Moving an Economy From Disposal to Reuse

Some industries stand out as repeat offenders. Automobiles, appliances and electronics are all high priced items that have varying levels of cost-effective means of salvage and reuse. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, “eWaste” is only 4% of our waste stream but is growing 2-3 times faster than any other component. Between 2000 and 2007 as many as 500 million personal computers became obsolete and entered the waste stream. Similarly, it is estimated that 9 million refrigerators/freezers, 4.5 million air conditioning units and nearly 1 million dehumidifiers are disposed of each year. Aside from come components taken as scrap metal, most is destined for a landfill.

How Can it Change?

There may be a series of directions that our economy and its many companies can take in order to begin to change the landscape of how we buy and use products:

Build out the Industry: It is perfectly feasible for companies to invest more in their repair and service businesses. A more established system with easier solutions could lower prices of maintenance and encourage more people to utilize the service. As the price of work falls and availability rises, fixing possessions could become a more regular part of society. The sticking point for American businesses resembles “the chicken and the egg” dilemma. Businesses would like to see a rise in demand before devoting assets and manpower to service businesses and consumers would like to see a better system before they invest in repairs. The stalemate would be difficult to break.

Build to Last: Many of our items could be built out of better components and systems that allow them to extend their anticipated lifespan. It is widely accepted that foreign cars often last much longer, and with less maintenance costs, than those we make here in America. Granted, the rise in quality could be mirrored in a rise in cost, but  maybe that is what we need. Making a larger purchase that should last longer could make people more willing to invest in a unit’s upkeep.

Build To Take Apart: Most of our products are built to go together, but not to come apart again. Very little of what we buy can be disassembled as easily as it was constructed with its parts distributed back into material categories for sorting and reuse. Engineers could do more to design products that can be deconstructed affordably enough so that it makes economic sense to avoid discarding them into the ground. Naturally, repercussions of such an endeavor could be more exposed fasteners or connection means rather than sleek, seamless surfaces with concealed clips that only work one way.

Production and Disposal: The ones who know a product the best are most likely the ones who designed and built it in the first place. Given the specialized nature of a growing number of products, the repair and disposal industries are being spread thinner to be experts in everything. Eventually, more companies could have departments devoted to the recollection of their own product lines in order to recycle and properly dispose of as many components as possible. One example is solar panel producer First Solar. The company includes part of the sale price of every PV panel for its recollection and complete recycling.

Charge for Waste: One of the principal problems with petitioning businesses to repair their products or make them last longer is that the incentive for them to do so is limited. At the end of the day, companies can make more profit from selling a mediocre product and then selling a replacements every two years than building and maintaining a quality item. Affixing some kind of cost to dispose of choice items (cars, appliances, electronics) could help guide a change in the marketplace to favor recycling and prolonged use. After all, part of the problem with our economy is the “externalities” that are never factored into the bottom line.