5 ms·
We should also start to recognize the third price that must be paid, but is even more overlooked, the cost to dispose of something when we are done. For many y
by jay_kyburz 5y ago
We should also start to recognize the third price that must be paid, but is even more overlooked, the cost to dispose of something when we are done.
For many years we have just been chucking stuff in the bin and trying to forget about it, but for most things that not sustainable.
- mwint 5y agoI assume we’re talking about eventually running out of resources to make $thing, not running out of places to put old $things? Because I just drove through Nevada and can personally attest that we are not in danger of running out of places to dig big holes to put old stuff in.
- ChrisMarshallNY 5y agoReminds me of George Carlin's classic "Stuff" routine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvgN5gCuLac https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvgN5gCuLac
- labster 5y agoAssuming this is true, you still need to pay for machines to dig the big holes, transportation to those big holes, infrastructure for transporting to those to those big desert holes.
- sokoloff 5y agoThat’s probably still less total effort than what’s embodied in the device as part of its making. Mining and refining bauxite or iron ore, mining and refining fossil fuels, doing all the processing and transporting to get it to you in good condition is likely to dominate the cost to throw it into a regionally compacted bundle to trundle it off across half a continent (but not the world’s largest ocean) for disposal.
- quickthrower2 5y agoOr pollution in producing the thing. Particularly greenhouse gases.
- tonyedgecombe 5y agoSo how did we end up with places like Fresh Kills in New York? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresh_Kills_Landfill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresh_Kills_Landfill
- mwint 5y agoI didn’t claim landfills don’t exist, nor that there is unlimited room in populated areas. I claim that there is essentially unlimited room if you’re willing to travel a few hundred miles, at least in the states. Trucking trash is pretty cheap - think about how cheap it is to transport retail goods across the country. Now think about the cost savings from not caring about the condition of the “product” on arrival. And anyway, it’s gotta be cheaper than sending waste to China, like we used to do.
- chana_masala 5y agoI thought actually that this was going to be the second price from the article. What's so disappointing to me is how many companies get to treat the earth as a free or nearly resource to turn into profit.
- exclipy 5y agoIt's free in the same way that stealing is a way to get things for free. When you pay for petrol for example, the money you pay goes to the oil extractors, refiners, distributors, etc. for the transfer of oil from the ground to your car. But you're not paying the earth for the taking of those resources (carbon budget I can be considered a "resource"). It's analogous to paying for someone to steal for you. In an efficient market, the price you pay would include a carbon tax paid to the "Earth fund", and the fund would be used to replenish the planet's resources (eg. by carbon capture and storage). But until then, the version of capitalism we operate is one where the largest participant (planet Earth) is only being stolen from; never being paid.
- chana_masala 5y agoThank you, that's my sentiment precisely and thoroughly stated.
- radu_floricica 5y agoThat's pretty much what carbon credits are. We have them, they just need to be expanded and developed. And ideally not subverted and transformed into just another tax. The current system, as far as I understand it, is a market. One of the better ideas I've seen governments implement. You can purchase carbon credits only to the extent other carbon credits are on the market - like people planting trees.
- jtbayly 5y agoSo do you think all the people breathing air right now are stealing it unless they first ask Mother Earth whether they may have it? What should the payment be?