3 ms·

This "green" stuff seems extremely shortsighted to me. No point in sacrificing economic efficiency (read: better lives for actual humans) when just putting all

by javert 14y ago

This "green" stuff seems extremely shortsighted to me. No point in sacrificing economic efficiency (read: better lives for actual humans) when just putting all the stuff in a gigantic landfill is a perfectly viable option.

bigfudge 14y ago
Except that without certifications like this costs of waste, environmental degradation etc. become externalities for the companies and individuals involved. It's not viable to dump laptops in a landfill batteries and all, so who is going to pay to remove the glue from the new MBA battery? (I know, apple says they will, but they don't have to and only do so for marketing purposes).
- javert 14y ago
  Why isn't it viable to dump laptops with batteries in a landfill?
  - antidoh 14y ago
    Batteries leak heavy metals and other chemicals, which then leach through the soil into the surrounding land, and into water supplies. Yum.
    - javert 14y ago
      So create a startup that runs landfills where the chemicals don't leak.
      - toomuchcoffee 14y ago
        ...but until that happens (if it ever does), presumably you're in 100% agreement that we'll need to make sure that batteries, and other toxic components of personal computing industry end up somewhere besides unprotected landfills. Which is, of course, precisely the point of SF's decision not to support products that don't appear to have such safeguards built into their lifecycle.
RivieraKid 14y ago
Exactly, it's based on emotions with zero pragmatism. Green is the religion of the 21st century.
wpietri 14y ago
A landfill is not a black hole or a magic box. The stuff is still there. Decaying. Reacting. Leaching into the groundwater and into the air. And holding lots of valuable materials that now have to be dug out of the ground elsewhere. Saying, "fuck it, put it all in landfills" isn't economic efficiency; it's short-sightedness and bad accounting. Thinks like EPEAT work to take societal costs hidden through negative externalities and put them back in the purchase price.
- javert 14y ago
  So create a startup that runs landfills where the chemicals don't leak.
toomuchcoffee 14y ago
>just putting all the stuff in a gigantic landfill is a perfectly viable option. Wow. This has got to be satire.
- javert 14y ago
  See, this is exactly why people call the green movement a "religion." I have been to schools all my life that attempt to sell the "green story" to children, and I've honestly never been convinced. It's just not good economics. Now, you have a chance to make a rational argument and set me straight, but instead you say (in effect), "Just shut up and get on the bandwagon."
  - toomuchcoffee 14y ago
    It's just that your original comment seems to demonstrate an incredible lack of awareness of basic general knowledge as to such as, oh, humanity's experience with waste management over the past couple of thousand years. Like, you know, how we managed to figure out, way back when, that we can't just dig a hole anywhere and call it a toilet, despite all the naysayers at the time who must have been saying "I don't understand all this expensive and inefficient indoor plumbing stuff, when just burying our waste in a pit that just so happens to be near the big creek where we get our drinking water from is a perfectly viable option. Most of it won't seep out of the pit, and the creek runs so deep and flows so fast, after all." So forgive me for (hoping) that you couldn't possibly have been serious with your original riposte.

by javert 14y ago

bigfudge 14y ago

Except that without certifications like this costs of waste, environmental degradation etc. become externalities for the companies and individuals involved. It's not viable to dump laptops in a landfill batteries and all, so who is going to pay to remove the glue from the new MBA battery? (I know, apple says they will, but they don't have to and only do so for marketing purposes).

javert 14y ago
Why isn't it viable to dump laptops with batteries in a landfill?
- antidoh 14y ago
  Batteries leak heavy metals and other chemicals, which then leach through the soil into the surrounding land, and into water supplies. Yum.
  - javert 14y ago
    So create a startup that runs landfills where the chemicals don't leak.
    - toomuchcoffee 14y ago
      ...but until that happens (if it ever does), presumably you're in 100% agreement that we'll need to make sure that batteries, and other toxic components of personal computing industry end up somewhere besides unprotected landfills. Which is, of course, precisely the point of SF's decision not to support products that don't appear to have such safeguards built into their lifecycle.

RivieraKid 14y ago

Exactly, it's based on emotions with zero pragmatism. Green is the religion of the 21st century.

wpietri 14y ago

A landfill is not a black hole or a magic box. The stuff is still there. Decaying. Reacting. Leaching into the groundwater and into the air. And holding lots of valuable materials that now have to be dug out of the ground elsewhere. Saying, "fuck it, put it all in landfills" isn't economic efficiency; it's short-sightedness and bad accounting. Thinks like EPEAT work to take societal costs hidden through negative externalities and put them back in the purchase price.

javert 14y ago
So create a startup that runs landfills where the chemicals don't leak.

toomuchcoffee 14y ago

>just putting all the stuff in a gigantic landfill is a perfectly viable option. Wow. This has got to be satire.

javert 14y ago
See, this is exactly why people call the green movement a "religion." I have been to schools all my life that attempt to sell the "green story" to children, and I've honestly never been convinced. It's just not good economics. Now, you have a chance to make a rational argument and set me straight, but instead you say (in effect), "Just shut up and get on the bandwagon."
- toomuchcoffee 14y ago
  It's just that your original comment seems to demonstrate an incredible lack of awareness of basic general knowledge as to such as, oh, humanity's experience with waste management over the past couple of thousand years. Like, you know, how we managed to figure out, way back when, that we can't just dig a hole anywhere and call it a toilet, despite all the naysayers at the time who must have been saying "I don't understand all this expensive and inefficient indoor plumbing stuff, when just burying our waste in a pit that just so happens to be near the big creek where we get our drinking water from is a perfectly viable option. Most of it won't seep out of the pit, and the creek runs so deep and flows so fast, after all." So forgive me for (hoping) that you couldn't possibly have been serious with your original riposte.