3 ms·

> It's a poor example because that's not how products containing dangerous levels of a substance are dealt with. Well, it would actually be interesting, given

> It's a poor example because that's not how products containing dangerous levels of a substance are dealt with. Well, it would actually be interesting, given that various RoHS-style approaches seem to rely entirely on bans and labelling requirements. Fees would be an interesting middle ground for things that can't be banned for product quality† reasons, but for which labelling is not a sufficient deterrent for low-value uses of hazardous substances. added: † Lead is a very useful material. In many cases, using lead instead of alternatives in a product can dramatically improve consumer safety. For example, lead solder is more ductile than lead-free solder; in a product that vibrates, lead solder can dramatically improve the useful life of a product, as far as I've been told. Furthermore, the higher temperatures required to make joints with lead-free solder increase the failure rate of components being soldered.

pergadad 7y ago
The difficulty is not banning, the difficulty is detecting. Nobody indicates that their product has lead - it's found through inspections and once you found it you would be utterly stupid not to take the known-to-be-harmful product fully from the market.
fiter 7y ago
This reminds me of California's ban on selling some products in large size containers. A person can buy 1 quart cans of some wood finishing products, but 1 gallon cans cannot be sold. Of course, this means if that person really wants the product, they can just buy four 1 quart cans for every 1 gallon can they would have bought. This at least makes that person weigh the decision to use the product versus an alternative that is preferred.
ineedasername 7y ago
Yes, lead is a very useful material, which is why it's a bit ridiculous to say that putting a tariff on lead in itself would somehow allow a "win" in a trade war. In that generic sense, it's no different than any other raw material.

pergadad 7y ago

The difficulty is not banning, the difficulty is detecting. Nobody indicates that their product has lead - it's found through inspections and once you found it you would be utterly stupid not to take the known-to-be-harmful product fully from the market.

fiter 7y ago

This reminds me of California's ban on selling some products in large size containers. A person can buy 1 quart cans of some wood finishing products, but 1 gallon cans cannot be sold. Of course, this means if that person really wants the product, they can just buy four 1 quart cans for every 1 gallon can they would have bought. This at least makes that person weigh the decision to use the product versus an alternative that is preferred.

ineedasername 7y ago

Yes, lead is a very useful material, which is why it's a bit ridiculous to say that putting a tariff on lead in itself would somehow allow a "win" in a trade war. In that generic sense, it's no different than any other raw material.