It's much worse than that. There are so many things that are manufactured simply to be discarded it is amazing. 100's of millions of tons of stuff get thrown away every year whose only purpose in life was to be tossed or in the very best of cases to be recycled.
And then there is the endless stream of stuff that people gift each other because they are clueless about what a real gift would be like but they still want to give something. Terrible toys, terrible tools (break on first use) and cargo cult merchandise looking like the real thing but actually being just that: an image of the real thing.
Agree. I really try to just not buy new stuff nowadays.
Food packaging and things like building materials are the most difficult.
There are certain things that I think make sense to buy new or 'lightly used' - if you're going to run a vehicle (bicycle, motorcycle, car, whatever) into the ground then you're getting full use of it; and cars, at least until they're almost completely useless and melted for scrap, have a decent ecosystem for second hand parts.
In some sense I think manufacturing has become too 'good' relative to human labour. We're throwing things away because it "costs more" to repair them.
But it doesn't really cost more - it just costs more in monetary terms because waste (both in manufacturing and disposal) is externalized.
> But it doesn't really cost more - it just costs more in monetary terms because waste (both in manufacturing and disposal) is externalized.
And actually making the environmental impact and waste recovery part of the price won't happen, because the masses will then vote for the populist party that promises not to take away your daily steak and cheap appliances.
We're kind of fucked — although I would love to have some glimmer of hope to hold on to.
> And actually making the environmental impact and waste recovery part of the price won't happen, because the masses will then vote for the populist party that promises not to take away your daily steak and cheap appliances.
It could, if the populist party promises a massive increase in working class jobs that repair the kinds of things we currently throw away.
A late friend of mine work real hard to achieve something like this in a way that made sense to me: a tax on resource extraction rather than a tax on value add.
Wow, I have had exactly this idea and it makes so much sense I was surprised I never heard anyone else come to this conclusion yet, but finally I seem to have found one. My idea in a nutshell:
tax only non renewable or finite resources and not labour
Finite resources include
- land use (be it housing, leisure or agriculture though desirable locations should have higher taxes)
- resources (metals, minerals)
- fossil fuels
Not to be taxed:
- labour
- wealth (having money has no environmental impact. It's the spending that matters)
- added value (get rid of VAT)
I feel like all tax systems are based on what is easy to be taxed, but I have never heard a good argument on why e.g. income should be taxed, but environmental impact not
I actually buy a lot of things from the thrift store and the pawn shop. Mostly things like books, dvds, records, file cabinets, tools, tool boxes, TVs, tablets, luggage, cables, and other electronics. For example, just last week I bought a high quality set of jumper cables for $5. A while back I bought a very nice oscilloscope in perfect order for $40.
When I'm done with it it goes back to the thrift store :-)
Sometimes it is automation related but I think more often it is due to the near slavery conditions of much of the world. Obvious slavery and colonialism is no longer fashionable but the current economic system acheives much the same effect by other means. Wealthy countries use a varity of methods to keep the rest of the world producing goods at low cost. Even "fair trade", while slightly better than non-"fair trade" is rarely anywhere near what anyone purchasing items would consider fair if on the other end of the transaction. A global minimum wage or global basic income would do a lot to reduce waste.
Some waste is related to health or the logistics of mass production and would not be eliminated without more radical changes (and in some cases might not be possible to eliminated without major effects on health, such as many disposable items used in health care). In theory, manufacturing could work the way scientific exchanges is supposed to, with knowledge shared, and production more localized. This could also reduce waste quite a bit but is obviously a much larger and more difficult change from the current system.
This hit home for me when I was working in a factory that made drinking cups for the fast food industry. Millions of dollars worth of equipment to make plastic cups, and then a huge warehouse to store them. All for a product that has a useful life expectancy somewhere between 10 and 20 minutes.
When I asked a Starbucks barista to fill my coffee cup (now empty) with water, it didn't compute. He insisted that I should get a fresh cup with a lid and straw and all just for water. It took a few back and forths but in the end he agreed to reuse it.
Small changes in procedures and behavior in the food and bev industry would go a long way with reducing waste. I think most customers would welcome it. But I guess this goes back to the original problem: Making a new cup is cheaper than reusing the existing one. Perhaps a waste tax or reuse tax credit for businesses are needed to move forward.
At Starbucks in Taiwan, it is commonplace for customers to bring their own bottle for a refill (the bottle is also sold by starbucks). Customers are entitled to a discount. Same thing at 7/11 and many cafes.
I think that's true at many coffee shops in the US (even large chains), but the discounts have varied widely. IIRC, it's 10 or 20 cents at the one I go to now, which is too small to change anyone's behavior. I think in the past it was a much better deal, though.
"IIRC, it's 10 or 20 cents at the one I go to now, which is too small to change anyone's behavior."
Curiously, I think the 10 cent tax on grocery bags has been enough to change people's behavior. I know I started to carry my own canvas grocery bag ever since I was told there was a 10 cent tax for each bag. My other motivation was simply trying to reduce waste, which I was made more conscious of by being told of the bag tax.
