it from and they take it off my hands to dispose of it in a way that is a minimum burden of the environment. Good companies already do this anyhow.

Here in the US, Best Buy, Dell, Staples, LG, Samsung, Sprint, Sony, and Panasonic have recycling programs for their TVs, PCs, and mobile devices.

[DanieMarie]

Re: Consumers lose once again

Here in Germany, cities are responsible for recycling electronics. So basically, companies get to pass on the cost of that to the state (which is really fresh, considering that most larger companies shirk on their taxes through Luxembourg or somewhere similar). And even for the few that do recycle their own electronics, the manufacturing processes are so damaging that the cost of those goods don't even come close to covering the damage they do (for example: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/2015...place-on-earth). If we consumed those products at a slower rate and repaired and repurposed existing products more often, the waste from manufacturing new products would probably be manageable. As it is, nope.

[Hawkfeathers]

Re: Consumers lose once again

Where I lived in NJ, the town had 1 day a year when you could bring old computers & peripherals to the recycling dep't. I don't know what the deal is here. Lots of people who live out in the country just dump stuff on their own land and leave it forever.