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

The dark side of electronic waste recycling

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 53 posts

Re: The dark side of electronic waste recycling

#41

Post by clarry »

Something1234 wrote: post #21
toomuchtodo wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything you mentioned as possible public policy is done for the benefit of the environment and the people who live in it, not shortsighted consumers. You’re not paying for it because it’s good for you, but because it harms others.

Well people act in their own self interest, so how do you propose that people go about implementing to encourage the lazy consume to take part? GP makes a very valid point, and I don't know why they are being downvoted. It's basic game theory. Maybe if the fee was given back to the consumer or split between them it might work. Like how bottle deposits used to work.

If recycling is profitable, then recycling companies will go out of their ways to get recycleable stuff in their hands. So they will go to the consumer.

And waste disposal costs money, so consumer should have economic incentive to recycle instead of throwing everything in the bin.

Re: The dark side of electronic waste recycling

#42

Post by clarry »

lonelappde wrote: post #33
baroffoos wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its corporate green washing. Companies know that customers generally feel some amount of guilt over the products they purchase due to the environmental impact of them so they get the marketing teams to find some way to ease that guilt without actually doing much at all. Recycling has mostly been a global scale PR move to make people think they can buy as much product as they want and its ok because it gets turned in…

Producers and consumers are equal partners on pollution. If consumers don't want to buy polluting products they must stop, by self-control or by passing laws.

It would be a start if people had an easy way of comparing the pollution caused by each product when they're shopping. Like they can compare calories or fat in food, or the energy efficiency of light bulbs.

Of course, if such a system were in place, it wouldn't be a big leap from there to slapping extra tax on each item depending on the amount of pollution.

Re: The dark side of electronic waste recycling

#43

Post by crc32 »

Accujack wrote: post #3
howmayiannoyyou wrote: post #2

Not defending Total Reclaim's misrepresentation BUT.... the market for many recyclable commodities is insufficient to justify processing expense in the US. Why? Two reasons. First, there's little manufacturing capacity remaining in North America to utilize many (not all) recyclable commodities. Second, subsidies and currency manipulation continue to dump virgin commodities and new products into the US. This is not a…

There's no for-profit motive to justify recycling of much, that's true. However, recycling can still work well if there's money built in to the price of items for recycling what they're made of. In other words, a surcharge built into the cost of e.g. a flatscreen monitor for recycling is held in escrow during the device's lifetime. When it's end of life, the company that recycles it can claim that charge as part of i…

This is called a "Pigouvian tax" or "externality tax" and a common example is a tax on fuel:

"In the United States, the federal gas tax was $0.183 per gallon in 2019... The revenue goes into the federal Highway Trust Fund to pay for roadway maintenance."

https://www.thebalance.com/pigouvian-tax-definition-and-exam...

Re: The dark side of electronic waste recycling

#44

Post by rvense »

aalleavitch wrote: post #37
Something1234 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well people act in their own self interest, so how do you propose that people go about implementing to encourage the lazy consume to take part? GP makes a very valid point, and I don't know why they are being downvoted. It's basic game theory. Maybe if the fee was given back to the consumer or split between them it might work. Like how bottle deposits used to work.

I already pay to recycle. How has my clearly irrational behavior somehow defeated your ironclad game theory logic?

The chink in their Extremely Logical armor isn't in the idea that people act in their own self interest, it's in the shallow definition of self of that is implied.

I want my planet to do well.

Re: The dark side of electronic waste recycling

#45

Post by Ndymium »

throwaway1777 wrote: post #32
Accujack wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no for-profit motive to justify recycling of much, that's true. However, recycling can still work well if there's money built in to the price of items for recycling what they're made of. In other words, a surcharge built into the cost of e.g. a flatscreen monitor for recycling is held in escrow during the device's lifetime. When it's end of life, the company that recycles it can claim that charge as part of i…

There's no way this would work practically. For one thing: an escrow system?! Who's going to pay for that? Secondly no politician is going to create a bill which makes electronics far more expensive. That's not corruption, it's simply not wanting to piss off your constituents.

Something like this is already in use in Finland. AFAIK it's at least for electronics, cars, car tires, and plastics. The manufacturers/importers are responsible for handling their recycling costs and so they put the cost into the product. Products are more expensive but they are then free to recycle.

Re: The dark side of electronic waste recycling

#46

Post by LoSboccacc »

Accujack wrote: post #3
howmayiannoyyou wrote: post #2

Not defending Total Reclaim's misrepresentation BUT.... the market for many recyclable commodities is insufficient to justify processing expense in the US. Why? Two reasons. First, there's little manufacturing capacity remaining in North America to utilize many (not all) recyclable commodities. Second, subsidies and currency manipulation continue to dump virgin commodities and new products into the US. This is not a…

There's no for-profit motive to justify recycling of much, that's true. However, recycling can still work well if there's money built in to the price of items for recycling what they're made of. In other words, a surcharge built into the cost of e.g. a flatscreen monitor for recycling is held in escrow during the device's lifetime. When it's end of life, the company that recycles it can claim that charge as part of i…

yeah let's keep taxing ourselves while other nations pollute, that will teach them.

Re: The dark side of electronic waste recycling

#47

Post by UserIsUnused »

howmayiannoyyou wrote: post #2

Not defending Total Reclaim's misrepresentation BUT.... the market for many recyclable commodities is insufficient to justify processing expense in the US. Why? Two reasons. First, there's little manufacturing capacity remaining in North America to utilize many (not all) recyclable commodities. Second, subsidies and currency manipulation continue to dump virgin commodities and new products into the US. This is not a…

At least EU is advancing with the requirement for domestic big electronics to have 10year warranty.

Re: The dark side of electronic waste recycling

#49

Post by ceejayoz »

ljm wrote: post #24

> Total Reclaim grew into a fixture in the community, and in the process, Puckett and Lorch grew close. Puckett says he took Lorch’s advice on issues, brought Total Reclaim into internal meetings, and if a reporter interested in e-waste dropped in, he’d offer them Total Reclaim as an example of how to do e-waste recycling the right way. This sounds like an example of being a poor regulator and then being captured by…

They're not a regulator, though. They're an advocacy group.

He "acts upset" because they committed criminal fraud, not because they were just greedy.

Post reply on HN