I actually think this isn't progressive enough. I would expect my washing machine computer, smartphone, oven etc to last longer than two years. 5 years minimum.
I actually think this isn't progressive enough. I would expect my washing machine computer, smartphone, oven etc to last longer than two years. 5 years minimum.
It would be based on the following...
* The manufacturer making full schematics and service manuals available on the day a product is launched.
* Making all parts and specialised servicing tools available to anyone who wants to buy them.
* Not using unusual fixtures, fastenings or glues.
* Allowing people to downgrade any software if the feel a newer version slows down their otherwise perfectly serviceable device.
The more repairable a product is the less this tax would be, potentially dropping to zero. Crucially, the actual price of the products would play no part in the calculation. Cheap disposable Android tablets would attract the same rate that a high end smartphone would if they were equally as repairable.
I'd also levy a reduced, or even zero, rate of VAT on repair services to encourage repair over replacement.
I don't see a problem with letting people buy non-repairable devices, so long as they pay a levy for the waste it will produce.
Reasonable on the surface, but what about trade secrets?
* Making all parts and specialised servicing tools available to anyone who wants to buy them.
That’s reasonable.
* Not using unusual fixtures, fastenings or glues.
What about when those special glues ARE needed? For example: water resistance (IP67).
* Allowing people to downgrade any software if the feel a newer version slows down their otherwise perfectly serviceable device.
The problem is that users are stupid. If you allow people to downgrade, you open them up to security holes. There’s a reason Apple doesn’t let you downgrade iOS, and it’s not money (what money do they make from preventing downgrades?), it’s security. People are gullible and could easily be tricked by some scam site to downgrade their device in order to “win”.
> I don't see a problem with letting people buy non-repairable devices, so long as they pay a levy for the waste it will produce.
What about Apple? If you recycle your device through Apple, they attempt to recycle as much as they can.
Speaking of stupid, what hard with beefing up the code while "allowing" backward compatibility and familiar UIs?
Planned obsolescence made people sad they couldn't have 20 yo appliances .. but 60. When that thing left the store my mother was a few months old.
I doubt keeping a 60 year old fridge running is the cheapest option.
1. modern fridges are more complicated, thus more things can break
2. The manufacturer wants it to break after about 5 years so you buy a new one (planned obsolescence)
3. Old fridges did indeed break as much as the ones today... and the ones we see now are just the survivors (Survivor bias)
- The manufacturer doesn't so much want it to break, but rather, they expend no effort avoiding short lifespans, even where trivial. With enough components the chances then of including one or an interaction of two that happen to last not much beyond your guarantee grows rapidly.
- smaller/lighter/simpler or in some other way less durable components are cheaper (due to lower waste), or possibly more efficient (due to less unnecessary mass to move/cool/heat/whatever), so there's a tradeoff that leads to more easily visible and testable attributes being prioritized even if the tradeoff wouldn't be worth it were everything transparent and all customers completely informed.
- throwaway items actually are more efficient, because small savings accrue from not worrying about longevity, and repair has costs and wastes of its own (i.e. the premise is misleading)
- some combination of all of the above.
Personally, I suspect the difference between planned obsolescence and unplanned is in practice nil - you need quite the dysfunctional organisation (and possibly planned dysfunction ;-) ) to get everyone involved to so completely disregard longevity.
Imagine a situation: Investors say: give me investment returns! People in charge say: give me profits! People making decisions say: profits or quality! People conducting day-to-day operations say: worry about regulations first, then profits, then quality! People doing the work say: this quality is poor, but I need my job and don't want to rock the boat!
Maybe it's just anecdotal evidence, but that's generally been my experience over the past 10 to 15 years of doing things
There's certainly many more but those are some of the most common ones he runs into.
In my electronics/audio experience, the market twist the design toward shittier components that provide acceptable function with a few marketing buzzwords (HD audio, 24 bit audio) that will make people buy something; where their old gear was clearly superior in terms of quality. It's a reflex to think economies of scale provide improvements and progress.
Is there no market for a refrigerator produced with high-quality components? or does higher-quality component price outpace the gained longevity?
What about so-called "commercial grade" appliances — surely they should have a longer lifespan?
Commercial is different. I'd guess things like serviceability and a local repair network to be the most important qualities there. And although mean time between services are important, commercial also disregards stuff like noise.
No, old gear was definitely constructed better. I've repaired many appliances over the years and stuff from the 60's was built to last with a noticeable degradation in quality over the 70's and the 80's, since the 90's it's pretty much a constant. There is absolutely no way that a household appliance made after 1975 lasts for 60 years.
I suppose at some point there were business people who noticed that planned obsolescence creates repeat purchases, and that pricing is an arbitrary thing so they can sell the same hyper-optimized crap on different price tiers and people mostly won't notice - but I think the main driving force wasn't malice, just the usual thing that happens in the market economy.
In this way, I see the period of 1960s - 1990s as a time of discovering new ways to cheap out on materials and construction. After all, optimizing for manufacturing costs takes time and lots of smarts. Barely working crap doesn't happen by default (conversely, and this reminds me of the discussions around Juicero teardown, the initial design of any working appliance will likely be heavily overengineered).
And this is not a mere frugality argument. The economics more or less reflects environmental impact as well. There is a point where discarding a perfectly functioning but inefficient appliance for a newer is the environmental choice.
