"At present it's much cheaper to buy a new microwave, DVD players, or vacuum cleaner than to get a malfunctioning one fixed. That's crazy." -MacKay, 225Once upon a time, people wore clothes until they tore, patched them up, and wore them again. Once upon a time, my mom darned socks instead of throwing them away and buying a new package. Once upon a time when something broke you brought it in to to a repair shop, waited a few days, then picked it up and it was good as new. There has been a shift within the past few decades away from this repair mentality to a toss it and buy a new one mindset.
Electronics are almost made to break, with their 90 day warranties and hard to reach customer service. Last September I bought an HP DeskJet Printer for $25; it came with a black and color ink. My ink ran out at the beginning of this term and upon going to buy new ink I noticed it was cheaper to buy a new printer that comes with free ink, then to buy replacement ink. There is something wrong with this picture.
MacKay writes that the fact it is cheaper to replace and object than to get it fixed is due to our tax system, which taxes the repair man (225). This is true but it is also a case of externalizing the costs. Taken at sticker price, it is cheaper to buy a new printer or pair of shoes. In reality this is not the case. The environmental costs and already externalized from the shelf price (carbon emitted to make your shoes). But what about the environmental costs of disposing your old electronic?
It is an honest statement to say that you have no idea what happens to your old consumer good when your done. Chances are it is laid to rest in a landfill, or 'recycled,' which usually implies outsourcing to Third World countries, harmfully polluting citizens there.
My point of this ramble is that it is worth it to pay more and have a toaster or vacuum and pair of shoes fixed than to buy into the made to break market.
Here is an Annie Leonard video, part of her Story of Stuff web series:
Electronics are almost made to break, with their 90 day warranties and hard to reach customer service. Last September I bought an HP DeskJet Printer for $25; it came with a black and color ink. My ink ran out at the beginning of this term and upon going to buy new ink I noticed it was cheaper to buy a new printer that comes with free ink, then to buy replacement ink. There is something wrong with this picture.
MacKay writes that the fact it is cheaper to replace and object than to get it fixed is due to our tax system, which taxes the repair man (225). This is true but it is also a case of externalizing the costs. Taken at sticker price, it is cheaper to buy a new printer or pair of shoes. In reality this is not the case. The environmental costs and already externalized from the shelf price (carbon emitted to make your shoes). But what about the environmental costs of disposing your old electronic?
It is an honest statement to say that you have no idea what happens to your old consumer good when your done. Chances are it is laid to rest in a landfill, or 'recycled,' which usually implies outsourcing to Third World countries, harmfully polluting citizens there.My point of this ramble is that it is worth it to pay more and have a toaster or vacuum and pair of shoes fixed than to buy into the made to break market.
Here is an Annie Leonard video, part of her Story of Stuff web series:
Emily, I totally agree with what you wrote this week. I wrote on the same topic. xD
ReplyDeleteBut it's important to understand where we obtain our products from. A few weeks earlier, we learned about Coltan, and how obtaining that small export is so harmful to the environment and the exporting country. I think that once we apply our knowledge of where our "stuff" comes from, we'll have a greater chance at lowering our consumption/buying new things.
It's not a shame to reuse something, or buy something used. It's better because we're not disposing of the item. It's never good to buy the best, newest, and greatest products, because all the power that is placed into disposing our old products is detrimental to the planet. I really liked how you wrote about our "recycling" of this products means that we ship it to third world countries to be placed in landfills.
We strip a country of it's natural resources to be used, and in the end, we do (in some way or form) bring it's resources back to the country.. Except that it's unusable and of no value to the country.