🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 8 Jun 2007 17:21:18 -0700, usenet@mile23.c0m (Paul Mitchum)
wrote:

>Don Homuth <dhomuthoneatcomcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 14:09:39 -0700, lein <boomer_the_cat@my-deja.com>
>> wrote:
>> 

>> >So how is recycling of old televisions and computers free?
>> 
>> It's not -- there will be a cost. But unfortunately the term "free" is
>> too often conflated with the phrase "at no charge."
>> 
>> The better question is who should pay it?  My take is that the
>> purchase should pay the Entire cost of the product, right through to
>> the disposal stage.  That way everyone would Know what the True Cost
>> of what they buy is, and that would constitute a pretty good incentive
>> for manufacturers to design so as to minimize disposal costs as well
>> as performance.
>> 
>> TANSTAAFAL, as they saying used to go.  It's still true.
>
>Yeah, but in the mean time, if you have a TV or a CRT on your hands, you
>shouldn't just throw it into a dumpster, because it's toxic waste.

And I don't -- any time.  Haven't for years.

> If there's a fee for processing it, people will just put their TVs in the
>dumpster rather than pay. But if the city picks up the tab, the toxic
>waste won't end up in the landfill because more people will do the right
>thing if it's 'free.'

Once again -- read it slowly:  It's.Not.Free!

Costs are real and will and must be paid.  By someone.

>Internalizing the costs of waste disposal is good. But there's a lot of
>waste already out there that won't fit into that economic system.

Which is not a reason to take on the problem of the waste that can fit
into it, but doesn't now.

The Perfect was ever the enemy of the Good.