You can’t just claim that they’ve shifted responsibility without arguing your point. It’s clear you have an axe to grind, but at the same time, where do we draw the line of individual responsibility?
It’s not like we haven’t known for decades we were killing the planet…and yet here we all are. Why does the average Joe get off the hook here?
IMO, we draw the line based on effectiveness, not idealized morality. What's going to be easier: a never-ending campaign of trying to educate and motivate millions of different average Joes to properly recycle [some item], or simply legally preventing those items from being created by a few centralized sources (or requiring them to take responsibility in some other way)?
Same thing with with 2008 sub-prime mortgage crisis. A lot of people will say "well they shouldn't have taken those loans." Yes, true, but it would have been much easier if they were never allowed to be offered in the first place. Some people are against the "save the people from themselves" mentality, but it really seems to be a lot more effective and there's not a strong argument for allowing practices that are likely to result in average Joes taking deleterious actions.
> IMO, we draw the line based on effectiveness, not idealized morality.
A huge chunk of judicial history is about just this issue. It’s a lot more effective to just throw all accused in jail without a trial: you’re likely to get all the accused (effective) but you’re also likely to round up as many innocent people (immoral).
Society came together and decided that the morality of locking up an innocent person was so obscene that the prosecution would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone was guilty.
It’s ok for everyone to come together and admit we have a tragedy of commons that needs collective action, but I think this incredible willingness to hand-wave individual responsibility is really concerning these days.
The average Joe has known for decades and the problem continues. Ergo, we can’t rely on individual action to solve it. We need society-scale solutions. Corporate action is the only tool civilization has for this.
> You can’t just claim that they’ve shifted responsibility without arguing your point.
The point itself is enough. Bottle and car battery deposit schemes show that the system works to significantly reduce littering. Most people take them to the recycling on their own and those who can't be bothered always get picked up by people.
A 10-20€ deposit on phones, a 5€ deposit on small scale stuff like chargers and earphones and a 1€ deposit on batteries would definitely get electronics stuff back into circulation.
Generic electronics recycling is very expensive. I had to recycle an old 55" rear projection TV and it cost $150. Good luck getting the average person to pay that instead of disposing of it (illegally).
It would be more efficient and cheaper for companies to create a recycling process and include that in the purchase price.
Generic electronics recycling is very expensive. I had to recycle an old 55" rear projection TV and it cost $150. Good luck getting the average person to pay that instead of disposing of it (illegally).
Blame your municipality.
When I lived in the southwest, the city required the trash companies to pick up or recycle EVERYTHING for free. From old paint to batteries to giant tube TVs to washing machines. Everything, or they didn't get the trash hauling contract.
This was to make it as easy as possible for people to dispose of things properly, rather than dump them in the desert.
If your city doesn't make this happen, it's a failure of the city to negotiate the contract properly and allowing the trash companies to shift the expense onto the homeowners.
That just moves the cost of recycling to the public. The public shouldn't have to bear the costs of the negative externality of other people's consumption. It is also essentially a regressive tax since the wealthy consume/dispose of more goods. Also most areas don't have a single exclusive trash service (monopoly).
Furthermore, single stream recycling in America, on average, is a complete failure. The portion of stuff that is actually recycled is very low as much is contaminated with non-recyclable materials. I'd either expect such a trash/recycling service (as you describe) to be quite expensive or actually recycle very little of relative to what could be recycled.
If the manufacture's & end consumers of goods were forced to confront the cost of disposal at the time of purchase it would create a large incentive for companies to make products with less waste and products that are easier to recycle. The goal isn't to just to recycle everything that currently can be recycled but to make everything easy to recycle.
That just moves the cost of recycling to the public
The public has an interest in a clean desert, since the desert surrounding the city was the primary source of recreation for the people living there.
It is also essentially a regressive tax since the wealthy consume/dispose of more goods
Trash fees were based on the assessed value of your home, so the wealthy paid more in trash fees than the poor.
Also most areas don't have a single exclusive trash service (monopoly).
As noted in the original comment, there were multiple trash companies in this city. All had to adhere to the same rules.
single stream recycling in America, on average, is a complete failure
It wasn't single stream. There were four bins. One each for garbage, glass, metals, and plastics.
I'd either expect such a trash/recycling service (as you describe) to be quite expensive or actually recycle very little of relative to what could be recycled.
I rented my house, so I couldn't tell you if it was expensive, or not. But as I stated above, the price was based on the value of the home. I doubt anyone ever changed their mind about buying a house because the cost of trash disposal in City A was $10/month more than in City B.
If the manufacture's & end consumers of goods were forced to confront the cost of disposal at the time of purchase it would create a large incentive for companies to make products with less waste and products that are easier to recycle.
I agree. But that's not the reality today. We may get there 50 years from now, but people don't want to live surrounded by 50 years of garbage in order to fulfill a social theory.
The goal isn't to just to recycle everything that currently can be recycled but to make everything easy to recycle.
Which was exactly what this did: Make it easy for people to recycle everything that could be recycled.
> It would be more efficient and cheaper for companies to create a recycling process and include that in the purchase price.
A totally fair point (one that I also happen to agree with) but not in the spirit of OP’s comment, which suggests some sort of moral trickery by the likes of Apple.
It’s not like we haven’t known for decades we were killing the planet…and yet here we all are. Why does the average Joe get off the hook here?