4 ms·

I think manufacturer responsibility is a function of both the purpose/use of the product and their removal from the particular nefarious uses. For example, if

I think manufacturer responsibility is a function of both the purpose/use of the product and their removal from the particular nefarious uses. For example, if a company makes nuts and bolts, it is true that they can be used to make bombs or oil rigs, but they are also used to make hairdryers and ovens and many other things. Additionally, nut and bolt manufacturers usually do not sell directly to the end users of their products, they sell through a long supply chain. If a supplier sells nuts and bolts to an oil company or arms manufacturer, that supplier is more responsible than the bolt manufacturer because they are the final step in selling to the business of dispute. If the company makes nuts and bolts which are only useful for making bombs, then the manufacturer responsibility increases because they know what their product is going to be used for. Basically, if you can answer the question "what is this product going to be used for?" before you distribute it, you inherit responsibility for that use, because you could have chosen not to have distributed it, and therefore prevented that use of the product. In the case of Autodesk, their products have a wide variety of uses, but they supply directly to their customers, so they know who they are selling to and therefore what each particular license will be used for, and therefore they incur some responsibility.

lliamander 6y ago
Assuming that Autodesk refusing to do business with the coal industry has any effect, the only immediate effect would likely be an increase in energy costs, which would disproportionately affect the poor. Whether it would actually result in reducing greenhouse gas emissions seems more questionable to me.
- esrauch 6y ago
  If it affected coal energy prices it would make the relative price of other sources more competitive, wouldn't it?
  - lliamander 6y ago
    Making "green"[1] energy more competitive is not the same thing as making it cheaper. Yes, providers my switch to more green energy if the cost differential is not as great, but that doesn't mean that the consumer sees any real benefit. For the consumer not to be impacted, the critical step would be for the actual cost of "green" energy to go down. This is done by allowing coal and "green" energy to compete in a relatively unregulated manner[2]. [1]Scare quotes are in place to remind people that we are using a binary label to describe the ecological impact of an energy source, when in fact that ecological impact would be better described in scalar or vector terms. [2]yes, I know the energy sector is heavily regulated.

lliamander 6y ago

Assuming that Autodesk refusing to do business with the coal industry has any effect, the only immediate effect would likely be an increase in energy costs, which would disproportionately affect the poor. Whether it would actually result in reducing greenhouse gas emissions seems more questionable to me.

esrauch 6y ago
If it affected coal energy prices it would make the relative price of other sources more competitive, wouldn't it?
- lliamander 6y ago
  Making "green"[1] energy more competitive is not the same thing as making it cheaper. Yes, providers my switch to more green energy if the cost differential is not as great, but that doesn't mean that the consumer sees any real benefit. For the consumer not to be impacted, the critical step would be for the actual cost of "green" energy to go down. This is done by allowing coal and "green" energy to compete in a relatively unregulated manner[2]. [1]Scare quotes are in place to remind people that we are using a binary label to describe the ecological impact of an energy source, when in fact that ecological impact would be better described in scalar or vector terms. [2]yes, I know the energy sector is heavily regulated.