HP Wants Manufacturers To Bear PC Disposal Costs 318
Makarand writes "The Mercury News is
reporting that HP,
which had earlier persuaded the Governor to veto an innovative e-waste measure, has changed its mind and
is
throwing its weight behind California's e-waste
bill which would require PC manufacturers
to bear the cost of PC disposal.
This reversal by HP is close upon the heels of a a
series
of articles, carried by the Mercury News, detailing how the industry relied on cheap overseas labor to make a profits and at
the same time distanced itself from the responsibilities of dead PC disposal."
AOL, GM and FORD (Score:4, Insightful)
worn out tires (Score:4, Informative)
Re:AOL, GM and FORD (Score:2, Informative)
If you get your tires changed at any reasonably large tire vendor, then you are paying for tire disposal. Look at your receipt. This happened to me on Monday at Wal Mart. They would not allow me to dispose of the tires on my own, nor did they want to remove the charge, which they had not disclosed. I told them to put my old tires back on the car and refund my money.
They gladly refunded the money at that point (actually, I hadn't even paid yet). PC disposal needs to be taken care of up front - since disposal is already paid for, there is no need to "dump it" somewhere. Just take it into an authorized disposal center and drop it off for free. Tires should be this way too...
Re:AOL, GM and FORD (Score:4, Interesting)
Basically my idea is, when people recieve these "junk" AOL disks, they should be able to drop of these disks, at a certified, recycling plant to get a small return (for their recycling effor). Like 5 cents per a disk. The 5 cents would be paid by AOL. This way, the dump sites would have less waste to dispose.
Something like this would require a federal law to be implimented and enforced. Perhaps the US Post Office (and other mailing places) would take the deposit and return when the cd's are returned.
Any ideas on this?
Re:AOL, GM and FORD (Score:2)
Heck, AOL could at least make them CD-RW disks! At least in the old days, AOL was nice enough to send me a scratch floppy every couple of weeks that I could use to make copies of files that I schlepped between the office and home.
Re:AOL, GM and FORD (Score:2)
Re:AOL, GM and FORD (Score:2)
complete fricking idiots we have running this country... from the townships to the president of the country...
I'm surprised... (Score:5, Funny)
Craenor
Manufacturers bear the costs? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Manufacturers bear the costs? (Score:2)
Nastiness... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Manufacturers bear the costs? (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is more price-prohibitive?
Schwab
Re:Manufacturers bear the costs? (Score:4, Insightful)
This lifestyle will end. It will end in either an uncontrolled catastrophic manner, or in a quiet disciplined manner. But it will end.
Clearly you are already aware of this. You state that the lifetime costs of "just about everything" are prohibitive. In this statement, I agree with you.
Therefore, prohibition of "nearly everything" is merely an acknowledgement of facts of which we are already aware. Those things whose lifetime costs are price-prohibitive would appropriately be prohibited. Immediate cash price will simply reflect true cost.
"If we dig precious things from the land, we will invite disaster.
Near the Day of Purification, there will be cobwebs spun back and forth it the sky.
A container of ashes might one day be thrown from the sky, which could burn the land and boil the oceans."
Translation of the Hopi Prophecies sung in the film "Koyaanisqatsi".
Re:Manufacturers bear the costs? (Score:4, Interesting)
It might at first, but it would also give manufacturers an incentive to create more friendly or reusable products and materials. This would allow them to charge less and gain market share. Check out Cradle to Cradle [holtzbrinc...ishers.com] (which was reviewed [slashdot.org] on
As another poster noted, you pay for it one way or another whether in up-front monetary cost or in destroyed environment and depleted natural resources.
Be on Notice (Score:3, Interesting)
I suspect competition elimination (Score:5, Insightful)
If all the small PC stores were required to put these requirements and costs in place, they would have a harder time competing with the big boys. This type of law would drive out a lot of the smaller competition. Keep the cost of business up and the barrier to entry high. Keep the smaller competition down and out.
A couple of links (Score:4, Informative)
Re:A couple of links (Score:3, Interesting)
Every computer is made with recycled parts. Plastic, aluminum, silicon, hell, even the bread-boards that the circuits are put on could be recycled. The clock battery is just about the only part which is not easilly recylced.
The problem is, computers and computer materials have become so cheap that it is almost never worth the expense of hiring somebody to bust the thing up into separate materials. Even parts that don't need to be broken down for recycling could be re-used, but aren't. Anybody want a free AT motherboard? How about a 9" floppy disk drive? Didn't think so.
This will also be the case with that NEC "Eco" in 3-5 years. Obsolete computers are worth less than their raw materials.