Our house was built in the 1970s, with 8 foot ceilings. Also, in the kitchen area for the fridge, the standard thing was to put a cabinet above the fridge; so we are limited in height. Newer homes have 9 foot or higher ceilings, and recently, new fridges has grown a bit taller. Tall enough, so that while one might fit into our space, it wouldn't have enough clearance around the top to provide proper air circulation for the unit.
So our choices have been limited by what the market wants:
1. Remove the cabinets (which would be really expensive for the small remodelling effort on top of the cost of a new fridge).
2. Get an ugly new fridge (some of the over-unders will fit, but they tend to be much smaller than we want, and have other features missing - though they do tend to be much cheaper).
3. Move to a new house (not a reasonable option at this time).
4. Purchase an older fridge that'll fit.
So right now, we're "nursing" our current side-by-side along; it still runs ok and keeps things cold, but the ice maker no longer works, nor does the water on the door. We've considered getting those fixed, but it would likely cost several hundred dollars, and the fridge is closing in on 20 years old anyway.
One other option we're considering is going with a commercial unit; unfortunately, from what we've researched, such units are not sized properly at all for a consumer kitchen (too deep, too tall, too narrow, or too wide).
So our only real option is #4 - unless we want to spend a big chunk of change in one manner or another.
And although I admit I've hated AEG for their crappy fridge, it's probably not AEG's fault. It was installed by an independent installer, and it seems he royally fucked up. Although I think we did have an AEG mechanic take a look at the fridge, and he didn't fix the problems. So AEG isn't entirely blameless.
Still, they're supposed to be good, even if our fridge was basically wasted.
In the end, though, it was really my wife who made the decision. She apparently doesn't hold irrational grudges against manufacturers like I do.
The difference between a 3 year and 20 year fridge is usually only a few dollars (maybe 10), and has nothing to do with efficiency.
Case in point: The outer shell of new chest freezers are made of substantially thinner sheet metal and paint. This causes them to dent rapidly, and, in moist climates, rust through. It also reduces shipping and manufacturing costs, since it cuts the weight by a few pounds.
Do you have a source for this? It may well be true, but to my ear it sounds like one of those "everybody knows..." conspiracy theories.
We have a small fridge in our small kitchen which will need replacing soon as the door has gone rusty underneath and the seal is beginning to go.
It used to be a standard size of fridge but they're all wider and deeper now (maybe to allow thicker walls for better efficiency - the internal dimensions are often no bigger) and we can't find a name brand model to fit in the space, only cheap budget brands. So it's good to know that a cheap fridge can be just as good.
Meanwhile, our other name brand white goods have needed replacing after 2-3 years each. It's impossible to find anything with a decent warranty. Strange to remember that my parents' fridge, cooker, washer, drier when I was a teenager were all older than me.
OTOH i don't sell fridges, so that's all just thinking aloud :)
I'm totally no expert, but any or all of that sounds more plausible than shipping cost issues; I did some quick googling and rough guesstimation (40ft container fits 67 cubic meters, so say 33000$ of goods, at around 1000$ to ship from shanghai to rotterdam), and I guess it's no more than a 3% surcharge; possibly less if you consider I bet I didn't find the best deals. It's not nothing, but neither is it particularly shocking (and you might save on trucking costs because you can pick the port and that port is likely particularly well connected).
This is not only about electrical stuff, but also, say, simple mechanical kitchen tools: they break easily today. Like a cheese grater. The one my mom has is 50 years old and almost as good as new. Stained a bit, maybe, but works perfectly. She got it from her mom as a present. It's sheet metal, relatively cheap stuff, but still decent enough quality made to last long. They tried to make it simple, durable, and affordable.
Today, you can choose between cheap things from plastic, which will break soon, or fancy polished shiny stainless solid steel with bells and whistles, which are really expensive and which may last a wee bit longer than their plastic siblings, but these things are still made to look good, not to last long. You can bet there are small plastic pins hidden somewhere that break off soon, probably due to some unnecessary bell or whistle. This is the pain of today's products.
[edit: language]
Isn't it possible that the complexity that makes something energy efficient also causes it break sooner?
However if making something more energy efficient causes it to break more often, you have to expand the scope to include the energy costs of manufacturing a replacement copy. Even if the marginal costs of manufacturing an appliance are so low repairs no longer make sense, I still doubt that e.g. more efficient washing machine that you have to replace 3 times over 10 years uses, in total, more energy than one less efficient washing machine that doesn't break for 10 years.
If anything, managing the additional complexity by skimping on the engineering work is what causes the failures--that is, engineering a more complex device with the same or smaller engineering effort.
The ideal situation when engineering a new device is that every part of it is likely to break simultaneously, the day after the warranty runs out. If that happens, you know that your device was made as cheaply as possible, but no cheaper, and that you will never need to repair such a device, because buying a new one will always be cheaper.
Repairs are only an issue when different parts are likely to break at different times.
Huh? I have owned the same stainless steel cheese grater for probably at least a decade, and it's not going anywhere anytime soon. It is also just sheet metal after all. It's totally beyond me how you think you're going to break a "shiny stainless solid steel..." grater like this [1].
The point grandparent was making is that the "deluxe" models often use the visible metal parts to provide the appearance of durability, when the internals are identical between models. It applies more to refrigerator doors than to box graters. That stainless steel fridge is going to have the same crappy plastic blower fan as one with a painted door, but may sell at a higher price, because it looks more durable to anyone who doesn't own a screwdriver.
