The solution to pollution: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Politics and Law » The solution to pollution » The solution to pollution

Page: 1 2 3 4

The solution to pollution

ecspose
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 11, 2005

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 144

Posted 04/26/09 - 06:01 PM: Subject: The solution to pollution: And the solution to Recycling	#1
One possible solution to pollution is to make recycling into a real viable industry. Make it mandatory for every goods manufacturer to have a recycling plan for what they are producing, this would mean purchasing a recycling contract from a company that specializes in product recycling. The recycling contractor would draw up a plan and set a price based on complexity, and difficulty managing raw materials. It would then be in the manufacturers best interest to make their products as recycling-friendly as possible. A side benefit of this strategy would be putting a tighter watch on harmful contaminants getting into consumer products. Most likely this regulation would also encourage the production of better products on a whole, so that less cost is incurred from recycling fees. These fees are of course passed on to the consumer. Additionally, a deposit could be required on all electronics and appliances, returnable upon bringing the item to a recycling station. Recycling would still be voluntary for the individual, but there would be more incentive. The same idea as with bottle recycling. Recycling outfits would make their money by selling contracts to manufacturers, and assume responsibility of all associated waste products. Whether that means re-selling them as raw materials for other products, or disposing of them in a way that is environmentally conscious. At first recycling would be relatively expensive, but as the recycling industry became more advanced with better automation, the related costs would come down. Also competition between various recycling companies would work to push the price lower. The creation of this new industry would ultimately boost the economy, and remove from the tax budget costs associated with recycling and waste management. Edited by ecspose on 04/27/09 - 11:00 PM. Reason: My title was wrong
Self replication leads to self replication

willem
starchild

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 03, 2004
Location: Belgium

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 295

Posted 04/27/09 - 12:56 AM:	#2
It already is an industry where I live. I'm sure that the ultimate goal is somewhere along the lines of what you describe. There's more waste, pollution and general environmental impact than just the product, though: all these occur during mining (or felling trees,...), production, consumption and transportation between those.
www.msf.org www.icrc.org www.greenpeace.org

Caldwell
Zuleiha's owner

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 18, 2006
Location: Crawl space

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 2224

Posted 04/27/09 - 01:08 AM:	#3
ecspose wrote: Make it mandatory for every goods manufacturer to have a recycling plan for what they are producing, this would mean purchasing a recycling contract from a company that specializes in product recycling. The recycling contractor would draw up a plan and set a price based on complexity, and difficulty managing raw materials. It would then be in the manufacturers best interest to make their products as recycling-friendly as possible. Good idea of cradle to grave policy on manufacturing and throwing away cycle. So far, what I've seen are independent businesses accepting anything from discarded computers,and disassembling them to collect the parts they can use as again "raw materials", the rest of the computer becomes waste. Also, I think the consumers should bear the burden of recycling, too, by adding "redemption value" on these electronics they purchase (or any product they purchase for that matter), and this added fee should go to a "clean up" fund if consumers don't recycle their waste. Like soda cans that have these redemption value added to the price.

Aetixintro
Concepts and descriptions

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 12, 2008

Total Topics: 34
Total Posts: 387

Posted 04/27/09 - 09:23 AM:	#4
I agree with you, ecspose. I also think a product should be more costly relative to the outlet of pollutants. The government should charge taxes for pollution. This way may cause products to become more environmental. This may, of course, already be in place in some areas. In effect, government on behalf of the people and the nature is causing, by regulation, better standards on products or totally other products. I'm very positive to the CO₂-trading in the way the market is created. P.S. By your signature, Caldwell, isn't it unacceptable that people have to live in a reality where they go insane? Edited by Aetixintro on 04/27/09 - 09:29 AM
Efficacy of "for since it is at present manifest to me that even bodies are not properly known by the senses nor by the faculty of imagination, but by the understanding alone" - Descartes, Meditation II I'm always wanting more, Anything I haven't got, Everything, I want it all, I just can't stop - The Cure, Want

willem
starchild

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 03, 2004
Location: Belgium

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 295

Posted 04/27/09 - 12:51 PM:	#5
We've a long way to go, still. In any casy, if you guys want a bit of info on the environmental issues, I happen to be a professional, don't be shy, ask away.
www.msf.org www.icrc.org www.greenpeace.org

Caldwell
Zuleiha's owner

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 18, 2006
Location: Crawl space

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 2224

Posted 04/28/09 - 12:44 AM:	#6
Aetixintro wrote: P.S. By your signature, Caldwell, isn't it unacceptable that people have to live in a reality where they go insane? Perhaps. But P.K. Dick, I'm sure, meant to say that reality is something we don't have much control over. @willem, Okay, I have a question. What happens to the chemicals (waste product) coming from recycling all these materials? Are we trading one pollutants with another?