The best way to dispose of an old computer is to not dispose of it. Give it away to somebody who still has use for it. Hell, even an old 286 or Apple II would be a great tool for a young kid to learn about how computers work. Building an operational computer out of junkyard parts would be a hell of an education.
Sure... (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, and can I please do one of those soviet russia lines again?
"In Soviet Russia, PCs dispose of YOU!"
Re:Sure... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well said. Here on /. we tend to think that HP competes with Dell and Gateway in the PC business, but the fact of the matter is that most PCs are white-box specials built by some guy in his garage.
HP simply is trying to cut the little guys out of the picture.
Re:Sure... (Score:2)
Re:Sure... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sure... (Score:2)
Re:Sure... (Score:4, Informative)
There was a /. article on the subject not too long ago (which I couldn't find), but I did find a couple of links that should prove interesting.
Here [com.com] is one that pegs the white box PC market at 30% market share. Dell had the largest market share (as estimated by the same group during the same period) at 17.1%.
Hope this is helpful.
Not Sure... (Score:2)
I dunno - I know a lot of the
Nothing scientific here...just one experience.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
false analogy. (Score:2)
Now, you can only get your oil changed at one of the really big Oil Filter Changing companies. It's impossible to find anyone who'll change it who isn't part of a giant oil changing concern....Oh, wait. I'm talking bollocks. And White Box PC manufacturers can simply pay the disposal fee, something that's per-sale, like everyone else, like they did when ethernet boards became standard parts of modern computers, and hard drives became standard parts, etc, etc.
First, your bad analogy might be true. What kind of non-big oil affiliated lubricant can anyone purchase? Who else but big oil can recycle used oil?
Second, waste oil has buyers. Who's going to want to purchase your broken cell phone or PC?
Third, PCs are only a small chunk of the waste stream, unlike automotive oil. We've been throwing out electronic gadgets with transistors, solder, phospohrs and all for a long time now without concern. PCs have only been around since 1980 or so. Waste oil from automobiles was a demostrated hazard which had no larger contributors, except maybe carcenoginic aditives to gasoline.
What is really acomplished here and what's it going to cost? Are those costs worth the problem?
First, show me evidence of a problem. While improper disposal of PC's in China is reprehensible, I'd like to see some direct evidence that PCs on their own are poluting groudwater or other resources elswhere.
If you can demonstrate a problem, tell me the method and cost of proper disposal. I don't have a disposal problem myself because I have yet to throw away any PC I've ever owned. Yep, I've got the mother board for the first XT I bought in my closet and it would work if something better were not in it's case. Other computers I have are all 486 and above and are just as useful today as they were the day I bought them thanks to free software. Just the same, I'll take my things to the right place if you can show it's required.
In the mean time, quit talking bollocks. I've taken care of my things and don't want to pay a tax or see small vendors put out of business because large compnaies like HP and M$ have been irresponsible.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
externalities (Score:2)
Hopefully the law will be crafted so as to provide incentive for companies to produce less waste, more easily recycled parts, and less toxic components.
Why not model other recyclables? (Score:5, Interesting)
Obviously, the scope and content of the program would be different, and more challenging. And the logistics is a lot bigger problem. But with PC prices hitting $500 and less, perhaps a program like that would be feasible.
Re:Why not model other recyclables? (Score:2)
Re:Why not model other recyclables? (Score:3, Insightful)
There are few good uses for full-size 486 PCs. They are a waste of space and power. Most of the tasks for which you need a PC can be characterized as follows.
There are a few exceptions like the so-called industrial PCs used in smog check equipment (a normal crappy old PC with a filter on the intake fan vent and a keyboard with a skin over it) which do not need much power and can take up a lot of space.
Lots of people over time have considered clustering, but for what it will cost you in energy to run the number of 486s needed to make up one computer which currently costs $300... you could just buy the $300 computer.
On the other hand recycling doesn't have to mean destruction. Let's say you charged people $5 when they turned in a dead or otherwise discarded computer, which is what it costs you to get rid of a tire. Someone could instead take them for free, or give you five bucks for them or something, and put them in a shipping container and send them someplace where people would like to have 486s. They could sell them for the cost of shipping, plus the $5 they charged you, plus some percentage markup to make it lucrative.