The usual implication is that that the manufacturer didn't cut that specific corner, so there may be other corners that were not cut. It's like replacing the hood ornament of your VW beetle with one made from solid gold. It will then be the only part that doesn't rust all the way through.
1990 €110 (500kWh)
2000 €77 (350kWh)
2010 €46 (210kWh)
2015 €32 (145kWh)
Replacing a fridge from the nineties is cost-neutral after three to ten years, depending on the model chosen.1 (Dutch): http://www.greenem.nl/wat-kost-een-koel-vriescombinatie-per-...
This makes "do the cheapest thing possible" a surprisingly good proxy for "do the most energy efficient thing".
Of course, if you know something about the manufacturing chain, you can use that knowledge to do something better, but that is usually taking second order effects into account.
Taking cars as an example: buying a $100,000 Model S Tesla instead of a $35K gas guzzler to save $10K on gas is probably bad for the environment, if you only look at the marginal effect of that one car (and ignore subsidizing Tesla R&D, etc).
If the Tesla is only $35K, then you saved $10K of gas and the Tesla manufacturing process had a much lower energy footprint, so it is probably a huge win.
That would be if markets were efficient :).
As it is, the costs of goods are still dominated by middle men - people who have nothing to do with neither manufacturing nor selling the thing to the end customer. Prices today aren't good signals, because they're pretty arbitrary - shaped by supply/demand in long term, yes, but in short term directed by various business tricks (like market segmentation, brand value, contracts, etc.).
Your Tesla example actually shows it pretty well - in order to quantify its environment impact, you need to know at least that a) Tesla is electric, b) where your energy comes from.
Price would be a good proxy for a lot of things, if it wasn't so messed up by various parties trying to profit at each level of the supply chain.
My grandma fridge was 30 years old.
So yeah 60 years is an exception, but one that could just not happen today.
Edit: I went to an antiques market in Long Beach a few months ago and there was a vendor displaying meticulously restored, and fully functional, fridges from the 50s-60s along with similar era stoves and ranges. They were fairly expensive, I assume the resto work is quite labor intensive, and since the target market is people who are restoring mid century homes in Socal and want a period correct kitchen, but it was great to see them continuing to function.
People do it on cars all the time. It would be harder on something that isn't designed to be disassembled but it's nor hard.
Much of our machines have tiny motors that can be reused in about anything you want. Fridge compressors too.
Apart from the looks, why the hell would you want 60s kitchen appliances? Clunky, loud as hell, inefficient washing machines and dishwashers are something that people not only actively search for, but are willing to pay premium for?
I'm pretty sure the main reason is aesthetics. And to be clear, I only saw fridges and stoves/ranges, no washing machines or dishwashers.
There are actually quite a lot of very nice smaller MCM homes in the area, Long Beach specifically has some great ones, and they are becoming fairly popular to renovate while keeping the original design. Some are quite small, by modern standards, and I think maybe the smaller size of the appliances are also attractive, but I haven't been appliance shopping much and I've never done a kitchen renovation so don't take this as gospel.
Edit: messed up formatting
I just think that if someone has the money then a company like AGA makes cookers which I'm sure have looked exactly the same for the past 60 years - so you get the vintage look but modern efficiency:
On another note, I can definitely see that modern appliances like dishwashers or washing machines/dryers would be much better and more effective than older versions. I do wonder if there's any noticable difference in comparing something like an old cast iron gas stove to a modern gas stove?
But in general, a gas stove is a ring of flame. There's not much to it. You need enough flame and you need to be able to control it. If you have those two things, an old stovetop is fine.
Ovens are more complicated and I'm not generally a fan of gas ovens.
Which is unfortunate - they are awesome looking and very functional units; there is nothing on the market like them today.
And if it hasn't been restored yet, just convert as part of the refurbishment process.
What else is there in a fridge that could stop working except for the cooling system?
Fridge issues are often caused by software bugs and are fixed by reprogramming the circuit board with newer firmware, or just by reinstalling the current version. This also applies to other house appliances with programmable parts, including washing machines.
And on a less frivolous note: the rubber around the doors can perish/tear.
I recently did it. The biggest issue was that the first one the company sent was dirty and poorly made.
I suppose if you're chucking the old one out anyway, it's worth trying to fix it yourself for a bit, but I've always got time constraints (I'm a serial procrastinator), and I never do.
All in all, if house appliance were designed to be modular, you could keep a piece and use another one with it.
Alas I don't want it to end up like the computer world where standard competes and forces other problems.
Maybe a middle ground with blocks that aren't too coupled/soldered and more modder communities to discuss how to adapt etc
Those non-standard Dell cases and power supplies will go into the trash.
It would probably be more efficient (from an economic as well as an environmental standpoint) to force manufacturers to design appliances that can be fully disassembled and recycled with a minimum of effort (in terms of labour and energy). That way the raw materials used stay in use with minimal loss, and buying a new one won't be a waste at all.
Restoration is purely a design/aesthetic choice for a rarefied high-end market.
We even asked with a two doors large fridge was the same price as vertical-stack slightly thinner one, the salesman ended up admitting that it was because it's designed to be more practical (better volumes).
So...22 years and counting? What I mean is that it doesn't prove absolutely anything. Our electrolux fridge might survive another 40 years. Or it might break tomorrow.
I would lean on the side of that 60-year old fridge being an extremely weird exception, rather than a rule or proof of longevity of old stuff.