Tobias
Metaphysical exorcist

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Location: Just rub the mirror

Total Topics: 58
Total Posts: 5576

Posted 04/28/09 - 02:08 AM:	#7
Not to mention dramatic increase of production costs ... Isn't it funny we recycle glass bottles? Glass is made of sand, sand is the only resource we have plenty of. Recycling is more an ethical prescription than an efficient way. Funny thing is that the environment has never fared as good as it does now. (Yeah, if global warming would indeed be a men made CO2 caused problem, we are in a pickle, but the latest messages I get is that the common consensus is shrinking.
"The Power of Kant compels you" "The Power of Kant compels you" "The Power of Kant compels you"

Aetixintro
Concepts and descriptions

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 12, 2008

Total Topics: 34
Total Posts: 387

Posted 04/28/09 - 02:42 AM:	#8
Overpopulation is a large problem to the environment right now. It takes only a little meditation over the animal life and stocks. Honey bees that are dying. I have recently seen a report of the lion population in Africa. It is dwindling and people use pesticides to kill them. I wonder if there is any wilderness left in nature. I have the sense sometimes that there is a human foot on every square meter of the earth surface. Nature is not well. I also want to mention the rising acidic levels in the ocean while I'm at it.
Efficacy of "for since it is at present manifest to me that even bodies are not properly known by the senses nor by the faculty of imagination, but by the understanding alone" - Descartes, Meditation II I'm always wanting more, Anything I haven't got, Everything, I want it all, I just can't stop - The Cure, Want

NightWatch
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 09, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 41

Posted 04/28/09 - 07:59 PM:	#9
Here's a good article about recycling: http://www.treehugger.com/files/20...te-zero-waste-day.php\ Comapanies deliberately make products that will become obsolete in less than 5 years. This way, they can force customers to buy again. This practice should be carefully considered, and done away with to a reasonable extent. It is cheaper for a company to "recycle" than reuse. It is cheaper still to landfill it, but that isn't tolerated as easily. aetixintro wrote: I'm very positive to the CO2-trading in the way the market is created. You like the fact that some people are getting taxed based on an unproven, politically motivated theory? I hate to think of what else you might like.

willem
starchild

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 03, 2004
Location: Belgium

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 295

Posted 04/28/09 - 10:55 PM:	#10
Caldwell wrote: @willem, Okay, I have a question. What happens to the chemicals (waste product) coming from recycling all these materials? Are we trading one pollutants with another? It does happen that recycling a certain product generates more environmental pressure (from cleaning, transport) than simply making it anew (or reusing more than recycling). As a rule, it doesn't (see Lansink's Ladder), but there are examples where it might, depending on the local situation (for example, plastic cups - dispose or recycle and make new ones or use lots of chemicals and whatnot to clean them for reuse). We should really be taking into account some other things as well. If a certain item of waste is disposed, how is it disposed, what's the environmental pressure there (transportation, landfill, burning)? What a professional might do is a LCA - Life Cycle Analysis. Basically, it's mapping out the entirety of the life-cycle (creation to disposal and everything that happens around it) and estimate the environmental cost of each process step: either with a point system or immediately translated into monetary value (dollars, euro). They do that for each alternative and see what comes out as best. What's also useful about this kind of process is that you can clearly see where certain products generate their most significant impacts, so you can try to do something about it. The cradle to cradle principle is a good idea - even for products that are essentially reusable, they do wear out after some time. However, it might not always be the best option. Needs some careful consideration. As a rule of thumb, use Lansink's Ladder; it's usually adequate. When in doubt, or when analysing a problem thoroughly, use LCA or something similar. Tobias: Funny thing is that the environment has never fared as good as it does now. What? Glass is made of sand, sand is the only resource we have plenty of. Well, energy is a resource, too. Recycling probably saves a whole lot of energy because you don't have to rip apart the crystalline structure of sand, not to mention you avoid having to do all the processes that are needed to mine and purify the sand. And, after all, with those established environmental success-stories (like recycling bottles), there usually is an economical plus as well: If you manage to set up a reliable, efficiënt system to provide cheap input for your process and on top of that you can skip half the processing costs, you're gaining furiously. Edited by Incision on 04/30/09 - 11:11 AM. Reason: illiteracy
www.msf.org www.icrc.org www.greenpeace.org

Page: 1 2 3 4

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.