I think the difference might be in the bag tax being mentioned by the checkout clerk. Whenever you go to buy groceries and you want a bag, almost invariably you're asked if a 10 cent charge for the bag is ok, whereas in the case of buying coffee the price of the disposable coffee cup is not mentioned. So it's a lot easier to ignore.
If every time you got coffee you were asked if paying 10 cents for your coffee cup was ok, I think more people would choose to bring their own.
He insisted that I should get a fresh cup with a lid and straw and all just for water.
I do this (literally) a thousand times a year at various Starbucks (water, ice, icewater, more hot water for tea, etc.). I'll occasionally be offered a new cup if the existing one is marginal, but not once has a reuse been denied me.
Pro tip: they're selling their annual January tumbler which includes free drip coffee or tea for the entire month of January, for $40. It's a nice stainless steel cup, too.
i don’t know except that’s is USA-wide. it came up in berkeley recently when the city required restaurants to charge extra for disposable containers. the issue of customers bringing their own had to be dealt with.
ever notice in a buffet you are not allowed to reuse your previous dish?
Weirdly, the two buffets I’ve been to don’t make this rule apparent and only until I was chastised by the cooking staff did i know. I hate having to learn these hidden rules the hard way.
I've always thought it should be illegal or heavily disincentivized to create such throw away products, but have never figured out a good way to actually measure this. No company is going to admit to creating junk.
As important as climate change is, plastic and other waste is one of several environmental problems. While it does affect climate in production, it also poisons land, air, and water, kills wildlife and messes up their hormones, us too, and more.
Then there's deforestation, extinctions, topsoil loss, fish depletion, heavy metal pollution, etc.
I distinguish these problems because solving them all is rooted in changing our culture -- primarily our valuing growth and externalizing costs. Replacing those values with enjoying what we have and stewardship, which many civilizations have that lasted far longer than ours has taken to trash the planet, would make a big difference.
This community mostly talks technology, but changing values is probably more important in the long run.
If you live in a country that has municipal waste collection, the best thing you can do if you are concerned about plastic pollution is:
1. Don't litter.
2. Switch to clothes made wholly from natural fabrics such as wool or cotton.
The problem with large pieces of plastic in the oceans is mainly caused by people in developing countries who dispose of their trash by throwing it in a river (because the only other choice is to burn it). That's not to say that people in more developed countries don't also contribute to ocean pollution but in developed countries the pollution mainly comes from washing clothes, as large pieces of plastic are safely disposed of by municipal waste collection.
> If we ever get serious about climate change it will be illegal
Hopefully it will be one day... but my feeling is that the current trend is for more and more useless junk to be produced for very marginal benefit. An example comes to mind: ipad literally at every tables of every restaurants in some US airports, just to take order... do we really need that? is it worth the impact on the environment?
No company wants to admit they make junk, but you can measure this at the landfill. If there was some magic way to scan every product as the city processes waste and learn the product's manufacturer, then you could require that companies pay the cost of disposal of their goods. Suppose this magical scanner could tell the difference between products too: Then you could charge the company 10x more for hazardous waste, etc. I always thought this would be the most fair way to charge companies for this negative externality. When a company makes throwaway junk, the customer shouldn't have to pay for it, and society shouldn't either. In a perfect world, it would be billable back to the company.
This would be a step forward, but IMO would be far from solving this problem.
Being rich enough to afford many things (like new shoes not being something you have to plan your budget around) means that you are rich enough to throw things away. And if most people are this rich, then the salary of they guy checking returned shoes for minor defects & funny smells is also going to be high compared to the cost of the goods.
Past societies which didn't waste much just had lots of people who couldn't afford things, material goods we now take for granted. Like owning a dozen pairs of shoes.
That's actually how Amazon promotes "Alexa as Xmas gift" here in my city (Germany). For people who don't want anything but you still feel you need to buy them something.
I think we (as a society) urgently need to adjust our "gift giving" culture.
I've finally bought my house, its pretty scary how much is designed to last 10 years. Kitchen Appliances, HW heater, HVAC, matresses, furniture seems normal to have a steady stream of stuff heading to the landfill.
HVAC stuff is modular and easy to fix yourself provided you don’t need to open the refrigerant lines. Start capacitors, run capacitors, and contactors are all items that will fail (especially the outdoor unit) and cost under $7 each. The HVAC repairman will charge you $70 each for those parts, and $400 for a few minutes installation. Open yours up and just buy them now so when they fail (always middle of summer heat) you can just put new ones in immediately.
Even blowers and fans are inexpensive ($150) to do it yourself.
Now messing with refrigerants or natural gas; call someone.
The water heater has an aluminum or magnesium anode rod to prevent corrosion. That will dissolve after several years. They sell them at the big box hardware store; they screw right in.
I've repaired natural gas appliances several times. Usually it is some sort of flame sensor and rather easy to replace.
"The flame sensor is a rather simple device located at the burner assembly. It's not much more than a thin, usually bent, metallic rod that sits in front of the flame stream inside the furnace. The purpose of the flame sensor is to confirm to the system that whenever the gas valve is open, a fire is actually present"
Good to know. I was thinking more of the plumbing. Specifically the equipment needed for refrigeration. I’d do flex connections for natural gas, but not the black iron gas lines.
