Recycling, a rant

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by wingssail

No, Lake-effect, we are not forced to upgrade frequently. We do that only because we are so affluent that we can.

It is not required to stay absolutely current on computers and even cell phones still work after several years.

My favorite computer right now is a 11 year old Dell Studio which is still fast enough for graphics and has an astonishingly gorgeous HD screen which I use for photo editing. My other two computers are both more than 7 years old and are perfectly useful.

What OS(s) are you running? Windows 8 & 10 cancelled out a lot of hardware, and Win11 is apparently going to cut out a lot of older computers. Mac - don't get me started. My wife had to replace a 6 year old iPad because some of the apps and games she had ran poorly, or not at all, as they get updated... which are near impossible to block.

You might still be able to place a call, and run some basic apps on an old phone. Ok for you maybe. But they will be unsupported by most carriers or manufacturers, many apps won't install on them, and they of course won't be able to use 4G or 5G. My phone is 4 years old and perfectly fine, but soon will fall out of support. In laptops, tablets and phones, the batteries have lost much of their capacity after 5 years, and since the batteries are usually custom and not consumer-replacable, the cost of replacing batteries in a device with diminishing use doesn't always make economic sense.

There will always be clever people like you who can wring the last few cycles out of hardware. I still have some winXP towers to run some apps and hardware that no longer run in Win 10. But it can be a real pain to manage or block updates, or know how to stay with a less demanding application or version. Most people can't, and with work computers, one needs to stay current for reasons of security, change, and efficiency.

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by wingssail

Waste Maker's Responsibity

Why do we let manufacturers make and sell so many products which are hard to recycle? (for profit, of course). And why are consumers able to buy them then simply discard them for others to dispose of? (for the convenience, of course).

So, for the manufacturer's profit and the consumers convenience we are polluting the planet.

My solution is that every manufacturer would be required to define the proper disposal or recycling method of everything they make (you make something, you must describe how it can be disposed of or recycled).

Secondly the manufacturer would be required to deposit funds sufficient to perform that disposal.

Example: You make a phone and sell it for $500, and you have determined that it costs $100 to recycle it, you deposit $100 in a fund.

That money stays there until someone properly recycles or disposes of the product, then they get the money.

And if no one can recycle it for $100, they can simply give it back to the manufacturer who than must recycle it but gets the $100 back (you make it, you clean it up).

Yes, this is onerous for both the manufacturer and the consumer but far fewer products would be made then simply tossed out. Recycling would be competitive as people sought ways to recycle for less and therefore make a profit (if I can recycle that phone for $75, I get the $100 and keep $25).

Your plan is impractical and would just continue to inflate the cost of living. Any fee charged to the manufacturer will simply be passed on to the consumer.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Recycling is mostly about making consumers feel OK about throwing away the old, so they can buy the new. Without the warm fuzzy feeling we get by believing all that packaging, containers, boxboard and yes, electronics, are going to a 'better place,' we'd be far slower to toss the old and reach for the new.

I don't disagree that recycling programs are in part intended to make people think they are doing their bit... but strictly in terms of waste management, they ARE doing their bit if they sort and direct waste into separate streams.

And again, I don't know of any consumer who was influenced to make major upgrades (appliances, computers, electronics, phones) because of the existence of recycling. A trade-in allowance, together with a promise to see the device sent to needy areas, might have influence.

At worst, the existence of recycling programs might make consumers less likely to be critical of the packaging choices made by manufacturers. But that's really a failure of government to mandate minimal and more easily-recycled packaging.

Of course, we're in a market that was adding plastic beads to shampoo to make it 'pearlescent', FFS.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by rwidman

Your plan is impractical and would just continue to inflate the cost of living. Any fee charged to the manufacturer will simply be passed on to the consumer.

I don't know if Wing's specific idea would work, but we already pay the cost through our taxes. This produces a disconnect in the market messaging and allows companies to offload the cost onto the public purse.

A market-driven solution would provide the needed market messages to be delivered. This should then provide the information and incentives to drive costs down. Right now producers have zero incentive to follow the Three-Rs. The cost is externalized to the public purse, so why would they?

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I don't disagree that recycling programs are in part intended to make people think they are doing their bit... but strictly in terms of waste management, they ARE doing their bit if they sort and direct waste into separate streams.

