Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (82922)	9/8/2008 11:39:55 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541695

To suggest that the buyer is going to base his decision on a "garbage rating" is rather silly in my mind. Buyers use Energy Star ratings. Same difference. Which incentivises junk. Not at all. Not any more than price incentivises junk now. Besides, junk isn't the issue, it's the environmental cost of disposal. If one dishwasher lasts two years and another ten, that's five disposal costs to one before you even start varying the disposal incentive based on the environmental cost of the product. You could end up with a ten to one disposal cost ratio between a quality plus environmentally friendly product vs a cheap import with a large environmental footprint. Even American consumers aren't stupid enough to pay ten times more than they have to. Wouldn't anyone buy a $500 dishwasher that would last ten years and have a disposal cost of $100 over one that cost $289, would last two years, and have a $200 disposal cost for a total cost of $1289? Returning the product to the manufacturer of course won't work - but maybe to the seller? Thank you. I was simply trying to point out the flaw in fixating on the German model by offering a couple of top-of-the-head alternatives as a contrast. Actually, the coordination of the process would most practically rest with the seller of the replacement, who typically hauls away the defunct one, or the actual disposal company, whoever is the receiver of the disposed of product. The cost could then be accounted for by manufacturer and charged back in a lump. The last thing we need is to create government jobs for disassemblers, which is what we'd need to do for a process that was neither natural nor market sensitive.

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (82922)	9/8/2008 12:04:57 PM
From: Stan J. Czernel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541695

Returning the product to the manufacturer of course won't work I have told you about Interface co - the company that leases its carpet services. Its goal is zero landfill - and it is very close to it. By reprocessing the old carpet into new carpet (it was designed for this) with no waste, it saves most of the cost of making carpet from virgin materials. They make a great profit. I could site other examples. Why would retrieving an old refrigerator or washer be cost prohibitive? It's gotta be dragged somewhere - unless you plan to think of it as modern art, permanently installed in your kitchen. Does taking it to the dump - where the value of all that recyclable material is lost, and becomes toxic waste - makes more sense? If the manufacturer is smart, they figure out a way to redesign the product so that it can be refurbished and resold. Businesses are like organisms - they respond to changes in the environment. Who knows where this will take creative and innovative corporations? The constraint is needed to staunch the bloody flow into landfills and squeeze the most utility out of ever-diminishing natural resources. Corporations - when they stop kicking and screaming - will find this constraint freeing; an opportunity for new profits.