Generally speaking, in any country where computers are being discarded, there is little or no practical use for them. Computer parts are eminently disposable, because it costs more to repair them (sometimes even if you do the work yourself, NOT counting the amount of time it takes) than to replace them. If you count hourly charges for work done to repair them, it is almost always cheaper to replace the part. A $45 power supply which takes you half an hour to fix at $30/hour is both $15 spent on labor (plus whatever on parts) and a half hour you didn't spend doing something productive. The power supply is probably the easiest component in a PC to repair, as it is a simple circuit with a single layer PCB. Nearly everything else has a multi-layer PCB and is not worth repairing unless it is unreplacable.
Re:Why not model other recyclables? (Score:2)
Recycling (Score:5, Interesting)
Laws like this do nothing but raise costs for consumers. Does anyone in their right mind think HP, etc., will simply eat the cost of this? No. The only reason they're doing it is because it's in California (home base of American liberalism), and if they don't, they'll be totally demonized by militant environmentalists and human rights activists playing on your emotions rather than hard, scientific data.
Re:Recycling (Score:5, Insightful)
But I don't want to pay hundreds of dollars per year to get filtered or bottled water because of toxic chemicals that leached out of your PC. You should bear the cost for its proper disposal.
Re:Recycling (Score:2)
The environment is far better off if he donates it to somebody that has a use for it, and if doing so avoids the disposal cost, he would have incentive to do so. However, if you make him pay for the disposal up front, you can bet for sure he will drop it off at the disposal site he already paid for when he no longer needs it.
Forced recycling programs often have negative repercusions, becuase the resulting incoming recyclable material ends up being overwhelming. In the US there are currently entire warehouses of paper turning into compost, because we turn our newspapers in to recycling centers much faster than they could ever be recycled. The same thing would happen with a computer recyling program where the cost is built into the price. You would end up with above-ground landfills of computers waiting to be broken down for recycling.
Besides, there already are proper ways available to dispose of PC's. Call your local city government for information about how to properly dispose of old hardware. You will not be forced to drink bottled water if this law fails to pass. (Actually, if you live in California, you might be forced to buy water anyway. A lot of agriculture goes on in California, and fertilizers & pesticides are much more dangerous to groundwater than an old 386.)
Re:Recycling (Score:2)
I need to dispose of my P100, but instead I donate it to someone that could really get some use out of it. In 5 years, that person wants to dispose of it, so they try to pass it off to someone else, but at that point it is *so* outdated that no one wants it.
They could ship it to a 3rd world country where it would still be useful, but that will just delay the invetiable. Besides, that 3rd world country probably doesn't have a nice recycling facility, so it just ends up in someone else's land fill.
I think PC recycling will only work if a) there is an upfront fee you pay on purchase of a new computer that goes towards recycling efforts (like a bottle deposit), and b) you receive a refund when you drop off your sick, your tired, your dirty PC at a recycling station.
Re:Recycling (Score:2)
if you think the EPA will happily let them send lead and mercury high water on down the pipes then you are just plain old silly.
municipalities are already getting hammered with the lead and copper levels in municipal water. many towns still have LEAD pipes in the ground carrying your drinking water and they do not exceed the level the EPA allows (undetected in the mass spectromiter results is allowed.. any detection is dis-allowed and requires adding phosphates to react with and precipitate out the lead.)
Drink your city water.. you'll be safe, unless you are one of those eco freaks that say that chlorine and flouride in drinking water is poison... then go drink from a stream or lake directly
Re:Recycling (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Recycling (Score:2, Interesting)
Look more carefuly at the bill/receipt they give you, it is usually a buck or buck fitty.
Re:Recycling (Score:2, Insightful)
That's the point. That the consumer do not only pay for the goods, but also for the needed safe disposel of the goods. What's wrong with that?
Martin Tilsted
Re:Recycling (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm a Californian too, and take pride in living in one of the more (most?) liberal states. Having said that, your assessment seems somewhat naive...
I tend to give big businesses the benefit of the doubt, and considering how "e-waste" isn't a widely publicized issue (at least nobody's being "demonized" yet), I doubt HP decided to move on their own without ultarior motives (shutting out smaller manufacturer being one possible). Big businesses think about one thing, and one thing only: the bottom line. Even with environmental issues, unless they know for certainty that there are real economic benefits (or losses), they will not budge.
On a side note, I'm somewhat surprised/disappointed that Apple hasn't taken a more active/aggressive stance on the issue. I mean, Jobs is an ex-hippie health food nut...you'd think he'd think twice before using all those polycarbonates (and yes, I share some of the guilt since I own a icebook).
Re:Recycling - Big Business (Score:2)
I loathe this mentality. EVERYTHING exists for the bottom line, big business, small business, non profits, governments, my wallet, everything. Businesses, large or small, are in business to make money. Whoever said that was wrong? You seem to imply that it's morally wrong for a company to want to make money.
