3 ms·

> The other end is... you. Not really. The other end is the manufacturers. It's a pretty common pattern in capitalist democracies that powerful business inter

by tivert 2y ago

> The other end is... you. Not really. The other end is the manufacturers. It's a pretty common pattern in capitalist democracies that powerful business interests attempt (often successfully) shunt responsibility away from themselves onto consumers, who just so happen to be in one of the weakest position to actually affect a change. It works because (in America at least) individualism is such a powerful force that all kinds of social problems can get re-contextualized into questions of individual morality, and people won't bat an eye. Also, from a PR standpoint, if someone does not want to solve a problem, it looks a lot better to acknowledge the problem but insist on an unworkable solution (e.g. all consumers must coordinate to change their preferences, so the manufactures never have to bother themselves with anything beyond market forces) than to straight-up insist the problem remain.

Nasrudith 2y ago
Is the manufacturer really the best default handler for waste? Companies are incredibly mortal and the 'big corporation that is guaranteed to outlive you and can be counted on for things like pensions' days are gone. Trying to get the CRT factories to take back the old sets just doesn't work when they have been out of business for decades. This is starting to sound like the place for a government to ensure that the disposal is some sort of tax stamp/deposit and carried out by some entity, whether direct government, manufacturer while they are still around to reclaim their deposit, or paid recycling contractors.
- tivert 2y ago
  > Is the manufacturer really the best default handler for waste? It's a better one than putting all the onus on the end user. If it's made their responsibility, they can do things no one else can, like making design changes to enhance recyclability. > This is starting to sound like the place for a government to ensure that the disposal is some sort of tax stamp/deposit and carried out by some entity... I agree. I think government action would be required for force the manufacturers take responsibility, because market forces aren't up to the job. The thing I really object to is the idea all or even most of the onus in on consumers to individually deal with this remote and society-wide problems.

by tivert 2y ago

Nasrudith 2y ago

Is the manufacturer really the best default handler for waste? Companies are incredibly mortal and the 'big corporation that is guaranteed to outlive you and can be counted on for things like pensions' days are gone. Trying to get the CRT factories to take back the old sets just doesn't work when they have been out of business for decades. This is starting to sound like the place for a government to ensure that the disposal is some sort of tax stamp/deposit and carried out by some entity, whether direct government, manufacturer while they are still around to reclaim their deposit, or paid recycling contractors.

tivert 2y ago
> Is the manufacturer really the best default handler for waste? It's a better one than putting all the onus on the end user. If it's made their responsibility, they can do things no one else can, like making design changes to enhance recyclability. > This is starting to sound like the place for a government to ensure that the disposal is some sort of tax stamp/deposit and carried out by some entity... I agree. I think government action would be required for force the manufacturers take responsibility, because market forces aren't up to the job. The thing I really object to is the idea all or even most of the onus in on consumers to individually deal with this remote and society-wide problems.