But I've got a dryer that was old when I moved into my house 20 years ago. And everything except the washer--which also was in the house when I arrived--was installed shortly after I moved in. I think all my dad's appliances, except for the microwave, are at least as old.
Probably between lower prices in general and more delicate electronics the situation is worse today but major appliances really do last for quite a while most of the time. (TVs have been far worse for me but, then, there tend to be reasons to upgrade them over time.)
The fridge I had before that was my parents' old stand-alone fridge which was 20 years old when I got it, and was still working perfectly fine 8 years later when we replaced it because we bought a new kitchen with built-in fridge. It never had any problems.
I recently came across a recommendation to replace old fridges because they were energy inefficient, but I have my doubts. I do think stand-alone fridges are probably always going to be better than built-in ones. Easier access, easier to repair, and no issues with somebody installing it incorrectly.
How these built in fridge done ? how many ? (I guess a standalone is made in more numbers so they have more know-how and mileage)
Also brands are deceitful after some time. At once they meant skills (say 60-90s SONY) but after a while, on mainstream product it's mostly a tag. For instance I found an AEG beard trimmer and was thrilled because AEG means gold in my eyes, when opened, it was a generic chinese PCB / assembly with a cute and sexy AEG case (you pay for the rubber).
Motors are simple. My blind guess is that it's a mixture of improved insulation and improved heat flow.
Though speaking of heat flow, stand-alone fridges always come with requirements that they need a certain amount of space for the heat to escape the rear of the fridge. Builtin fridges don't have that heat. I now find myself wondering whether builtin fridges can ever be as efficient as standalone ones.
And you're right that it can be advantageous in the short term for quality companies to cut costs by cutting corners while coasting on their reputation. Who knows, AEG might be doing that right now. Your AEG beard trimmer makes me regret we didn't go with Bosch or Miele after all.
I also read about people plugging water circuit on top to tranfer heat into a hot water container, it's probably useful for a hot shower..
There are a ton of Asahi Pentax cameras that come with a classic 55mm Takumar lens for $20-30 on Yahoo Auctions (Japan) right now.
Actually, 1980s consumer microwaves weren't much better than today's microwave ovens as far a quality is concerned. They were roughly comparable.
If you want a microwave that will last - then or now - get a commercial unit. Not only will it last longer, it will be much easier to use (most have a single knob, and a single temperature - high), and much easier to clean (stainless steel, wipe down interior and exterior with few places for gunk and crumbs to hide, no turntable with gaps and parts that can break, etc).
The two main brands in this arena are the Amana Radar Range, and the various models Sharp makes.
The best way to figure out what to buy is to talk to restaurant managers about what they use, and ask them how theirs have worked out. You'll want to look for the regular sized microwaves (they do make commercial units that scale upwards of 10 kilowatts with multiple magnetrons for large-scale cooking/reheating - these are not what you are interested in for a home).
Another option to look into (if you have the counterspace and don't mind the commercial look) is to get a TurboChef; I don't know how to explain these machines, other than that they are something of a combination broiler, convection oven, and microwave system designed to cook food in record time, but without the downsides of the individual units. For instance, you can have the equivalent of a nice seared and grilled steak in a few minutes (from cold) - versus what it would take conventionally. If you eaten at a restaurant, chances are high that you've eaten a meal made with a TurboChef.
A few more years and it would have entertained a fourth generation, but I think lasting 4 decades and surviving long enough to play N64 games was quite an achievement.
http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/shopping/guar...
"The legal guarantee is valid for a period of two years throughout the EU. But there are certain conditions. [...] Any fault that appears within six months will be presumed to have existed at the time of delivery. The seller must then repair or replace your phone free of charge - or reimburse you if repairs or replacement are impossible. [...] After six months, you can still hold the seller responsible for any defects during the full two-year guarantee period. However, if the seller contests this, you must be able to prove that the defect existed at the time of delivery. This is often difficult, and you will probably have to involve a technical expert."
Because of the burden-of-proof condition it's basically only a 6 months guarantee instead of 2 years. Countries may improve these conditions and I think some countries like the UK actually do.
This guarantee also has nothing to do with the producer, the seller has to provide this guarantee, which can be a hassle if the seller is not easily accessible.
The Netherlands has implemented said directive as a two year minimum warranty and has a well-known government website advocating rights as well. The proof of burden problem hasn't really changed, but most shops at least follow the two years as a minimum.
I recently got a new hot water tank after five years for a lowly payment after a heated discussion, though without further steps necessary. I even save boxes and receipts of lightbulbs in order to redeem early failures. Staff at the local 'Home Depot' doesn't even care and always replaces. So it's for a large part know your rights, stand strong and don't care for crazy eyes.
Current EU-system, the seller is always first point of contact in case of defects. So the seller should involve a third party and then share costs (after 5, 10, 12 years depending on reasonable durability). So the market for third party repair isn't a consumer market!
The only products I know third party repairs exists are: cars and household appliances. And even for household appliances the above holds, much goes via the seller. That it doesn't hold for cars is, I imagine, mostly lobbying. Even there collective consumer action is on the rise.
Then there is an additional problem: technical progress. Having recently replaced many household appliances (mid-30s now, so everything was 10yrs+ old), my machines use 30-40% less energy (from A to A+++). I'd be an economic fool to keep the old machines. Law requires the supplier to take care of the waste, so I really have no incentive to keep the old machine in use.