I would actually disagree with your statement and its related inference. "Big Business" thinks about a lot more than the bottom line, they think about bad press, political influence, etc. Granted, it's likely related to the bottom line, but my boss (over all of 9 people in my company) thinks about the bottom line just as much, if not more than, Carly Fiorni. And I care about my personal "bottom line" as much as Fiorni cares about HP's.
HP and other companies certainly could do this on their own, and if they TRULY cared, they would. I take my cans, newspaper, milk jugs, etc., to the city recycling place regularly. I don't get paid for it, it's not in my monetary interest, but I do it because I support recycling. If HP thought similarly, they would simply do it and not need to pass a law. Seems it's only about eliminating competition from the little guys, which is sad.
Re:Recycling - Big Business (Score:2)
>>>>>>>>>
There are a lot of intellectual circles that believe that this is wrong. Not so much existing to make money but existing *only* to make money. Before spouting off, you should realize that not everyone shares the same (in my opinion bleak and simplistic) worldview.
Re:Recycling - Big Business (Score:2)
Re:Recycling - Big Business (Score:2)
Re:Recycling - Big Business (Score:2)
I loathe this mentality. EVERYTHING exists for the bottom line, big business, small business, non profits, governments, my wallet, everything. Businesses, large or small, are in business to make money. Whoever said that was wrong? You seem to imply that it's morally wrong for a company to want to make money.
First off, you say this like it is a law of physics. This may be your interpretation of how the world works, but it most assuredly is not a hard fact. Second, under most of the time it is not wrong for a corporation or an individual to seek profit. But there are times when the right to make a profit infringes upon other rights, and the right to make a profit is outweighed by those conflicting interests.
To take an extreme example: If BigBadCo decides to increase its profits through indentured servitude of its employees it has come into conflict with individual rights of freedom and will (and should) be prevented from acting in such a manner.
Or to take a more modern example, take Enron. Enron lied to investors and regulators about its financial situation. There are laws which are set up to prevent this sort of thing, even though they increase the cost of doing business. However, these are costs that are required for a healthy marketplace.
Just because something interferes with the ability of a corporation to make a profit does not make it ipso facto a bad thing. There is more to life than profit.
Re:Recycling (Score:2)
Speaking as an employee of HP, I can tell you that we find it both profitable and satisfying to be socially responsible. In this case, it means supporting recycling. In other cases, it means encouraging diversity, corporate philanthropy, etc. Some Multi-National Corporations may be socially and environmentally irresponsible. We aren't one of them.
"If there's a central message, it is this: corporate citizenship is the foundation of HP's heritage and integral to who we are, what we do--and how we expect to be profitable in the future." - HP
Viva La HP
Report on Social and Environmental Responsibilty [hp.com]
Re:Recycling (Score:5, Interesting)
In Germany, the scenario you describe is the law: manufacturers are responsible not only for the cost of recycling waste from their products (all products, not just PCs), but assuring that it is actually done, either by taking back one's own waste, or by paying someone else to do it.
Most companies, especially small ones, comply by joining the Grüne Punkt [commercialangles.com] (Green Dot) program, which takes care of the waste for the company. It doesn't really create a barrier to entry, because the fees are based on weight of packaging material and don't cost a small company any more than a big one.
administrative costs? Nice link! (Score:2)
So how small an operation can afford Green Dot fees? The site you pointed at shows some marked disadvantages for those small companies:
The costs of the licence depend on the type of packaging and its weight. As a rule of thumb the cost of the licence is about £1 per Kg of packaging. The definition of packaging is wide and includes CD cases, straw and carrier bags for example. Small companies with low sales in Germany are required to pay their fees in advance whereas larger companies may make quarterly sales statements. At the end of the year all licencees must submit an audit report to show they have complied with the regulations.
So smaller companies must pay larger shipping costs and do so up front, where larger companies simply put a few spare file clerks on the case. Hmmmm. Your site also talks about how the EU has cited this as anti-competitive and abusive as well as wasteful. Thanks for the link, it's good to see what the old world looks like so we can appreciate how good things are here before we ruin them.
Re:Recycling (Score:2)
But look at PCs. Heck, my tires last longer than cheap PCs. There isn't a financial reason to gather old PCs and dispose of them properly. They can have their life extended by being reused or having components reused, but ultimately you are dumping a bunch of lead and other minor nasties into landfill. Sure, its a foreign landfill these days, but kids still play there and drink water from the wells under it.
