🚀 go-pugleaf

Hello Alan,

I have been proposing for years an equipment disposal tax, which
should be applied to EVERY manufactured item. It works like this:  The
tax is paid by the manufacturer when the item is produced, the longer
the life of the item the greater is the proportion of the tax refunded
when the item has to be disposed of. Thus a quality product which
lasts say 40 years might get a refund of 90% whereas a product which
lasted 5 years would only get a refund of 5%.  After all why should
the taxpayer have to shoulder the cost of disposal of manufactured
items?

 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.
>
>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

aeolus