I'm a big proponent of 'right to repair'-rules BTW, but think they do not add much to the bigger picture. Pricing of household appliances as a function of the running costs have fallen dramatically. So repairing just makes little economic sense. The environmental impact, I'm not sure. I guess 100 kg of waste is a lot more damaging than a few thousand KWhs. But that all depends on the way disposed machines are treated. Cradle-to-cradle could make a lot bigger impact than right-to-repair imho.
However, I do know of people who fight for their rights as consumers as a matter of principle, and I actually applaud them. They do a good work for the commons.
I even had two items (headphones and oven) breaking 1/2 month before the expiry, and still, they have been replaced.
I can imagine cases where this works against the consumer, but in most cases where I buy things, the seller is far more accessible, and perhaps more importantly, also far more exposed to EU jurisdiction such that they bother to actually comply with these kinds of EU regulations. For example, if I buy a microwave at Wilko, it works to my advantage that Wilko, not whatever company in China manufactured it, is the responsible party.
Never heard that kind of lingo before, it's weird ;)
If you go some decades back, almost all steroes and TVs were brown (typically wood or brown plastic), while dishwashers and fridges were nearly always painted white.
[1] www.which.co.uk
It's ordinary British English and as someone else pointed out common in other languages too. English: brown goods, white goods = Norwegian brunevarer, hvitevarer.
There is 0 reason I should not be able to replace seals and motors in my washing machine, and the electronics should last 20 years or more. Unless of course it is engineered it to fail and they should just release schematics so an independend shop can replace the crappy parts with something more durable.
I believe the answer should be yes, but not sure how courts and consumer protection officials view this thing. If they would go with defining security bugs as defects, this would have implications for example to IoT security. This would create more incentives for manufacturers to focus on security and figure out how to patch the products that are out there.
Would you consider your front door broken if it is vulnerable to being opened with a screwdriver? What about a wine glass that breaks unless you aren't extremely careful when washing it?
In my opinion it depends on how it was marketed.
1) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/consumer-rights-guarantees...
For smartphones I would stay at the current 2 years requirement though. A phone stays most of the time on a person, which is one of the most harsh conditions if you think about it.
I'm fine with saying that Windows 3.1 wasn't designed to be connected to the internet (it wasn't) so they are doing nothing. I recently got a recall notice from GM for a 13 year old car - they found a safety problem and it needs to be fixed even though the rest of the warranty ran out about 10 years ago.
What this would cause is for there to be one "product" such as "Windows" that Microsoft keeps up to date forever. They release patches and you apply them. The version never changes and everyone's machine is running the same product, but some of them are out of date and could be updated easily via Windows Update.
That’s their problem then.
EDIT: It’s not acceptable for consumers, especially in an age of "smart things" where their toilet, car, or in the next few years, even their house/apartment might fail, stop working, be infected by ransomware, etc due to missing security updates. At least if you sell software for Smart Things, you should have to put the source code in an escrow, and it would be published as soon as you stop supporting it.
So in other words, the burden of proof is on the seller to show that the defect was not already there when the item was bought. See article 5(3) in this directive from 1999: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:319...
I think it has worked really well. This kind of rules are a great innovation in consumer law since they make it really easy for companies to know what they "are up against".
That's a common misconception. It's actually the seller that has to fix or replace it, not the producer. It would make a lot more sense though if it were the producer.
It's not so easy.
You (or a generic user) would expect "5 years minimum", but at the same time would also expect no increase in price.
Using as reference insurances on home appliances, extension to 5 years is around the lines of 15%, which is a lot.
I'm not, in principle, against the idea, but I think it's a complex subject.
Right to repair is for example another take on the the problem (I'm not arguing it's better or worse), as the increase in price wouldn't trickle down to consumers who don't want it.
You could give up some model churn, lowering actual costs by using the same parts in many model years. It's hard enough to maintain parts inventory in an automotive repair context, and there's just not enough money in the devices to sustain a similar level of complexity in appliance repair.
You could sacrifice some compactness, using interchangeable brackets and larger assemblies that connect together with fasteners instead of custom-molded brackets and glued-up assemblies that can only be assembled, never disassembled. These might be more expensive for a single model, but over several years economies of scale would catch up.
Finally, you could make these replacement parts available at home improvement stores and at the same retailers that sell the devices, instead of through distribution chains only usable by licensed professionals. I was able to repair my furnace this winter when the exhaust blower failed (and my AC when the capacitor failed) because I could buy the part I needed on Amazon with next-day shipping. I had the day off, and was willing to drive around, but on calling 12 different places within an hour I found none that would sell the parts to me. And just a visit for a quote would have cost more and taken more time than shipping the failed component from Amazon.
The manufacturers would prefer that you buy an entire new appliance from them, and have made decisions which harm the environment and harm consumers, but benefit them. Regulation is required.
As you note, you were able to order the part online and there are a fair number of online providers of appliance parts. (Including Sears, while they're still around, although they centrally stock rather than at individual stores.)
I suspect the local stores just don't want to deal with consumers, many of whom may need more handholding than the store provides.
but if those costs aren't correctly accounted for in the price then being able to choose a "low priced thing" is just pushing the clean up costs onto society.
that said, people who have historically gotten a benefit and pushed costs on to third parties will of course probably be unhappy about a change that forces them to pay for the costs. see also: capitalism generally, climate change.
