🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 24 Apr 2002 10:35:38 +1200, Alan Liefting
<aliefting@ihug.co.nz> wrote:

>Copied to these newsgroups for comment.
>
>
>I am an electronics service technician who has worked in the industry
>for 20 years.  I have seen a number of changes over that time.  I am
>also a concerned environmentalist.

Excellent post, Alan. I have long considered all people in our line of
work to be at least recyclers, if not environmentalists.

Tom

>
>As a technician my job is made more difficult for reasons I will
>outline.  The cost of electronics consumer items which I service has
>reduced over the years as a result of removal of tariffs, mass
>production and globalised trade especially with countries which have
>lower labour rates.  These same countries have poor environmental and
>social protection policies.  Since the consumer products are cheap to
>buy they are less likely to repaired when they fail.  Manufacturers are
>becoming more reluctant to supply replacement spare parts for the
>servicing industry.  If parts are available they tend to be quite
>expensive.  Quite often this makes the goods uneconomic to repair. 
>Manufacturers are also closing some of their authorised service centres
>for the products.  This makes it more difficult for the customers to
>have the goods repaired.  Recently I discovered that at least one New
>Zealand division of a major electronics company has shifted its spare
>parts supply warehouse to Australia.  As an aside the parts currently in
>the warehouse were discarded since it was uneconomic to ship them to
>Australia.  I have a suspicion that this may cause more difficulties for
>the electronic servicing trade.  I am sure it would take the service out
>of the electronics service industry.
>
>As far as I can tell there is no lobby group for electrical and
>electronics servicing trade.
>
>My view is that the manufacturers of a electrical equipment would prefer
>to supply a replacement item rather than have a faulty item repaired. 
>They do this because it makes sound economic sense.  There is more money
>to be made in supplying a $200 appliance than in supplying a $10
>replacement spare part.  There is of course higher environmental costs
>in discarding the appliance rather than having a repaired.  Some
>appliances are built rather shoddily.  They have their own in-built
>obsolecence.  They are built to a price and the price is low.  And of
>course you get what you play for.  As a technician I quite often see a
>number of manufacturing techniques that do actually shorten the lifetime
>of appliance.
>
>Electrical, electronic and computer equipment is an ideal candidate for
>"Extended Producer Responsibility".  This is where the manufacturer is
>responsible for the correct recycling of product at the end of its
>lifetime.  Evidence from other countries suggests that manufacturers
>will only take serious responsibility for recycling of the products if
>they are forced to do so by government legislation.  Manufacturers are
>foisting the disposal of the products onto the end-user.  This is an
>ideal arrangement for them since there is no costs to them.  The
>end-user has difficulty in finding out how to dispose of this
>equipment.  Local government agencies are avoiding the issue.  With the
>current regime the environment, the rate player and the taxpayer are for
>disposal.  The EU is becoming serious about disposal of electrical
>goods.  The US, who tend to lack somewhat on enacting environmental
>legislation especially if it in impinges on economic growth, are also
>addressing the issue of disposal of electrical goods.  However just as
>some countries are used as a cheap labour source by the so-called first
>world countries they are also used as a dumping ground for discarded
>equipment.  The cause of the poor environmental standards their country
>is being polluted as a result of our affluence and weak environmental
>laws.  I have anecdotal evidence of faulty electronics equipment and
>scrap being sent to countries such as the Philippines and Sri Lanka.
>
>Electrical, electronic and computer equipment contains all manner of
>difficult to recycle substances.  Some of the materials are hazardous. 
>Discarded equipment should be treated as hazardous goods.  It is high
>time to control this increasingly significant portion of the waste
>stream.
>
>
>Alan Liefting
>78 Flockton Street
>St Albans
>Christchurch
>NEW ZEALAND
>
>Telephone:  (03)385-3830