Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sweden Wants to Fight Disposable Culture with Tax Breaks for Repairing Old Stuff

fastcoexist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 336 posts

Re: Sweden Wants to Fight Disposable Culture with Tax Breaks for Repairing Old Stuff

#221

Post by floatrock »

ryandrake wrote: post #166
gutnor wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pessimistic too. However, the labour cost is so huge that it will offset some of your points and only give a slight edge to repair and second hand shops. If you don't have a top of the range, almost new fridge or TV, even phone, repair will almost always come close to replacement cost. And replacement give you back a 2 years guarantee with faster turnaround.

> If you don't have a top of the range, almost new fridge or TV, even phone, repair will almost always come close to replacement cost. I tend to repair everything, and let me say that's not true for the vast majority of my possessions, including cars, appliances, electronics, etc. It highly depends on the nature of the failure, but generally parts are cheaper than replacement. Here are a list of things I've recently…

For something like the AV receiver's three capacitors or the TV's convergence IC's, how did you track down the problem and source replacements?

Are there debugging manuals for that level of electronics failure, or was it just "hmmm, that capacitor probably shouldn't have all the goo around it"?

Re: Sweden Wants to Fight Disposable Culture with Tax Breaks for Repairing Old Stuff

#222

Post by brianwawok »

logfromblammo wrote: post #191
brianwawok wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps.. but lets say in 10 years efficiency goes up another 30%. So yes even if your current fridge COULD last 20 more years, with efficiency gains the best thing for the environment COULD be to melt it down for scrap and get a newer model. To me this is the really interesting part in all of this. If there was no efficiency gains generation to generation.. say a piece of clothing.. seems pretty obvious to make slig…

The problem is that the insulated cabinet portion of the fridge could easily last 100 years, just by replacing the door seals every now and then. Why would you want to throw that out with the parts that should be upgraded every 10 years for energy efficiency reasons? Those old cars could be made as efficient as new ones by replacing every part in them other than the chassis. That's prohibitively expensive now, but mo…

For arguments like this, it is easier to look backwards than forwards.

So let's take a 20 year old car, and pretend it was future proofed to take more upgrades. Would you want it today?

* The style wouldn't be right at all. So let's pretend that we are globally willing to accept out of style things for the sake of the environment. Which is a big if, but let's go with it.

* The steering wheel may or may not have airbags. The doors and seats would certainly not have side impact airbags. The doors and seats would not be designed to take these advances. You would need to basically replace the doors and seats to upgrade these new safety features. But what if these new safety features made the door 2 inches thicker? Since you aren't replacing the frame, you now lost 2 inches of internal space. Maybe the driver would still fit, maybe it wouldn't.

* Engines were much much less efficient 20 years ago. New engines have all kinds of things that a mechanic can better explain. Things like carburetors are gone, things like computer controller ignition are in. Would the upgradable car have known about all these future changes? Maybe, maybe not.

* Frames have gotten much stronger / more crash proof in the last 20 years. Think of better crumple zones. So if you wanted to upgrade that 20 year old car to be as safe as a modern car, how would you change the crumple zones within the frame itself?

* Metal itself rusts over time. Things can slow it, but there will always be some rust. What do you do if the frame has rusted in ways that can't be fixed?

* Crashes can permanently damage cars. Say your frame is bent in a crash. Insurance companies write this car off as totaled, and declare it no longer safe to drive. Can you always fix this kind of thing? Perhaps sometimes. Would you want to drive a frame that has been welded back together after a crash? I would not.

This is not an exhaustive list but it partially proves a point. In a field where innovation is happening, it is VERY hard to future proof your hardware. If you disagree and are a programmer, show me an active codebase that has never had a refactor. By going down this path, you are basically saying the contents of a given method can be swapped out, but we can never refactor the codebase. So show me a 20 year old C++ project with no refactor ever done, just methods being swapped out like your replaceable car analogy.

Re: Sweden Wants to Fight Disposable Culture with Tax Breaks for Repairing Old Stuff

#223

Post by Grishnakh »

hlandau wrote: post #112

This is a very nice move to see. Other people have discussed washing machines below, but there's even more to say on them. Washing machines used to have long warranty periods. Nowadays they tend to be sold with a 2 year warranty, which I believe in the EU is the required minimum. And these manufacturers (Bosch, for example) even have the gall to claim that their products are high quality and that this warranty period…

>Water efficiency regulations also appear to have forced modern washing machines to use inadequate water for rinsing. There are numerous stories of hypoallergenic people who find that their new washing machine leaves significant detergent in clothing.

This is because people always use way too much detergent. Stop it. You don't need that much detergent. Get the "he" detergent and follow the directions. You don't need a giant amount of detergent to get your clothes clean.

This is exactly like all the stupid people who always adjust the side mirrors on their car so they have a great view of the sides of their car, instead of trying to minimize their blind spots.

Re: Sweden Wants to Fight Disposable Culture with Tax Breaks for Repairing Old Stuff

#224

Post by brianwawok »

mikeyouse wrote: post #173
brianwawok wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well saying you are not some form of Christian. Both an atheist and a Muslim would have no chance of being elected. Jewish seems to be generally okay. Not sure on Buddhist or other eastern religions.

Being a Catholic was a significant hindrance to JFK's presidential ambitions. You have to be the right kind of Christian. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1692060...

My gut says distrust of Catholics has gone down in the past 30 years, but I could not find data to back it up. But yes, many things factor into things..