Simply filling your basement with old tires and disintegrating paint cans and hoping you die before you finally have to clean it up and let your executors take care of it is a pretty good microcosm of the 1970s, but for a few dollars more you can arrange to have these things properly disposed of.
Re:Recycling (Score:2)
Of course they should
Laws like this do nothing but raise costs for consumers. Does anyone in their right mind think HP, etc., will simply eat the cost of this? No. The only reason they're doing it is because it's in California (home base of American liberalism), and if they don't, they'll be totally demonized by militant environmentalists and human rights activists playing on your emotions rather than hard, scientific data.
So your proposal is that instead of making the consumers of particular goods pay the cost of their disposal, society as a whole should pay them. A general tax on everyone to pay for the choices of some. Sounds like a good dose of old-fashioned socialism to me. I don't think this is quite what you had in mind...
Re:Recycling (Score:3, Insightful)
No, the costs are already there, and always have been. What such a law would do is put the costs up front where the consumer can see them, rather than decades down the road, when the consumer is asked to pass a bond measure to pay to clean up a toxic superfund site.
You might argue that deferring the cleanup affords certain economic advantages, such as economies of scale (clean up everyone's mess at once rather than piecemeal) and availability of newer, cheaper cleanup technologies. But right now, there is precious little development happening on cleanup technologies, because the dumps, "aren't causing any problems" (yet). As for economies of scale, such claimed "economies" become unclear when superfund site cleanup costs regularly push into the billions of dollars.
So, yes, in an ideal world, you should be paying the disposal costs up front for the simple reason that you're going to be paying it anyway, one way or another.
Schwab
Re:Recycling (Score:2)
Re:Recycling (Score:2)
Well, growing up in California did teach me a bit about the environment, and how a bit of effort can go a long way.
If you lived in CA since the 70's-80's, and remember the 'Smog Alerts' where you could see the haze in the air, the burning eyes, and the difficulty breathing... Compared to now with much cleaner air. I can't recall the last time we had one of these alerts.
We pay a good price for all this too. Special CA emissions standards, mantadory smog checks, and who knows what other special taxes, but you can breathe again.
Environmental whackos are a'plenty here, but they do cause occasional good when they aren't linking hands around old oak trees.
Re:Recycling (Score:3, Insightful)
Right now, you are paying part of your taxes to get rid of your cans, glass, paper and plastic that your municipality can accept through your recycling program.
There is no incentive for manufacturers to create more environmentally friendly products because they never see the end-costs of disposal.
A law like the one proposed, plus some incentives like a fee reduction for companies that make an effort to reduce non-recyclable components, is better way to put the burden on the right folks.
Laws like this do nothing but raise costs for consumers.
As has been said before, you'll end up paying for it either way: now through the fee, or later when your ground water is contaminated, etc..
Re:Recycling (Score:2)
Company: Cut costs as much as possible
People Affected: Be responsible from Cradle to Grave.
The best new approach I've seen to this conundrum is in the book Cradle to Cradle [slashdot.org], which says that it's a design problem: Don't put it in if you don't want it back out. Instead, design it without toxic materials in the first place. This is a good approach to many different things. It remains to be seen if it can be done for computing, however...
Sad (Score:5, Insightful)
How sad is it that this hugely important piece of legislation is not swayed by the voters but rather by the money required to buy them.
It makes me ill.
HP Wants Manufacturers To Bear PC Disposal Costs (Score:4, Insightful)
HP wants its customers to pay for PC disposal, but it knows that regular people would oppose legislation forcing them to do such things. So they make a chivalrous 'pro-environmental' move to legislate that the corporations should pay for disposal.
But of course the regular people will still pay because the corporations will just factor disposal cost into the purchase price.
It's the same result as making people directly pay for disposal, but HP looks a lot better and there's no public outcry.
Nevertheless, I give kudos to HP for recognising that we can't just ship off all our old computers to China and must act responsibly to dispose of them in an environmentally and socially responsible way.
Re:HP Wants Manufacturers To Bear PC Disposal Cost (Score:2)
They'll just pass on the cost. (Score:2)
Don't kid yourself, this will just raise the price of PCs -- by more than it would cost to dispose of the thing in the first place (since every step in the distribution chain will add their percentage of the base price.)
People dispose of computers? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:People dispose of computers? (Score:2)
You can put FancyLinux 11.23b on it, and run it as a firewall/fileserver/home security robot/cheese grater.
-prator
Re:People dispose of computers? (Score:2)
Re:People dispose of computers? (Score:2)
My toaster over wasn't working this morning, and I was thinking "Fuck, it'll probably cost $20 for a repair guy to even look at it, and probably another $50 for him to fix it, if he can get the parts. I may as well just buy a new one for $40."
