3 ms·

You've re-described the goal. The problem is that your goal doesn't match the reality. They behave this way because it consumes less resources, by definition:

by ars 3y ago

You've re-described the goal. The problem is that your goal doesn't match the reality. They behave this way because it consumes less resources, by definition: if you spend less money, then you spend less resources (that's what money is for: to acquire resources). > The solution is for them to make less. Think about it - wouldn't they do this on their own? I mean it costs them money to make so much. If things are cheap, it's because they don't take much resources to make in the first place. The regulation has a good goal, and a failed implementation - it actually going to result in more resource consumption, only those resources will be in shipping, handling, storage, etc.

ocdtrekkie 3y ago
> If things are cheap, it's because they don't take much resources to make in the first place. Too cheap. And this raises the cost, not in materials but in overall lifecycle cost of producing an item. That's the point. The cost of overproduction is too low, by raising it, bad practices like "buy three and return two which we'll throw away" will no longer make financial sense. The excess shipping, storage, etc. won't happen because it won't be a viable business strategy.
- ars 3y ago
  I'm sorry, but you are wrong about this. The cost to produce something in dollars, is virtually identical to the cost in resource consumption. If it's cheap to make it's because there's little environmental impact. It's not a perfect one-to-one, but it's really close. > practices like "buy three and return two which we'll throw away" will no longer make financial sense But you are not changing consumer behavior! People will still buy things and return them, and those returned items are worthless, i.e. not sellable. The manufacturer can try to donate them, but no one will want them, or they will just store them forever in cheap warehouses that will burn down every once in a while, or suffer water damage. Or perhaps you want there to be artificial shortages in stores, so there's just barely enough to buy because the store will be fearful of overbuying something they will have to keep on their shelf permanently? Please, try to think of the results of your suggestions. You keep thinking only of your goals and not what will actually happen.

by ars 3y ago

ocdtrekkie 3y ago

> If things are cheap, it's because they don't take much resources to make in the first place. Too cheap. And this raises the cost, not in materials but in overall lifecycle cost of producing an item. That's the point. The cost of overproduction is too low, by raising it, bad practices like "buy three and return two which we'll throw away" will no longer make financial sense. The excess shipping, storage, etc. won't happen because it won't be a viable business strategy.

ars 3y ago
I'm sorry, but you are wrong about this. The cost to produce something in dollars, is virtually identical to the cost in resource consumption. If it's cheap to make it's because there's little environmental impact. It's not a perfect one-to-one, but it's really close. > practices like "buy three and return two which we'll throw away" will no longer make financial sense But you are not changing consumer behavior! People will still buy things and return them, and those returned items are worthless, i.e. not sellable. The manufacturer can try to donate them, but no one will want them, or they will just store them forever in cheap warehouses that will burn down every once in a while, or suffer water damage. Or perhaps you want there to be artificial shortages in stores, so there's just barely enough to buy because the store will be fearful of overbuying something they will have to keep on their shelf permanently? Please, try to think of the results of your suggestions. You keep thinking only of your goals and not what will actually happen.