Constructive suggestions for better environmental policies

At 5:04 AM -0700 6/12/07, jthompson wrote:
>Since the general consensus here, which I share, is that we'd rather
>NOT see the sort of confrontational tactics we all seem to associate
>with Greenpeace, what else can we suggest?

Color me a liberal, but I think that there is a place for
governmental action, even regulation. The more public the problem,
the more appropriate it is for government to be involved. And the
environment is a pretty public problem.

> That said, I found little to quibble with in TomD's most recent
>post; we really do need to figure out what to do with our shiny
>digital toys after they end-of-life because we've moved on to an
>even SHINIER new toy.

OK. What should be done? Who should be responsible? That is, who
should have to pay for the costs of reclaiming/recycling and who
should be inconvenienced?

Should consumers/computer owners (be they individuals or
corporations, both of whom are entities under the law) be
responsible? Should there be civil fines or criminal penalties for
not dealing properly with disposal of old computers? If they are not,
can we expect them to dealt with properly?

Should resellers be responsible for providing some kind of network to
collect old computers and equipment? They a large part of the
distribution network. Can we do a collection network without them?

Should computer manufacturers be responsible? Should OEM manufacturers?

Who should be responsible for an old Osborne? Who should bear the cost?

Apple's model is interesting to me.
1) Clearly, they build in the cost of recycling into the price of a
new computer.
2) They don't limit their program to accepting just their own old equipment.

Should this be the model for all companies? Should consumers be
required to participate?

--
=Alex Hoffman
Leadership, Policy & Politics
Teachers College, Columbia University

Alexander Hoffman wrote:
> At 5:04 AM -0700 6/12/07, jthompson wrote:
>> Since the general consensus here, which I share, is that we'd rather
>> NOT see the sort of confrontational tactics we all seem to associate
>> with Greenpeace, what else can we suggest?

In a much better world I'd ask the governments of our great countries to
regulate. However: they are run too much by lobby groups that see a
great need to cover up the problems. In this case the people and the
responsible companies concerned have to keep the governments honest by
keeping informed and lobbying themselves. We can do a great deal by
quietly buying from 'Green Companies' while stating our reasons for
supporting them.

> Color me a liberal, but I think that there is a place for
> governmental action, even regulation. The more public the problem,
> the more appropriate it is for government to be involved. And the
> environment is a pretty public problem.

There are areas where the government has to stand aside and allow the
population of the country to protect themselves: young ladies should be
able to get tested for pollution in a manner designed to show up, rather
than to cover up, the dangerous substances involved. They should be
able to get detoxified effectively so that the CDC figure of 1 child in
6 being developmentally impaired is reduced.

The children need the same consideration as they begin to accumulate
metals and POP's. Governments are designed to be unable to move fast
enough; neither can they make effective rules nor regulations in time
with industrial developments. At the moment doctors and nutritionists
may not test or detoxify as they might wish unless they want their
licences revoked.

>> That said, I found little to quibble with in TomD's most recent
>> post; we really do need to figure out what to do with our shiny
>> digital toys after they end-of-life because we've moved on to an
>> even SHINIER new toy.
>
> OK. What should be done? Who should be responsible? That is, who
> should have to pay for the costs of reclaiming/recycling and who
> should be inconvenienced?

Some of us consumers are responsible and must set an example of
supporting 'Green Companies' which keep abreast of modern knowledge in
toxicology, including detoxification. Perhaps Steve's own brush with
cancer smartened Apple up that bit more than might otherwise have been
the case? Knowledgable consumers can be powerful.

A non-partisan view of Barack Obama's campaign sees him asking for
assistance in setting policy: one president nor one government cannot
see all the facts; including the non confrontational system logic
necessary. That is praiseworthy; though we, the consumers, still need
to act directly because we can think and act that much more quickly.

> Should consumers/computer owners...be responsible?
>
> Should resellers be responsible...?
>
> Should computer manufacturers be responsible? Should OEM manufacturers?
>
> Who should be responsible for an old Osborne? Who should bear the cost?
>
> Apple's model is interesting to me.
> 1) Clearly, they build in the cost of recycling into the price of a
> new computer.
> 2) They don't limit their program to accepting just their own old
> equipment.
>
> Should this be the model for all companies? Should consumers be
> required to participate?

Consumers should not be prevented from participating by industrial
lobbyists who are terrified of the mess they have made since the 1860's
industrial revolution and who are blind to the opportunities in cleaning up.

On Jun 14, 2007, at 6:32 AM, Alexander Hoffman wrote:

> OK. What should be done? Who should be responsible? That is, who
> should have to pay for the costs of reclaiming/recycling and who
> should be inconvenienced?

The consumer will pay, regardless of who writes the check.

During ramp-up of a vender payment scheme (which is where we are now)
the consumer will pay for more than the eventual disposal cost of
what is being bought--s/he will also pay the catchup cost. It's in
the price of the new machine.

   --John

On 14-Jun-2007, at 07:32, Alexander Hoffman wrote:
> OK. What should be done? Who should be responsible? That is, who
> should have to pay for the costs of reclaiming/recycling and who
> should be inconvenienced?

As long products are constructed within the boundaries of EPA
regulations and other Federal regulations and the local government
refuses to dispose of those items properly, it should be the Federal
Government's responsibility to make arrangements. The company making
the products is not resposible for disposal, nor should they be.
This is a dangerous precedent to set (Hey, Ford, my 1977 Pinto is
rusting out in my backyard, you need to come pick it up for disposal).

This will encourage the Feds to make Environmental decisions based on
REAL IMPACT rather than on some one-sided 'economic' statistics.