Same thing goes for $50 cellphones, I bet.
Unless there is a solution to this problem (either by including the "costs of disposal" into the purchase price, or something else), I don't see an end to it.
Re:People dispose of computers? (Score:2)
Face it, unless you have a need for an old machine to replace some old embedded system, you can get replacements for that kind of stuff for next to nothing! The slower mini-itx systems are below $100 now. Couple them with a cheap to free stick of PC100 SDRAM and a ~$5 ATX power supply (if you're not running a boatload of high-power hardware you can generally get away with a crappy power supply) and you've got a hundred times the machine of your old 286.
Getting Clean(er) (Score:2, Insightful)
GOOD !!! (Score:2)
this is an interesting trend which I think I like
What a simplistic view. (Score:3, Insightful)
Too bad we live in a society where companies are expected, gasp, to make money. How do they do that? They charge for goods and services.
Who pays for these goods and services? Their customers.
Who are their customers? You and me.
We'll end up paying for it all.
As for cigs
1) All but five states have already spent their tobacco money on non-tobacco related expenditures?
2) That the tobacco companies were allowed to continue to sell cigs? Why if they are so bad? The states need the money from taxes.
3) That states knowing that cigs are so bad continue to tax them at a high rate and use the money for their general revenue funds.
Regardless of whether you think PCs should be disposed of properly or not you're kidding yourself if you think this impacts the company one bit. It doesn't. It allows them to charge for it.
Don't believe me? Look at your phone bill under the Universal Service Charge.
Re:What a simplistic view. (Score:2)
4) Smokers actually save health insurance plans money, because most smokers die young and quickly, while non-smokers tend to live long enough to get debilitating illnesses and survive for decades while making multi-thousand dollar medical claims every year.
Seriously wtf (Score:2, Insightful)
HP business plan (Score:2)
2. Promote laws to subsidize PC waste disposal.
3. Apply for those selfsame government subsidies.
4. Profit!
Yeah, there needs to be something done ... (Score:2)
Great that a big company appears to be concerned about their product, but I think there are additional fish to fry. When Pontiac takes responsibility for all the trash they're generating (double meaning intended
I guess geeks don't see the disposal of computers as a major issue, though. We have stacks of old computers in our bedrooms with everything humming along nicely. whether it's doing anything or not, we're not likely to throw it out (:
Re:Yeah, there needs to be something done ... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Yeah, there needs to be something done ... (Score:2)
Thanks for the info!
raising barriers to entry (Score:5, Insightful)
This will not happen (Score:5, Funny)
If you're Republican, and are offended by my comment or mod it down, it proves you have a small weiner.
Don't say I didn't warn you...
Re:This will not happen (Score:2)
When voting is fair, media coverage is balanced for all canidates, marketing is replaced by actual issues, and conflict of interests are non-existent, I might stop complaining.
Until then, I'll wonder what that white powder is on Bush's nose. And how people are guilty until proven a terrorist. And when I can stop fearing my own Government, Inc.(TM) And wtf inspires people to vote Republican/Democrat when all the choices are sh!t.
Lifetime of PC components (reduce, reuse, recycle) (Score:5, Insightful)
With a spate of recent PC component reliability problems (HD warranties, bad capacitors, etc.), we're shifting to a more disposable PC market (ever wonder why a whole system, incl. monitor, can be had for less than $500 ?)
The solution is to purchase quality components, avoid the "upgrade your HW or die" FUD, fight off PHBs who want shiny new P4-3GHz boxes, and instead concentrate on value.
THAT'S the solution to PC recycling costs - stop throwing so many away!
I'm still using a box I built from components thrown away by various clients, it suits me perfectly.
Re:Lifetime of PC components (reduce, reuse, recyc (Score:2)
Yup, and it's only going to get worse.
It has been mentioned in magazines like EE Times that the smaller the process size (0.18 micron, etc.) the shorter-lived the component will be. Thermal cycling (heating and cooling), and electron migration (where the current erodes the metal interconnects) mean that stuff these days will only last a few years of continuous power-on time.
I guess that's not so bad, it is just that some of the stuff made in the late 1980's and early 1990's will last just about forever after they make it out of the initial failure zone. Or at least the silicon will, the wire bonds may not, however...
Re:Lifetime of PC components (reduce, reuse, recyc (Score:2)
Personally, for everything I own, I'll try to FIX it first before jumping to buy a newer, shinier one. Among the people I know, I can't think of anyone else who does this (spoiled ingrates...). I'll admit I still have several 486 mobos my dad grabed from work a few years ago after being replaced. They still work, so I'll either keep them or sell 'em cheap. They're not going in the trash.
