4 ms·

So, your suggestion is that the US consumer has to pay a "tacked-on fee" when they purchase a recyclable product. That fee, presumably, is held by the US govern

So, your suggestion is that the US consumer has to pay a "tacked-on fee" when they purchase a recyclable product. That fee, presumably, is held by the US government. In other words, it's a sales tax. When the consumer wants to get rid of the product, they can just throw it out and send it to a landfill. If they do, the fee is kept by the government. Or, the consumer can get the product to a recycling company, somehow. The recycling company can then request the fee amount from the government. This would require tracking the product's UPC and proof of the # of items recycled, or individual serial numbers. (The tracking info, from sale to disposal, could be sold to marketers for additional revenue. For extra value, attach the info to the consumer for targeted advertising.) Finally, the recycling company, after getting the sales tax money from the consumer and selling the consumer's data for targeted marketing, can now sell the recycled components back to the manufacturing companies. None of the proceeds make their way back to the consumer, of course. I don't see any economic benefit for consumers here; in fact the cost burden is mostly on them. That suggests Congress would probably love the idea.

toomuchtodo 7y ago
Everything you mentioned as possible public policy is done for the benefit of the environment and the people who live in it, not shortsighted consumers. You’re not paying for it because it’s good for you, but because it harms others.
- Something1234 7y ago
  Well people act in their own self interest, so how do you propose that people go about implementing to encourage the lazy consume to take part? GP makes a very valid point, and I don't know why they are being downvoted. It's basic game theory. Maybe if the fee was given back to the consumer or split between them it might work. Like how bottle deposits used to work.
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    > so how do you propose that people go about implementing to encourage the lazy consume to take part? Government regulation. In one of the states I reside in, electronics recycling is mandatory (and collection points, numerous and easily available). E-waste is prohibited from entering the traditional landfill waste stream, and there are fines (economic incentives!) for doing so. How else would you address lazy or selfish humans? It's why we have laws prohibiting littering, for example. We could go further of course; perhaps partner with USPS so that collection could even happen at the curb daily (similar to Stitchfix's arrangement with USPS leveraging their processing stream for logistics). Even if you make it incredibly simple, some people will still complain. C'est la vie.
  - aalleavitch 7y ago
    I already pay to recycle. How has my clearly irrational behavior somehow defeated your ironclad game theory logic?
    - rvense 7y ago
      The chink in their Extremely Logical armor isn't in the idea that people act in their own self interest, it's in the shallow definition of self of that is implied. I want my planet to do well.
  - clarry 7y ago
    If recycling is profitable, then recycling companies will go out of their ways to get recycleable stuff in their hands. So they will go to the consumer. And waste disposal costs money, so consumer should have economic incentive to recycle instead of throwing everything in the bin.
chillwaves 7y ago
> That suggests Congress would probably love the idea. If that were true the law would already be in place. The economic benefit for consumers is not destroying the ability of the planet to sustain life.

toomuchtodo 7y ago

Everything you mentioned as possible public policy is done for the benefit of the environment and the people who live in it, not shortsighted consumers. You’re not paying for it because it’s good for you, but because it harms others.

Something1234 7y ago
Well people act in their own self interest, so how do you propose that people go about implementing to encourage the lazy consume to take part? GP makes a very valid point, and I don't know why they are being downvoted. It's basic game theory. Maybe if the fee was given back to the consumer or split between them it might work. Like how bottle deposits used to work.
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  > so how do you propose that people go about implementing to encourage the lazy consume to take part? Government regulation. In one of the states I reside in, electronics recycling is mandatory (and collection points, numerous and easily available). E-waste is prohibited from entering the traditional landfill waste stream, and there are fines (economic incentives!) for doing so. How else would you address lazy or selfish humans? It's why we have laws prohibiting littering, for example. We could go further of course; perhaps partner with USPS so that collection could even happen at the curb daily (similar to Stitchfix's arrangement with USPS leveraging their processing stream for logistics). Even if you make it incredibly simple, some people will still complain. C'est la vie.
- aalleavitch 7y ago
  I already pay to recycle. How has my clearly irrational behavior somehow defeated your ironclad game theory logic?
  - rvense 7y ago
    The chink in their Extremely Logical armor isn't in the idea that people act in their own self interest, it's in the shallow definition of self of that is implied. I want my planet to do well.
- clarry 7y ago
  If recycling is profitable, then recycling companies will go out of their ways to get recycleable stuff in their hands. So they will go to the consumer. And waste disposal costs money, so consumer should have economic incentive to recycle instead of throwing everything in the bin.

chillwaves 7y ago

> That suggests Congress would probably love the idea. If that were true the law would already be in place. The economic benefit for consumers is not destroying the ability of the planet to sustain life.