Generic electronics recycling is very expensive. I had to recycle an old 55" rear projection TV and it cost $150. Good luck getting the average person to pay that instead of disposing of it (illegally).
It would be more efficient and cheaper for companies to create a recycling process and include that in the purchase price.
Generic electronics recycling is very expensive. I had to recycle an old 55" rear projection TV and it cost $150. Good luck getting the average person to pay that instead of disposing of it (illegally).
Blame your municipality.
When I lived in the southwest, the city required the trash companies to pick up or recycle EVERYTHING for free. From old paint to batteries to giant tube TVs to washing machines. Everything, or they didn't get the trash hauling contract.
This was to make it as easy as possible for people to dispose of things properly, rather than dump them in the desert.
If your city doesn't make this happen, it's a failure of the city to negotiate the contract properly and allowing the trash companies to shift the expense onto the homeowners.
That just moves the cost of recycling to the public. The public shouldn't have to bear the costs of the negative externality of other people's consumption. It is also essentially a regressive tax since the wealthy consume/dispose of more goods. Also most areas don't have a single exclusive trash service (monopoly).
Furthermore, single stream recycling in America, on average, is a complete failure. The portion of stuff that is actually recycled is very low as much is contaminated with non-recyclable materials. I'd either expect such a trash/recycling service (as you describe) to be quite expensive or actually recycle very little of relative to what could be recycled.
If the manufacture's & end consumers of goods were forced to confront the cost of disposal at the time of purchase it would create a large incentive for companies to make products with less waste and products that are easier to recycle. The goal isn't to just to recycle everything that currently can be recycled but to make everything easy to recycle.
That just moves the cost of recycling to the public
The public has an interest in a clean desert, since the desert surrounding the city was the primary source of recreation for the people living there.
It is also essentially a regressive tax since the wealthy consume/dispose of more goods
Trash fees were based on the assessed value of your home, so the wealthy paid more in trash fees than the poor.
Also most areas don't have a single exclusive trash service (monopoly).
As noted in the original comment, there were multiple trash companies in this city. All had to adhere to the same rules.
single stream recycling in America, on average, is a complete failure
It wasn't single stream. There were four bins. One each for garbage, glass, metals, and plastics.
I'd either expect such a trash/recycling service (as you describe) to be quite expensive or actually recycle very little of relative to what could be recycled.
I rented my house, so I couldn't tell you if it was expensive, or not. But as I stated above, the price was based on the value of the home. I doubt anyone ever changed their mind about buying a house because the cost of trash disposal in City A was $10/month more than in City B.
If the manufacture's & end consumers of goods were forced to confront the cost of disposal at the time of purchase it would create a large incentive for companies to make products with less waste and products that are easier to recycle.
I agree. But that's not the reality today. We may get there 50 years from now, but people don't want to live surrounded by 50 years of garbage in order to fulfill a social theory.
The goal isn't to just to recycle everything that currently can be recycled but to make everything easy to recycle.
Which was exactly what this did: Make it easy for people to recycle everything that could be recycled.
> It would be more efficient and cheaper for companies to create a recycling process and include that in the purchase price.
A totally fair point (one that I also happen to agree with) but not in the spirit of OP’s comment, which suggests some sort of moral trickery by the likes of Apple.
It would be more efficient and cheaper for companies to create a recycling process and include that in the purchase price.