PC Disposal?? (Score:2)
The old computers should always be kept, whether it's to scavenge for parts or just to make a science project (or BattleBot) look cool.
What This Means (Score:3, Insightful)
Call me a Cynic, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
First, I won't be surprised if California signs this one, as it would clear the State from the costs of disposal, clearing up lots of tax dollars for the other social programs in their nearly-bankrupt budget. The Politicians can then say, look at all the money this bill saved!
Second, I don't see "distributor" named, I see "manufacturer". With a quick Google search, I can see [business2.com] that Hewlet Packard happens to own advanced supply-chain-management software, where HP can purchase cheap parts from other manufacturers, put them in their machines, then scoot them out the door. Quote: "A plastic printer cover, for example, may start its life overseas as goop at a resin manufacturer, which works with a plastics compounder to provide the material to an injection molder. That injection molder, in turn, sells its finished parts to a manufacturer, which puts the product together for HP."
Wouldn't you think that since HP out-sources so much of their manufacturing, what's to stop them from saying, "I didn't manufacture this, our records show Wang's Plastics did, so it's their responsibility to manage disposal!" HP, and all the other big "Silicon Valley" computer companies will just pass the buck back to the original manufacturer, HP will keep their profits, and the little supplier will be hosed.
cradle to cradle and remanufacturing (Score:4, Insightful)
Why not design computers to be remanufacturable? That is, parts can be reused (like with toner cartridges), chemicals extracted, resold, whatever. Maybe HP realizes they can do this in other businesses, why not computers? EU is driving a lot of this, and yes cars are next. Okay maybe not for a while.
If the price of a box is artificially low because of abuse of the commons, or the disparity in flow characteristics of capital versus labor, or other official or unofficial subsidies, we end up paying for it one way or another.
If we leased the thing instead of buying it, the OEMs would have incentive both to design for remanufacture, and to keep prices down.
Re:cradle to cradle and remanufacturing (Score:2)
connect the dots (Score:2)
Why not indeed? Why is it that PC cases have gone from PC to AT to ATX and beyond? The old forms worked and still work. I've got a AMD k6/2 450 running happily in an XT case with a 150 watt power supply. Worse, why is it that the cases have been tossed out with the guts even when there has been no change in form factor? Even worse than that, why is it that perfectly useful components get thrown away because of software "upgrades"? Hmmmm. Might it be because certian companies are discouraging modularization and reuse of their components, the Winmodem [idir.net] being the most glaring example? How about printers and scanners that also take "drivers" despite having enought computing power to have common interfaces like HP's printer command language, post script, or SCSI? Answer these questions and you will know why we have more dead PCs than living people.
Now, the next question is if PC waste is significanly greater and more damaging than other consumer electronic wastes. Are PCs worse than credenza stereos, TVs, and all the other junk thrown out combined? How is my old 9600 baud modem any worse than my old jam box? What problem will recycling fees really solve?
Put the two questions together and you might see the purpose of this as limitation of entry to PC manufacturing. Dell was started in a dorm room, you don't think they want any new entrants do you?
Combine this with media consolidation, increased government censorship and information monitoring, and you might think a confluence of interests lies in limiting the number of PC makers so that DRM like Paladium can be implimented. Can't have indepenent makers around offering "insecure" computers can we? And so it was uttered in private, and so it was done against the public good, without public input, and certianly not reseombling anything really American. A governement for the people, by the people and of the people? Nah, HP did it, that must be good enough for you and me.
It should not be the manufacturer's responsibility (Score:2)
Here's a twist on an old idea... (Score:2, Interesting)
Lets say...add on $100 to the cost of any PC, printer, and monitor (adjust the list as needed). When you return the item to a proper recycling location, you get the $100 back. (pre-made PCs only, home-built ones we'll let the lawyers deal with).
But...to let the $$ influence things a bit, make it so that the $100 can be adjusted down if the PC is made with more recyclable products, based on certain parts or technologies.
