Interesting NYT Article

[Rafael Amador]

[Jeremy Garchow] “One way I think that might be able to make a huge difference is to make these companies responsible for the product after its useful life. If your cell phone dies, your computer is too old, your screen cracks, you send the appliance back to the company so they can recycle/recover it. It will make them rethink the design, it will force them to use different materials to be more easily reused if they have to deal with the fallout of all of this.”
Jeremy,
You touched here another very interesting issue: The planned obsolescence.
Companies limit lifespan of products to make more profits.
That could be acceptable if they wouldn’t be filling the planet with rubbish and exhausting natural resources.
For any one interested, this is a great documentary about:
“The light bulb conspiracy”.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5DCwN28y8o&feature=share

rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com

[Jeremy Garchow]

[Rafael Amador] “You touched here another very interesting issue: The planned obsolescence”

And things going obsolete is OK. Things change, new technology is developed, but as you said, don’t throw it in a landfill.

Start with objects, materials, that can be easily reused or recovered, severely limiting what needs to go in the trash, but not only do you have to build this product, you have to take responsibility for it’s demise. Of course, this is not an easy task to institute.

Also, it means the price goes up as the starting materials need to be more robust and “less cheap”.

RoHS is a step in the right direction.

Building new things, selling new versions, is how the world goes around. Let’s face it, I want clients to come back, I am happy for repeat business, I value the loyalty.

Thanks for the link, I’ll check it out.

Jeremy

[Mark Bein]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/01/29/the-apple-boycott-people-are-spouting-nonsense-about-chinese-manufacturing/

[Jeremy Garchow]

Thank you for posting that, Mark.