4 ms·

How about this, along the same lines: Manufacturers must pay 100% of the cost of safe, environmental disposal of all consumer goods they sell. This is collecte

by rlpb 6y ago

How about this, along the same lines: Manufacturers must pay 100% of the cost of safe, environmental disposal of all consumer goods they sell. This is collected in the form of a tax, for all manufacturers over some threshold sales value/volume, based on an impact assessment of disposal cost. The assessment is based on the typical practical burden to disposal facilities to process each SKU. There's no need to individually account for every item going into waste disposal facilities. It can be assumed that every item sold will eventually be disposed of. And the problem is in primarily bulk sales of consumer items, so accounting in bulk is fine, and considerably cheaper in processing cost.

m000 6y ago
Bad plan. The problem is not have someone pay for the disposal, but delay disposal for as long as possible. And the ones who make the decision for the disposal are the consumers. Having the manufacturer pay a tax in advance puts little pressure on the consumer. Moreover, anything that involves an "assessment" is bound to be gamed by the manufactures. See e.g. the recent VW car emission scandal.
- rlpb 6y ago
  The point is that the economic equation will change. Why is it that it's cheaper to buy new than repair old? In part, it's because the cost of disposal has been shifted away, rather than being incorporated into the price of the replacement. Having the manufacturer pay a tax in advance does put pressure on the consumer, because that tax has to be incorporated into the product pricing. > Moreover, anything that involves an "assessment" is bound to be gamed by the manufactures. See e.g. the recent VW car emission scandal. I agree it's a challenge. I wonder if there's some way to close the loop - so that manufacturers who game the system to achieve an artificially low disposal price end up making up the shortfall when the fake price isn't achieved.
google234123 6y ago
Well, that cost will be zero since a landfill in the middle of a desert will hold the trash perfectly fine and safely./

by rlpb 6y ago

m000 6y ago

Bad plan. The problem is not have someone pay for the disposal, but delay disposal for as long as possible. And the ones who make the decision for the disposal are the consumers. Having the manufacturer pay a tax in advance puts little pressure on the consumer. Moreover, anything that involves an "assessment" is bound to be gamed by the manufactures. See e.g. the recent VW car emission scandal.

rlpb 6y ago
The point is that the economic equation will change. Why is it that it's cheaper to buy new than repair old? In part, it's because the cost of disposal has been shifted away, rather than being incorporated into the price of the replacement. Having the manufacturer pay a tax in advance does put pressure on the consumer, because that tax has to be incorporated into the product pricing. > Moreover, anything that involves an "assessment" is bound to be gamed by the manufactures. See e.g. the recent VW car emission scandal. I agree it's a challenge. I wonder if there's some way to close the loop - so that manufacturers who game the system to achieve an artificially low disposal price end up making up the shortfall when the fake price isn't achieved.

google234123 6y ago

Well, that cost will be zero since a landfill in the middle of a desert will hold the trash perfectly fine and safely./