Too_Many_Tools said:
"Easy. ROHS (removal of hazardous substances) regulations are driving
manufacturers to grind up serviceable items to insure disposal in
accordance with regulations. Surplus resale is not even an option. "
No, the ROHS are forcing manufacturers to clean up after themselves and
to insure that proper disposal actually happens....I have been in too
many junkyards in the past for anyone to BS me about how reclaimation
is done without supervision.
All true, but not my point. The way that ROHS regs are written, the
most economical solution is currently destruction. The stuff is being
reclaimed by removing the hazardous material and then everything is
ground up and processed further. If a business doesn't use the most
economical means for a task it's generally not in business much longer.
That's not greed, it's survival. Survival is a much more powerful
motivator.
Landfilling has been the norm for a long time. Recent regs are the
result of some science, and some not so common sense. Manufacturers
comply, but right now the industry is in transition. They are
responsible for pre-regulation material, and the responsibility for both
pre and post reg is so onerous that the only thing they can do is pull
it back and dispose of
Okay...so the business is destroying the entire item instead of taking
the effort to remove the hazardous material...and the grinding process
And the definition of hazardous is fluid over time. There is a move in
Europe to ban the use of gold because it uses hazardous material and
lots of energy to produce it. Hexavalent chromium is regulated in most
jurisdictions, but some are discussing an outright chrome ban.
Manufacturers today need to plan for a completely unknown future, for
which regulators will hold them responsible regardless of the best
practice at the time of manufacture.
now makes the entire device hazardous. So the company take advantage of
cheap dumping costs instead of properly removing the hazardous material
like they should be required to do so the remainder of the device is
able to be recycled. So is this saying that the dumping costs should be
raised to make recycling economical?
Without question, dumping costs need to be raised to represent the real
cost of disposal. That's more powerful, incentive. Even more
importantly it lets market forces work. Technology changes rapidly,
regulations change at a glacial pace and a rarely rescinded even when
the need to change is glaring.
How about designing the item properly up front so the hazardous stuff
is easy to recycle/contain? Oh yeah...that would mean spending more
Again the definition of proper is time varying. My beef is making the
manufacturer have to guess at the future rules.
money up front and not dumping the problem on the public
downstream....and we have got to protect that profit margin, don't we?
Well yes, to stay in business in a competitive marketplace.
While you are clearly willing to assign negative motivations to most
actions, the fact is that most of us in the manufacturers want to be
able to drink the water and breath the air. The problem is the
unintended consequences of draconian and inflexible regulations.
Today's TV's are substantially less reliable than those of two years ago
due to the loss of lead in solder. There will be far more of these
landfilled over the same period today as would have been 5 years ago.
The advent of HD and new display technologies is will likely cause the
old sets to be retired for want of features (particularly if the feds
stick to their cut over dates for digital modes.) And the new ones will
only last a few years. Add to this increase rate and landfilling and
the move to import businesses dominating home entertainment with a
half-life of a year, there's going to be a sharp increase in landfilled
electronics or expensive (to consumers) recycling programs that few
anticipate.
I have little patience for people and companies who want to dump their
pollution on the environment that I and my family live in and our
children will inherit.
Yup, we who build the stuff have a magic way to avoid the effects and
completely lack the foresight to see the problems or their significance.
Look, the basic problem is associating the real costs with any action.
Right now that isn't happening, in either direction. That's the area
that needs real work in the regulations. If that happens the market
will find an optimum and pretty rapidly. It'll also level the playing
field and reduce the value of being a fly by night operator.
