4 ms·
Did you read the article? If not, search for "Macbook Pro". It spends a lot of time talking about voluntary standards bodies for eco-friendly/sustainable tech
by zzalpha 9y ago
Did you read the article? If not, search for "Macbook Pro".
It spends a lot of time talking about voluntary standards bodies for eco-friendly/sustainable technology development, and how those standards are manipulated by participants, rendering them utterly meaningless.
- jpttsn 9y agoI should've been clearer: I'm opining that regulation is probably the wrong word. As the article explicitly says: > It’s important to note that these are not government-enforced regulations
- zzalpha 9y agoYeah which is precisely the point. If they were it's possible they'd have a little teeth. But if, as a society, we claim to value things like sustainability, and then leave industry to police itself, it should be no great surprise that the outcomes are poor. The Clean Air Act would've been an abject failure if it'd been the Clean Air Voluntary Industry Recommended Practices if you Feel Like It Group.
- jpttsn 9y agoI agree. So what do you make of the fact that these environmental policies are not government regulation? Maybe the voters claim to care about sustainability more than their actual choice of politicians reflects?
- zzalpha 9y agoAgreed, 100%. The problem is that a lot of the costs of unsustainable industry are a) externalized, b) largely invisible, or c) subsidized/hidden (e.g. burying replacement costs in contracts). Safety and environmental regulations suffer from similar difficulties That means you need leadership from government, as was the case with something like that Clean Air Act. Though I must admit, in this case, I doubt you'll see that happen...