Hacker News Reader

Comment by fakedang | Hacker News Reader

> The American way is to possibly put too few responsibilities on manufacturers. The European way seems to be to saddle them with just too many regulations -- possibly killing so much innovation

Well that's what the European way is lol. Tax and regulate instead of focusing on the crux of the problem, which is overproduction and planned obsolescence. Any solution that uses taxes and extra charges will simply pass the costs onto the consumer.

I like the idea of putting the onus on companies to get rid of the product, but there should be a consumer onus too. Consumers should be discouraged from tossing everything to the landfill, and companies should be forced to collect the stuff they product after the lifecycle is complete. This might even drive the companies to revise their designs to use more recyclable materials.

View on HN

A good way to penalize planned obsolescence would be to charge a decreasing penalty if the goods are recycled/disposed earlier. So if I return the fridge for recycling after a couple of years (bad fridge) then the company gets charged automatically 5% of the fridge cost. If I recycle after 10 years then the company gets charged zero (as an example).

Maybe instead of a charge this could be a credit. If the recycling happens after a long time the company gets a bigger payback than if it happens before. The money is collected on checkout so the company can't claim bankruptcy or low profits to make the payment.

> So if I return the fridge for recycling after a couple of years

Here in Norway consumers enjoy a 5 year warranty on products that are meant to last, and 2 years on other non-consumables.

So if my fridge dies due to a manufacturing flaw within 5 years, the store I purchased it on has to repair free of charge, replace it with an equal or better product, or give a full refund. If the product keeps breaking in the same way, the customer can demand a full refund.

And it's up to the store to convincingly argue it's not a manufacturing flaw if they don't want to do that.

This provides similar disincentive to import crappy goods.

Well there's the issue innit? You're not placing fault on the manufacturer of the shoddy goods, but on the stores, which I presume are the local distributors?

Sure, you're disincentivizing crappy goods, but then you'd also barr a strata of society who can only afford those crappy goods. While it's not as much of a problem in Norway I suppose, it is a problem in the majority of the world.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com