Buying cheap products that break in 3 months that you then throw away IS the type of behaviour they want to reduce, even if it was exactly what you expected and wanted.
all units are kWh/d
* "defence": 4
* transporting stuff: 12
* stuff: 48+
* food, farming, fertilizer: 15
* gadgets: 5
* light: 4
* heating, cooling: 37
* jet flights: 30
* car: 40
the "stuff" category is the energy required to manufacture stuff, including gadgets, houses, cars, roads, washing machines, newspapers, drink containers, computers, etc. note that the energy cost of house construction is estimated at 1 kWh/d per person, while the cost of a new car with a 15 year lifespan is 14 kWh/d, the ignoring energy to run it.The combined energy cost of stuff and stuff transports is the biggest impact on the list.
although arguably the car is the worst offender if you account for the energy cost of the stuff lifecycle and the energy costs to oeprate it. The estimated energy cost of manufacturing a car with a 15 year lifespan accounts for 14kWh/day of the 48+ kWh/day "stuff" estimate, so if the use of a car was replaced with a magical transport device that required no energy to manufacture or run or dispose of, that would eliminate 14kWh/day from "stuff" and also eliminate the 40 kWh/day car operational energy cost too.
I wonder:
- What's the total ecological impact of container ships vs. alternative forms of transport using better fuel?
- Would container ships be a Good Thing if we could somehow make them use clean energy? (I just imagined a dream future of fully autonomous, nuclear-powered container ships.)
- If so, why are they still using that shit fuel?
You might want to read about these then:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Hahn_(ship)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutsu_(nuclear_ship)
You don't need to go all the way to nuke-carriers; plain old combustion can be much, much cleaner than some ships at negligible (but non-zero) cost - witness similar engines/powerplants on land. But in an extremely competitive market, what sane operator would do that?
Or just rent it if you only need it one or two times?
The environmental cost of a Chinese gizmo is negligible compared to the loss of utility associated with having to rent a USB stick or some nail clippers. We don't have to live like we're in the Middle Ages.
Personally, I'd be much more in favour of "disposable economy" (because of those utility costs you mention) if I could trust that all of the trash actually gets recycled into further products.
Well, now it will be :)
It's remarkable to me sometimes how painfully and obviously ignorant many people on HN are about the lifestyles of the huge portion of the global population that lives in relatively undeveloped rural/agrarian areas. You don't even have to live there, just visit sometimes.
I spend a good fraction of the year in locations that are at least 10 miles to the nearest business of any kind, let alone something like a second hand store that requires a reasonable population to sustain.
Per the WBG, 45% of the global population absolutely has a "noticeable impact".
Places that don't have the services which require a reasonable population to sustain are getting emptier and emptier every decade; there are farms with no people living on them, where people commute from a town that does have a reasonable population to maintain all the modern services, do their work and go home.
The growing urbanization means that almost all of society lives in a somewhat urban environment, and the number of people who don't shrinks rapidly every decade, with no sign of stopping.
I hope for your sake that this was an off-the cuff comment and not something you actually put thought into.
Cities are very small, and unpopulated areas are very big. Amount = density * area.
The US has about 15% of people living in rural counties. China has about 60% of people living in rural areas. 63% of sub-saharans live in rural areas. It's around 45% globally, per the world bank group.
In Western EU, the depopulated rural areas don't have many people, don't have a huge portion of population, and the size of them doesn't matter.
And rapid urbanization is continuing everywhere. Within a few decades, sub-Saharan Africa will have the urbanization rate that China has now and China will be closer to towards the urbanization rate of the western world than the current ratio.
And if nothing changes, USA will very soon be as urbanized as Western EU (it's currently a bit more rural) and Western EU will be even more urbanized as it is today.
The rural areas are getting more empty, quality of life is decreasing due to depopulation, and because of that they're getting even more empty. In the long run, the population rural areas would likely converge to whatever portion of workforce is needed to run the primary agriculture, which used to be ~2% in 20th century for advanced societies and now with increasing automation is likely to drop to 1%. Within two generations, rural USA will not have anywhere close to 15% in rural counties, and that's unavoidable.
A lot of them live in a bubble. Just ignore it. The tall nail gets the hammer. Loud minority opinions get run out of town.
Your claim is also incorrect for more fundamental reasons, although it doesn't really apply here: https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...
Cooperating minorities can have an effect drastically out of proportion with their share of the population.
At some point, this person is going to have to realize they cannot keep doing what they are doing, no matter how much they may "want" to do so.
Longer-lived more durable products might also be amenable to app-based rental ""sharing economy"", for people who don't want to keep the thing.
What quantity went into the more expensive version I'm forced to buy so some upper-class do-gooder can satisfy their sense of moral superiority?
If you think that "questionable labour" is a problem, fix that directly instead of making vaguely related warranty regulations.
I'd be perfectly happy with efforts to make the price of items more closely match their total cost including externalities, but piecemeal regulation of warranty policy is not the way to do that.
It may well be worse for the cheaper one, as they have to cut costs somewhere - e.g. Apple recently announced they would move to use recycled rare-earth minerals only, and stop buying from war zones. Which is obviously the way it should be, right?
It's just that there are things we still haven't solved when it comes to conflicts, business, government and industry, leading to all of us here walking around with minerals mined by hand, by children, at gunpoint.