I've been in the Freecycle community for over a decade.
I recently joined the local "Buy Nothing" community.
I am fortunate enough to live a block away from a donation center [though NextDoor members will go out of their way to tell you their opposite opinion].
Yes, I can do more regarding buying less stuff. I am keeping in mind being active on giving "another life" to what I am decluttering both in-house and on to others.
One of the worst gifts that people like to give are surveillance devices that's are at the $20-$30 price point like the Amazon Echo or the Google Home. These are devices that I and others I know wouldn't take for free. So they end up getting regifted or thrown out.
Please don't by technology gifts for people unless you really know what they want.
Capitalist analysis tends to favour material progress as if this is the zenith of human existence.
Markets are useful but they only cover a third of human life, the physical (although money is abstract it represents the ability to command material goods and services). The emotional and intellectual are reduced to second class citizens in service of the master munching market.
Sure: Capitalism is basically the term invented by the socialist movement for the things they wished to replace. But the idea that they could do a better job at delivering material progress (to the average joe) was pretty much their central claim.
Why did you assume I was taking a socialist position? I’m commenting on a worldview, call it X if you’d like to invent another term.
I’m specifically trying to argue that material progress alone is not sufficient and that is what the current system, whatever you call it, does. Encourage material progress.
I made no such assumption. I only offered a counterexample to the idea that there is no difference between materialism and capitalism. Half the world was ruled by people who loved the former and hated the latter. So they certainly saw a difference.
And for the record I completely agree that material progress obviously isn't the only thing which matters.
The distinctions are usually not very clearly presented, because reasons. There are a few dimensions that have become evident to me:
- Markets are exchange mechanisms. They are not specific to private capital ownership.
- Capital is productive capacity. "Capitalsim" is an economic system in which capital is (putatively) the critical input to production.
These are only two of numerous possible elements that an economic system might consider. Among others:
- Property is legally-enforcible claims to control, benefit, or exclusion, from defined economic elements. Those might be personal / mobile / chattle property, real (land) property, productive capital, trademarks, copyrights, patents, contracts, specific other legal rights or licences, animals and livestock, mineral and land rights, and in certain times and places, other human beings.
- Social welfare is a claim to general rights (healthcare, education, unemployment or disability insurance, retirement pensions) which might be included.
- Various social rights or restrictions, including privileges or restrictions / legal sanctions.
- Accountability and/or liabilities for various risks or consequences.
At various times and places, individuals have held birthright to community capabilities, or been all but wholly restricted from it. Land has been deemed private, or held in common, or subject to temporary lease or bequeathing from a king or other government. Labour has been entirely free to move across international boundaries (where those even existed), or entirely bound to specific feudal lands. Ownership rights in property may be near total, or highly restricted.
You can have markets with or without private capital, you can have private property with or without inheritance, you can have market capitalism with or without liberal democracy, you can have liberal democracy without market capitalism. And numerous other variants.
The Japanese have always held to the notion that a good gift is consumable (in a small home a non-consumable, unthoughtful gift can become a burden fast). Think premium fruits, a nice bottle of wine, or edible souvenirs from whatever region you are visiting from (although these could do with a lot less packaging plastic). That's a mindset that ought to be embraced more widely — leaving the occasional non-consumable gift for when you know someone will appreciate and want it.
Also, books can be great gifts if you don't burden to receiver with the expectation to keep them (although they might). Nothing wrong with re-gifting books to friends, family, or colleagues. But again, only if you know the tastes of the recipient.
At a minimum, something that someone will actually use or appreciate.
Stocking filler plastic tat is not that. It's completely useless and either gets stashed in a store room or binned immediately.
I had thought this would just be intuitively obvious to anyone - buying stuff that's lower quality than you could personally use is just burning money.
I'd prefer that if someone can't afford or doesn't want to spend enough to get something useful they just don't at all. Spend the money on yourself or on charity.
I had thought this would just be intuitively obvious to anyone
Nothing is intuitively obvious, nothing is common sense, except maybe the UX quip about babies and breast feeding; that's a style of comment which is mostly a superiority boast.
There's a common saying along the lines of "buy once, buy for life" but pushback against it recently suggesting "buy the cheapest thing which will do, if you turn out to use it often enough to break it then consider buying a decent one". Stocking filler plastic tat might be enough to learn whether you have any interest in {jump rope, juggling, yo-yo, growing an indoor plant}.
A unique handcrafted item becomes clutter when it isn't something the recipient will use. Compared with store-bought gifts it comes with the added drawback of being unique, and thus very awkward to dispose of to someone who would use it.
Handcrafted and unique is fine, but suitability is much more important.
No, this becomes culch that you really don't want and you become burdened with because of sentimentality. It feels bad to bin the dollar store crap that you get as a gift, but it feels especially awful to throw out the hand-made junk that your aunt crocheted for days.
And then there is the endless stream of stuff that people gift each other because they are clueless about what a real gift would be like but they still want to give something. Terrible toys, terrible tools (break on first use) and cargo cult merchandise looking like the real thing but actually being just that: an image of the real thing.