I think that's a different issue, and one that is not mutually exclusive. We should apply good management techniques regardless of the need for public recycling programs.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

And again, I don't know of any consumer who was influenced to make major upgrades (appliances, computers, electronics, phones) because of the existence of recycling. A trade-in allowance, together with a promise to see the device sent to needy areas, might have influence.

I think we've had shades of this discussion before around marketing and tracking. You don't seem to appreciate the influence marketers and advertisers have over the decisions people make. Knowing our stuff is being 'recycled' sends the warm-fuzzy feeling that it is OK to toss this old iPad in favour of the shiny new one. This is critical to keeping the endless consumerist treadmill rolling. Without this Apple et. al would be forced to change its approach to planned obsolescence.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

At worst, the existence of recycling programs might make consumers less likely to be critical of the packaging choices made by manufacturers. But that's really a failure of government to mandate minimal and more easily-recycled packaging.

It is a failure of the government (and the government is us). We should require that producers take responsibility for the packaging they use. Either through some sort of tax mechanism, or by making them directly responsible for the waste they produce (as per Wing's idea).

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

You don't seem to appreciate the influence marketers and advertisers have over the decisions people make. Knowing our stuff is being 'recycled' sends the warm-fuzzy feeling that it is OK to toss this old iPad in favour of the shiny new one. This is critical to keeping the endless consumerist treadmill rolling. Without this Apple et. al would be forced to change its approach to planned obsolescence.

Not appreciating the influence of marketing and advertising? Moi?

Most companies know that they have to appear to be green, for the overall sheen of the brand, and all other things being equal, many consumers will lean towards the 'greener' brand, but no I don't believe that any significant number of consumers were driven to make a hardware upgrade because of the existence of a recycling stream or program.

And i kept my wife's old iPad for the boat

[dannc]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

...
And again, I don't know of any consumer who was influenced to make major upgrades (appliances, computers, electronics, phones) because of the existence of recycling. A trade-in allowance, together with a promise to see the device sent to needy areas, might have influence.
...

Yep. We have not updated an appliance because the new ones were "better." We bought new ones because the old ones broke and were not reparable money wise. Worse, the new appliances are less reliable than the old ones. The life span of the appliances gets worse not better. Every single kitchen appliance has been replaced after 10 years or so because they all failed.

If government wanted to reduce waste, they should mandate standards to increase the lifetime of appliances. This is not rocket science. The first fridge we bought for our house had a five year warranty. Try find a five year warranty on a fridge in the US today...

Even with a five year warranty, the fridges were failing at the five year mark. Thankfully, ours failed within the warranty, under which it was fixed and the fridge lasted a few more years. The next fridge failed in 2-3 months and we fought to get it replaced. The replacement, replacement fridge's lights have failed. Seems to be an expensive fix so we are just dealing with it.

My grandmother had a fridge, that I think Moses used, but it was small and had an even smaller freezer compartment. My parents bought her a new fridge so she could have a "better" fridge. I would bet that old fridge would still run today if it had not been trashed.

Our appliances are recycled but that had zero impact on us buying new appliances.

Our kids had to buy new phones because Apple made their almost new phones unusable.

One has to update their OS if connected to the Internet. If one does not do so they are asking trouble. Not sure if my current laptop will support Windows 11, I was happy with Windows 7 but had to move to Windows 10. I suspect when Windows 10 goes out of service, my laptop will be as well since it will be quite old by then.

I can think of only a few people I know that might by the latest phone or computer more often than others. Most people I know use the "hardware" until it breaks.

Later,
Dan

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

What OS(s) are you running?

Two of my computers are windows 10, (the newer ones) I've had no hardware compatibility issues. My oldest one, which I kept only because I love the screen, is Win7. It too has no problems with the devices or drives needed for what I have on the boat.

You might still be able to place a call, and run some basic apps on an old phone. Ok for you maybe. But they will be unsupported by most carriers or manufacturers, and of course won't be able to use 4G or 5G. My phone is 4 years old and perfectly fine, but soon will fall out of support.

Well, I think a four year old phone will run 4G, of course not 5G. But you are right, phones become obsolete sooner than computers. However, what things other than making calls, do you do that older phones can't do (Well, I know one, the new cameras are better)

I have a tablet we use in deck for race tactics, it connects via bluetooth or wifi to the sailing instrumentsand itis over four years old. Until someone comes up with a e-ink screen for an android tablet computer I see no need to upgrade it.