Now, if we want to change this, regulation has proved to be a workable way. As you hint, there are surely others and I hope we can pursue them as soon as possible! With the current regime in the US, change likely won't come from that way in a while, so I'm glad to see the EU making progress.
(Also, you're coming across as slightly entitled with the aggressive tone when saying you want the world to keep an unworkable production system just because it's convenient to you.)
Please expound on how disposable goods are "unworkable".
If I'm coming across as entitled, it's because I'm very tired of people directly and noticeably harming my quality of life for the sake of trivial (and often counterproductive) environmental benefits. I shouldn't have to break the law (but I do have to) to have a good shower, a well-functioning toilet, a working gas can on my car, really clean clothes, or effective and safe home sanitation. If you aren't familiar with the ways "progressive" little environmental regulations in the US have fucked up all of those things to negligible environmental benefit, I'd be happy to explain any of them.
I assume that you either 1) have a different vision of how we can maximize wealth and convenience while minimizing waste and environmental damage, or 2) you don't care about waste and environmental damage.
If 1) is true, I'd like to learn what your vision is.
My dream vision is that the government tries to bring about a practical approximation of the preconditions of the Coase theorem. This is very, very different from the piecemeal and economically unsound approach it is using right now.
Can you elaborate on these points. I feel like I have all of them (with the exception that I don't have a car) without doing anything environmentally illegal.
(In fact, I have specifically noticed that well designed modern toilets are far more effective than old ones that use tonnes of water.)
Not sure what is meant by working gas can on the car... I personally just hate the gas hoses at stations which have the pressure contraption so I have to keep it physically pushed in to the hole and can't say let it start and clean my windshield, but it also has a hyper sensitive fume/fluid sensor so it cuts off if I try to have a flow over 50%. I love older stations with older pump hoses, no problems. Don't have to break the law for them, yet.
Clean clothes and home probably refer to some effective cleaning agents being banned because they're known to the state of California to cause cancer or something. I can't say I have that problem but I might not know what I'm missing.
I'd have to read up more, but as I understand it, that style of gas pump (as well as "new gas cans" which also get a lot of complaints) were made to counter gas vapor leaks that reportedly contributed significantly to smog. Was it trivial in nature? I'd have to see a study.
Separately, the last big thing I knew with clothes cleaning was how phosphates were removed from detergents some years back due to environmental concerns; from my understanding, phosphates in consumer detergent caused far more than "trivial" nutrient pollution (example paper: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25038382?seq=1#page_scan_tab_con...). I noticed when non-phosphate dishwashing detergents were introduced, with our hard water they left lots of spots. But there are non-phosphate ways around that issue. The actual cleaning part is fine.
Now that you bring up gas cans, I bought a new small one and I really don't like it over an old one I have. Instead of countering gas leaks it seems to encourage them, I can't keep it in the garage like the older one because when it gets warm its cheap plastic expands and eventually the gas leaks out of the nozzle (some 'safety' feature) and then gets into the furnace which happily pumps gas smells with the AC into the rest of the house... The can's not even half full either.
I vaguely remember the phosphates drama now. But I agree, I don't have any issues sanitizing things...
There are (in my opinion) only two good gas cans out there:
1. The standard US/NATO steel gerry cans with the welded seams (not the crimped seams that you see on the new versions today; you have to do some searching for these nice older cans that were built properly); nozzles can be found at army surplus stores and online.
2. RotoPax - seriously, if you want a modern solution made from plastic, and price isn't an object, RotoPax is what you want.
Toilets jam more frequently and are less sanitary than they were without flush volume restrictions. I usually modify the float mechanism in my toilet to help fix this.
Basically, if water wastage is such a problem, we should let the price of water reflect its actual cost including externalities. No one would go thirsty, and people would be able to optimally choose the amount of water they use, rather than the government trying to dictate it.
Thanks to CARB regulations, it is illegal to have a well-functioning gas can. You are required to use these piece of shit overcomplicated "spill proof" mechanisms, which are not spill proof, are absurdly slow, and break constantly because they're so complicated. The one time I really needed a gas can, the piece of shit broke, something shot off into the trees under spring pressure, and the gas was stuck in the can. Since then, I always use a non-compliant "water can" to store gas. These actually work, and they spill less than the "spill proof" models.
It's illegal to use various effective cleaning solutions like TSP because there is some evidence that they contribute to algal growth in rivers. Modern cleaning products in the US are drastically inferior and you have to mix your own with bulk chemicals if you want a good clean. IIRC, the guy at the EPA responsible for this is on record as saying he wants everyone to go back to washing with vinegar, so there's another example of placing environmental interest over net human interest.
Another cleaning product I'm not allowed to use: hot water. To effectively and safely sanitize surfaces, water has to be at least 170 degrees Fahrenheit. It is illegal for domestic water heaters to go that high in the US. I would accept a legal default of e.g. 130F for safety reasons, but it should be up to me if I want to e.g. wire my kitchen with water suitable for sanitization. Instead you have to use chemical products like bleach. I'd prefer the risk of occasional mild water burns while cleaning over having to inhale bleach fumes all the time.
FYI and TLDR: you're spending more money than you should by using this method. (and wasting resources, but that doesn't seem to hold weight against you)
(edit: yes i'm aware this from a fantasy book, but there's also actual evidence behind it as well, even if presented in a humoristic way)
If you use something 20 times, you don't care whether it breaks after 100 uses or 1000 uses.
Perhaps this is the level of economic background I should expect from internet commenters.