Maybe it would take more than $100, but...that seems to solve a couple of the inherent problems.
recycling PCBs and other components (Score:5, Informative)
Why am I giving you all this information? Because this is not a simple recycling problem, period. This goes all the way back to the root: electronics manufacturing and assemblt of PWBs. The EU is flexing their muscles by pushing the RoHS and WEEE directives. HP has been planning for these two directives since they were scheduled for a vote in the EU (and RoHS has since been passed). The entire time their plan has been to push it down to the supply chain parnters. This has not changed in over a year, nor will it going forward. Why should it? With HP's purchasing power, they say "jump" and their suppliers say "how high, SIR!"
good for charities (Score:2, Insightful)
We _try_ to donate them, but whenever we donate, we need the reciever to sign a contract holding _them_ liable for disposal costs, our legal department makes us do this, for good reasons, if the institutions we donate to dump the computers, and they are traced back to us, we have to pay huge fines.
Whenever we mention an agreement like that most of these organizations back away and look for thier computers elsewhere. They want nothing to do with disposal fees. About once a year we pay a lot of money to have all our old computers disposed of.
If the computer manufacturerers became liable for disposal costs, then we wouldn't have to worry about them, and we could donate the computers at will.
Easy PC Disposal... (Score:3, Funny)
This law should NOT be passed. (Score:2)
1. Large computer manufacturers will always have a legal time full of slimeball lawyers who will find a loophole, or put something into an EULA that a computer user agrees to by opening the box to avoid the fees. Even if the manufacturer doesn't skip out on the fees, they can afford to pay them, but smaller manufacturers might not.
2. This will hurt any small manufacturer, who doesn't have the resources to pay recycle fees. I know of dozens of small computer stores in the San Diego area that build systems, and will be hurt badly by such a law. It wouldn't surprise me that this is the real reason HP supports this.
3. The responsibility of recycling should fall on the consumer. Consumers should be encouraged to re-use older components or to donate their old
PCs rather than sending them back to the manufacturer to be scrapped.
Who is the Manufacturer? (Score:2)
EVERYTHING (Score:2)
Something like that would go ALONG way in curbing consumer culture - can you imagine, actually being RESPONSIBLE (to a degree) for the whole environmental cost of consumerism?
if we could only internalize the environmental cost of manufacture of items into their costs... that would be great... oh, and the cost to REHABILITATE the planet because of all the needless pollution... terrific.
Do AOL disks count as e-waste? (Score:2)
Re:That sucks (Score:3, Interesting)
The point is that the total cost of a PC is the cost of producing, selling, and delivering it, plus the cost of disposing of it when it becomes trash.
At present in the US (unlike some other countries) only the first 3 of these are paid by the buyer. The last cost, the cost of disposing of it, is paid by the taxpayer, who gets no say in which PC was bought. So market forces will ignore the cost of disposal. A PC which is identical to another, except that it is cheaper to dispose of, will not have an advantage in the marketplace - although for overall economic efficiency, it obviously should have. The solution is to make the buyer pay the total cost instead of just part of it, which is what this measure does (the manufacturer will pass the cost along to the consumer). OK?
Re:That sucks (Score:2)
Going forward, this is an excellent idea. But what about the existing mess?
Re:Simple reason why (Score:5, Insightful)
If you guys had bothered to read the article you would have noticed that recent coveraage over HP's practices in China were one of the motivating factors in making this decision. And yes it's much easier to pass a cost on to a customer when it's law. Let's remember that computers are highly toxic Your average 19 inch moniter have 9 lbs of leaded glass to prevent radiation exposure. Here's my favorite quote
Hard scientific data?Here you go
Here [svtc.org]
I mean really to be conservative, means to conserve. Being a conservative means that you actually want to leave a cultural and environmental legacy to your children. When's the last time you were able to go fishing in Silicon Valley and eat the fish? Certainly not in the last 20 years due to the high heavy metal content of the fish. Every state in the union has health advisories on the heavy metal content in rivers. Take a look here at the US governments own studies
>EPA Maryland [epa.gov] for example. Notice that every ssingle pollutant is an industry pollutant. This even impacts the land of a Thousand Lakes (Minnesota)Fish Consumption [state.mn.us]
I love posters that can't think about the consquences of their actions. Once you have kids you begin wondering about the type of legacy you leave behind. I guess we can just tell our kids "Sorry the environment is toxic but some slashdotter wanted to save $35." Get real
Re:Simple reason why (Score:2)
Computer monitors, like TV sets, are already banned from landfills in nearly every municipality in the US. You can't throw a monitor in your trash, and if you try, the trash collector is not allowed to take it. Those who do face very stiff fines.
Computers themselves have almost no lead, and the clock battery is pretty much the only toxic element. (By the way, throwing away batteries in landfills... also illegal.)
This bill is not about cleanign up the environment. It gives us no assurance that HP (or whoever) will handle my discarded PC's more responsibly than I will. All it does is create a new barrier to entry for small computer makers.