There will always be clever people like you who can wring the last few cycles out of hardware. I still have some winXP towers to run some apps and hardware that no longer run in Win 10. But it can be a real pain to manage or block updates, or know how to stay with a less demanding application or version. Most people can't, and with work computers, one needs to stay current for reasons of security, change, and efficiency.

At work, yes. The network admins want to keep everything secure but many corporations still have win7 (or evenXP) computers due to the cost of replacing and upgrading, and re-installing the software, on a few thousand computers.

So, I am not convinced there is an actual, objective reason, for frequent upgrades of this kind of hardware.

I think we could keep our old stuff longer and have less waste and junk piling up in land fills.

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by rwidman

Your plan is impractical and would just continue to inflate the cost of living. Any fee charged to the manufacturer will simply be passed on to the consumer.

Yes, passed on to the consumer. EXACTLY! And that might induce consumers to keep things longer and throw them away less.

As of impracticality, don't think it has to be. Look what we can manage with phone apps now. And voluntary doesn't seem to be working.

As for the cost of living? We somehow need to pay something to stop accumulating junk on this planet.

[Dsanduril]

Originally Posted by wingssail

...
My solution is that every manufacturer would be required to define the proper disposal or recycling method of everything they make (you make something, you must describe how it can be disposed of or recycled)....

There's at least on program I know of like that, Cradle to Cradle (TM).

https://www.c2ccertified.org/get-cer...fied-version-4

Supposed to certify products for which the manufacturer has adopted a full return/reuse/recycle program. Having worked on a couple of C2C product certifications (solar panels) I can say that, IME, it makes no difference to the consumer in the marketplace and thus won't be widely adopted as it adds cost and doesn't provide much in return. As noted many times here, we all have to vote with our wallets to get anything even close to become commonplace.

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by Dsanduril

There's at least on program I know of like that, Cradle to Cradle (TM).

https://www.c2ccertified.org/get-cer...fied-version-4

Supposed to certify products for which the manufacturer has adopted a full return/reuse/recycle program. Having worked on a couple of C2C product certifications (solar panels) I can say that, IME, it makes no difference to the consumer in the marketplace and thus won't be widely adopted as it adds cost and doesn't provide much in return. As noted many times here, we all have to vote with our wallets to get anything even close to become commonplace.

It needs to be universal, otherwise, even with a premium applied to the cost, consumers will simply by the cheaper one with no C2C certification

[Barkingmad]

Good luck undoing 70+ years of "programming" since the end of WW2 and the rise of commercialism. Your voice doesn't matter for beans. You're not a lobby group, your not a business that can buy their politician with a promise of a place on the board once they are out of office.....
Status quo is just going to keep rolling right along until the next mass extinction event when the planet will re-set itself. There is no hope for humanity nor do we really deserve any. We're generally a pretty vile species.

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by wingssail

Yes, passed on to the consumer. EXACTLY! And that might induce consumers to keep things longer and throw them away less.
.

Not likely.

But if it did, it would have a serious impact on manufacturing and trade. And that would probably lead to a recession.

There is no simple solution.

[wingssail]

Originally Posted by rwidman

Not likely.

But if it did, it would have a serious impact on manufacturing and trade. And that would probably lead to a recession.

There is no simple solution.

Of course there is no simple solution, but what do we do, just give up and live in a sea of plastic and discarded junk? What is your solution?

Besides, how do we know that any reduction in consumerism and manufacturing won't be replaced by industry and entrepreneurs in the field of proper disposal and recycling for profit?

[Barkingmad]

Originally Posted by wingssail

Of course there is no simple solution, but what do we do, just give up and live in a sea of plastic and discarded junk? What is your solution?

Besides, how do we know that any reduction in consumerism and manufacturing won't be replaced by industry and entrepreneurs in the field of proper disposal and recycling for profit?

Yep that is exactly what we do, people don't WANT to give up the instant crap lifestyle they believe it is their right. People want more crap cheaper now, not recycling and disposal. Those are momentary unpleasant afterthoughts.

You actually think a population where near 50% won't get a vaccination for the good of all because they are convinced they have some right not to is actually is going to give up something for the good of the planet? LMAO!
As I said above - a vile species at best.