Re: Sweden Wants to Fight Disposable Culture with Tax Breaks for Repairing Old Stuff

#225

Post by mmmpop »

mseebach wrote: post #99
J-dawg wrote: post #6

This idea seems so sensible it's a no-brainer. (I'm almost dreading the comments explaining why I'm wrong!) The human race is producing unprecedented quantities of non-recyclable "stuff". It's pumped out of the ground as oil, converted into plastics, and after a short life, buried in the ground again. Maybe this wouldn't be so bad if much of it didn't also end up floating in the ocean, being eaten by animals and cont…

The idea is great. The problems will be with the implementation, how it will change incentives, any loopholes introduced, cost of enforcement and unintended consequences. What exactly is a repair? Are parts covered, or only labour? Think ship of Theseus. Is an upgrade a repair, can I put a better compressor, rather than like-for-like in my refrigerator when it's failed? Can I have my TV repaired by replacing all the…

> Sure, it's pessimistic, but I'm essentially working backwards from an attempt to impose a tax on dietary fat (for health reasons) in Denmark.

Sorry, what? Not to derail, but this is the most ridiculous thing I've heard in awhile unless I'm just missing something. The latest science has made it pretty clear dietary fat is quite good for you and simple carbs are what a healthy person should avoid.

Re: Sweden Wants to Fight Disposable Culture with Tax Breaks for Repairing Old Stuff

#226

Post by sliverstorm »

ersii wrote: post #150

There seems to be plenty here that like the idea of lowering the Value Add Tax on repairs. Let me ask: Why stop at 12.5% VAT for repairs? If you'd go all the way down to 0% - the repairs could potentially be up to 25% cheaper than they are now.

Perhaps if they make repair too sweet, abuse will skyrocket asymptotically.

Or, perhaps it transforms from "incentive" to "subsidy".

Re: Sweden Wants to Fight Disposable Culture with Tax Breaks for Repairing Old Stuff

#227

Post by vkou »

Grishnakh wrote: post #211
vkou wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> urban dwellers have no place to put a compost pile. Curb-side compost pickup.

Good luck getting the dysfunctional, incompetent, and corrupt local governments in America to implement that.

My dysfunctional, incompetent, and corrupt local government (In America) has managed to pick up my curbside trash once a week, for years.

Over the past year and a half, it's also managed to pick up my curbside compost. It's also managed to provide both electricity, and running water.

Most of America isn't some kind of lawless hellscape, filled with wandering ghouls, cursed with a hunger for human flesh (Despite what Randian fiction seems to claim.) Mandatory infrastructure tends to work, for some definition of working. (Now, if only the same could be said about Comcast...)

Re: Sweden Wants to Fight Disposable Culture with Tax Breaks for Repairing Old Stuff

#228

Post by jernfrost »

lallysingh wrote: post #200
jernfrost wrote: post #190

This is beginning in the wrong end IMHO. One of the big problems today is that products are: 1) Not made to be repaired. 2) Not made to last 3) Repair manuals are not easily and widely available 4) Manufacturer have monopoly on replacement parts making them extremely expensive. I would instead create tax incentives which encourage manufacturers to make repairable and durable items, and pass laws which makes it easier…

Isn't this better? Manufacturers can make rational decisions on tax breaks vs additional costs. Here, they have to compete with a "easily repairable!" label from a competing product. That's hard to price.

If that was an advantage when selling, they would already have done it.

Re: Sweden Wants to Fight Disposable Culture with Tax Breaks for Repairing Old Stuff

#229

Post by protomok »

ryandrake wrote: post #166
gutnor wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pessimistic too. However, the labour cost is so huge that it will offset some of your points and only give a slight edge to repair and second hand shops. If you don't have a top of the range, almost new fridge or TV, even phone, repair will almost always come close to replacement cost. And replacement give you back a 2 years guarantee with faster turnaround.

> If you don't have a top of the range, almost new fridge or TV, even phone, repair will almost always come close to replacement cost. I tend to repair everything, and let me say that's not true for the vast majority of my possessions, including cars, appliances, electronics, etc. It highly depends on the nature of the failure, but generally parts are cheaper than replacement. Here are a list of things I've recently…

A big pain for DIY repairs (at least here in Canada) is part prices and shipping costs. I often see a 2-4x spread in prices when checking Amazon.ca and Amazon.com (often will not even ship to Canada).

It's still cheaper (and more satisfying) to DIY but it really hurts when you're paying $40 for a $10 garage door opener part!

Re: Sweden Wants to Fight Disposable Culture with Tax Breaks for Repairing Old Stuff

#230

Post by jernfrost »

sliverstorm wrote: post #199
jernfrost wrote: post #190

This is beginning in the wrong end IMHO. One of the big problems today is that products are: 1) Not made to be repaired. 2) Not made to last 3) Repair manuals are not easily and widely available 4) Manufacturer have monopoly on replacement parts making them extremely expensive. I would instead create tax incentives which encourage manufacturers to make repairable and durable items, and pass laws which makes it easier…

There's another angle too. For a long time the only tailor in town was basically a bridal tailor. They charged steep prices for simple work on everyday clothing, and wait times were long. Fast forward to today. I had ripped holes in a few pairs of pants, and was wondering if it made sense to have them repaired- I was pretty sure I was going to be charged as much as the pants were worth for a fairly simple repair. Luc…

Repair services in any western country will be hideously expensive because it can't be automated and has to be paid western wages, while the products themselves are made in an automated fashion with third world wages.

For this repair stuff to work, we have to make it easier to do so that people can do it themselves.

Post reply on HN