4 ms·

It would be even cheaper comparatively if we were properly taxed for the downstream effects of our waste.

Scandiravian 3y ago
Agreed. Though I'm personally more in favour of adding the cost at the other end. I think companies should be taxed for the cost of restoring the damage their products cause to the environment, as this would encourage competition towards more sustainable practices
- freedomben 3y ago
  Philosophically, I agree with you completely. But practically, how would we measure that let alone enforce it?
  - Scandiravian 3y ago
    I think it's still hard to say which policies would be effective. I think CO2-equivalent emission taxes are a good starting point It might also be possible to put a recycling fee on each produced device based on the retail price and the amount of damage it would cause to the environment if the device was dumped in the environment When a device is then handed in for recycling the company is refunded the fee minus the cost of to handle it at the recycling facility On the downside that could also encourage companies to create products that are replaced before they are no longer usable, though honestly we already have that problem. It could maybe be prevented by lowering the fee based on how long the company commit to supporting the model with software and replacement parts
  - queuebert 3y ago
    If we can measure the near infinitesimal gravitational waves from black holes colliding across the universe, surely we can at least get close to measuring this.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      Nobody loses money when you measure infinitesimal gravitational waves from black holes colliding across the universe. If it affected climate change, it would be a different story - the conspiracy of astrophysicists who also traffic baby goats, Einstein was a hoax, black holes aren't settled science, why don't we measure gravity waves in America/UK rather than foreign gravity waves, etc.

Agreed. Though I'm personally more in favour of adding the cost at the other end. I think companies should be taxed for the cost of restoring the damage their products cause to the environment, as this would encourage competition towards more sustainable practices

freedomben 3y ago
Philosophically, I agree with you completely. But practically, how would we measure that let alone enforce it?
- Scandiravian 3y ago
  I think it's still hard to say which policies would be effective. I think CO2-equivalent emission taxes are a good starting point It might also be possible to put a recycling fee on each produced device based on the retail price and the amount of damage it would cause to the environment if the device was dumped in the environment When a device is then handed in for recycling the company is refunded the fee minus the cost of to handle it at the recycling facility On the downside that could also encourage companies to create products that are replaced before they are no longer usable, though honestly we already have that problem. It could maybe be prevented by lowering the fee based on how long the company commit to supporting the model with software and replacement parts
- queuebert 3y ago
  If we can measure the near infinitesimal gravitational waves from black holes colliding across the universe, surely we can at least get close to measuring this.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    Nobody loses money when you measure infinitesimal gravitational waves from black holes colliding across the universe. If it affected climate change, it would be a different story - the conspiracy of astrophysicists who also traffic baby goats, Einstein was a hoax, black holes aren't settled science, why don't we measure gravity waves in America/UK rather than foreign gravity waves, etc.