SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : View from the Center and Left
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Steve Lokness who wrote (82954)9/8/2008 2:27:12 PM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (1) of 541906
 
You mean like what it cost to dump the appliance at the dump?

I guess you tuned into the discussion late and missed the context.

Stan had suggested "capital item take back laws."

"This would force companies to take back the stuff they manufacture after its useful life. This must be combined with laws that place a very heavy tax on waste disposal."

I balked at transporting each item back to the manufacturer, who would disassemble, recycle, and otherwise dispose of the item. I found that convoluted and inefficient. I suggested instead that it would make more sense to have that activity performed locally, nearer the buyer.

What I called the "disposal cost" (because that's how Stan presented it) is the environmental impact cost, a pigovian tax. It would be assessed and the disposal activities performed at a concentrated local site independent of manufacturer, obviating transfer to the manufacturer's central site and reducing the environmental footprint by saving the fuel for transport. This tax would be assessed on the manufacturer (along with the disposal fee to the disposal site), thus providing an incentive to be environmentally friendly in manufacturing.

I'm not attached to this solution. It was off the top of my head. I can come up with all sorts of variations and different alternatives. I was merely trying to counter the notion of shipping big items back to the manufacturer. Manufacturers can be held accountable, "own" the environmental impact, without the clumsy, burdensome, and environmentally iffy requirement to transport the surplus item back.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News