The quoted theory might be relevant if I were using my e.g. USB drives to exhaustion (and sometimes I do, and I buy the nice SSD drives), but sometimes I only need to use them once or twice, and buying a high-quality drive would be a waste.
Based on your downvotes, it seems that people on HN think that fiction can prove economic theory.
Are you aware this will make everything way more expensive? Why don't they let people who care about extra warranty pay the premium and let the rest of us who don't care about it avoid the fee and pay cheaper. How about we let willing adults contract freely with each others instead of using the force of law and guns to force people into contracts governments think are better for us because we're too dumb to know better what's good for us and what to do with our own money? Crazy thoughts I know.
That depends how long things last on average. If things get 25% more expensive, but tend to last twice as long as a result of the legislation, they're actually much cheaper than they were before.
The problem is, consumers don't have a good way to compare product lifetimes, so they tend to judge based on sticker price. Mandating minimum lifetime makes these prices more meaningfully comparable.
Although personally, I think an even better market solution would be to mandate that products list price per guarantee-year prominently.
This is an interesting lead. Increasing consumer awareness would also incentivize companies to increase guarantee years, reducing perceived price.
So in practice, consumers have been conditioned to just assume that nothing is really guaranteed to last, therefore just buy the cheapest one. With the exception of certain brands such as Miele who are very popular among people with enough money to drop on the high up front price.
You're right in that this could potentially be addressed other ways, for example with packaging regulations. If it says "15 year warranty", then it shouldn't have any hidden terms or charges.
[1] Although with the EU guarantee after 6 months it's technically your responsibility to show fault, with large non-moving appliances the usual assumption is it's probably the device's fault.
I know it's a difficult balance to find, but sometimes you have to restrict the individual's freedom of choice to protect the environment and society as a whole.
Wasteful short product cycles may just fall into the category. Long-lasting products won't prevent you from buying the new stuff all the time. But instead of throwing away the old stuff, you might be incentivized to sell it to others who happily use older stuff.
You should be honest and say: this will hurt consumers but help the environment, and I feel that is worth it.
And can we please try to keep the snark out of the snarko-capitalist rethoric?
Still, if you have some specific suggestions to avoid this legislation, I'd honestly very much like to hear them.
This is just a government by another name.
Prices will definitely go up which isn't a bad thing if you can afford it and there will be consolidation of manufacturing on the margin. Laws like this sound nice but they almost always restrict choice and make it harder for new entrants to enter the market.
The sellers will still want to sell, the price is determined by the demand and volume not only the manufacturing cost.
We have plenty of choice here in Norway and we have a five year minimum life expectancy for goods such as televisions, computers, etc.
Here is how I think about it: on the margin, a rule like this increases the cost of manufacturing and bringing products to market. It also increases the burden that manufacturers will need to surpass to convince distributors (like Walmart, Best Buy, etc) to carry their product to avoid liability. So on the margin, this reduces profit, increases costs, reduces choice, etc.
There are televisions, computers, washer dryers, toasters etc on the market that will last years, they just cost 40-50% more than their low cost alternatives. This wouldnt solve anything that the market hasnt already provided a solution for. This law is designed to push out "cheap" alternatives which is anti-competitive by definition. If some college kid wants to buy a disposable toaster that will last 1-2 years let them.
> This wouldnt solve anything that the market hasnt already provided a solution for. This law is designed to push out "cheap" alternatives which is anti-competitive by definition.
I would hope this would solve one thing the market definitely doesn't provide a solution for - the very existence of crap products. They are being manufactured, transported and sold en-masse, and then they break, creating their own market (people who buy cheapest stuff won't be willing to buy the expensive one after the first one breaks, they'll just buy another cheap piece again). Basically, I'd hope this helps cut waste - and it's not really that different from basic safety and health regulations. It's all about providing a floor on how crappy products are, because market will always optimize towards the very bottom.
As a consumer I'd much rather have such non-choices out of the way, so that I can have the assurance that if I buy a wash machine it'll still be around in several years.
And even if longer-lasting stuff implies es some extra cost, I question whether that extra cost is significant in the sense that it would change market positioning (i.e. a 10% BOM increase is huge considering the kind of markets this affects, but still not nearly enough to close the gap with the more luxuriously branded stuff).
If they were "manufactured on demand", I would agree. You'd pay more or less depending on your needs. As it is today, each product you can get off the shelf is being manufactured in millions of copies, and is a part of purchasing environment. It affects the market for everyone, and its production affects the environment.
I'm of belief that tools barely suited to their function are a waste of materials, energy and production effort - and therefore should not exist. Worse than that, they also provide a price floor on the whole category. You get two categories of items - "crap" items, for which price is pushed down to minimum, and "premium" items, for which the price can stay higher, because customers going for them are not price-sensitive.
I currently believe (though this is not a very strong belief) that if we could somehow raise the floor of minimum acceptable product quality, we'd have much less waste, and the better items would be cheaper than they're now (supply and demand, after all).
Is this a correct read on what you're saying: You feel other people buying low-cost poor-quality products are making the wrong choice 100% of the time. If you were in charge, you would pass legislation to ban these crap products from being sold. This will protect consumers from making poor purchasing decisions.
You may say it's patronizing view, but I don't blame individual customers because I don't believe they have a meaningful choice in the matter. There's no agency here - people buying cheapest, barely functioning crap is an obvious consequence of it being available.