3 ms·

It's difficult to predict how much something will cost in the future. If your example was followed then a device that lasts a year and a device that lasts 10 ye

by oauea 6y ago

It's difficult to predict how much something will cost in the future. If your example was followed then a device that lasts a year and a device that lasts 10 years would have the same added cost. This is not ideal, since it may not be obvious to consumers how long the device will last.

tshaddox 6y ago
> If your example was followed then a device that lasts a year and a device that lasts 10 years would have the same added cost. This is not ideal, since it may not be obvious to consumers how long the device will last. That seems entirely orthogonal to me, and market forces would presumably be able to handle consumer preference for longer-lasting products (barring other market failures, like monopolies, but that's also orthogonal to the externalities of using certain materials). The device that gets thrown away in 10 years still imposes the same externality as the one that gets thrown away after one year [0], and thus I don't see any reason for changing a fee based on that. Note that the person who buys the 1-year devices every year pays 10x the "externality fees" as the person who buys the 10-year device. [0] Of course, the externalities themselves can change over time, e.g. new better recycling methods, so the externalities would have to be appraised periodically.
- curryst 6y ago
  > Note that the person who buys the 1-year devices every year pays 10x the "externality fees" as the person who buys the 10-year device. That may not be clear at time of purchase though. You could express this as an estimated rate per year, though. Both devices have a $50 externality fee. One has a 1 year warranty, 1 has a 10 year warranty, so the first has a $50/year externality and the second has a $5/year externality. Doing it by warranty period also helps prevent claiming a device should last much longer than it does.

by oauea 6y ago

tshaddox 6y ago

> If your example was followed then a device that lasts a year and a device that lasts 10 years would have the same added cost. This is not ideal, since it may not be obvious to consumers how long the device will last. That seems entirely orthogonal to me, and market forces would presumably be able to handle consumer preference for longer-lasting products (barring other market failures, like monopolies, but that's also orthogonal to the externalities of using certain materials). The device that gets thrown away in 10 years still imposes the same externality as the one that gets thrown away after one year [0], and thus I don't see any reason for changing a fee based on that. Note that the person who buys the 1-year devices every year pays 10x the "externality fees" as the person who buys the 10-year device. [0] Of course, the externalities themselves can change over time, e.g. new better recycling methods, so the externalities would have to be appraised periodically.

curryst 6y ago
> Note that the person who buys the 1-year devices every year pays 10x the "externality fees" as the person who buys the 10-year device. That may not be clear at time of purchase though. You could express this as an estimated rate per year, though. Both devices have a $50 externality fee. One has a 1 year warranty, 1 has a 10 year warranty, so the first has a $50/year externality and the second has a $5/year externality. Doing it by warranty period also helps prevent claiming a device should last much longer than it does.