Source: Extended Product Responsibility
By: Beverley Thorpe, Iza Kruszewska and Alexandra McPherson of Clean Production Action. 2004
Synopsis: Extended Product Responsibility (EPR) is a transfer of responsibility from the consumer to the manufacturer regarding the disposal of goods when they (the products, not the producers) have outlived their useful lives.
Reflection:
Note: for the purpose of this post, I will be using the term “disposal” to refer to any process that happens to a product after it has outlived its useful life, from landfilling to recycling. I know, disposal has a lot of connotations. Tell me if you have a better term.
This is an odd subject for me. When EPR first came to my attention, I had two reactions. First, I thought it was a great idea. It is logical. It creates pressure to make products that perform well for a long time, which in turn decreases the overall amount of waste produced. It creates a more reliable supply of materials for recycling or re-purposing. As this resource so clearly states, “it puts the party with the greatest ability to impact the design of the product in charge of its disposal.” All of these are unquestionably good, yet in the back of my mind, there was some nagging, niggling detail upon which I could not quite put my finger. I was missing something, but what?
In order to answer that, we need to go all the way back to our discussion of planned obsolescence. This morning, I rode my bike to work. Riding to work is one of the most positive aspects of my life, made better by a variety of bikes, all of which rely on technology to make them lighter in weight and higher in performance. I am typing this on a three year old MacBook. It is not inaccurate to say my education would not be possible without it, and education holds a major stake in my future and my satisfaction or lack thereof. My point is, technology has made my life better, and I don’t know that my bikes would perform as well or my computer as reliably (sort of a laugh since I’m just recovering from a hard drive crash) if Cannondale and Apple were designing their products not to perform as well as possible, but to be easily and inexpensively disposed of. Hrmmmm.
In a recent conversation with a friend, we were talking about the relationship between morals and science. Without falling too deeply into that fascinating rabbit-hole, I was trying to make the case that moral and immoral have no subjective definitions, and that we need to start looking at systems and whether or not they work or don’t, i.e. are they sustainable, a question about which science has a lot to say. My point in this rambling is that, as much as it pains me to say it, nice bikes and fast computers may not be part of a system that works. Maybe we can have our cake and eat it too, but the sooner we wrap our heads around the possibility that that ain’t so, the better.
The flip side of that coin is acknowledging the benefits of a future in which we don’t need to worry about the problems associated with waste disposal, which are too numerous to list here (although our resource does a pretty good job) and which we’ve lived with for so long that to consider a future without them strains the imagination. In a good way.
All that being said, I am going to make a prediction. Right now, the world revolves around money and market forces. All things being equal, I believe people would purchase products designed specifically for ease of disposal. But all things are rarely equal. If Apple can’t make a fast computer that is also easily disposed of, they will not make ease of disposal a priority. Same goes for everything from cars to dishwashers. The upside to this seemingly pessimistic prediction is something I’ve mentioned before: we’re really good at innovation. I absolutely believe the eggheads at Apple are capable of making a computer that is both high-performing and easily disposed of. We just need to be careful to not fall into the trap of thinking we can purchase sustainability.
I'm going to take issue with several of things in your post this time.
ReplyDeleteFirst, you suggest the article is about transferring responsibility of disposal from the consumer to the manufacturer. But it is neither the consumer or the manufacturer that is responsible for disposing of a product in this society. It is municipal government. You put your garbage out at the curb and it magically disappears forever. But actually it doesn't. If "scientists" were to study the waste stream they would discover that cities are putting most of that waste in a hole in the ground (some after burning it to reduce its size) and recycling about a third of it. If this news were to get out, economists and big business everywhere would be protesting the "socialization" of our waste. Not!
Point 1: EPR is about internalizing externalities.
Second, I do not see the connection between EPR and slowing innovation or quality. It is simply a different way of obtaining your raw materials. They can come from the planet or the waste stream. Either way it's the same stuff. In fact it should encourage innovation because some of that stuff is still technologically advanced enough to be used directly in the new product. Aren't there parts of the bike that haven't changed at all? XEROX is making millions figuring out ways to reuse old parts that are still pretty darned impressive.
Point 2: EPR makes you more innovative/higher quality, not less.
Third, you discount the role of morality in sustainability and then proceed to make a moral argument. There is this misconception that science is valuable valueless. Just because I can show something is probably true using a specific method tells me nothing about what to do with that information. If polluting a river is unsustainable (something I can show with scientific methods) this doesn't make it right or wrong. Some people would argue that if polluting that river feeds my family for today and destroys the world tomorrow then it is morally acceptable. Some argue that unless we protect the future it is unacceptable. After you say what something "is", you still have to infer some moral judgement on it to determine your appropriate action.
Point 3: If you don't "value" sustainability, all the science in the world isn't going to save you.
Re: Point 1
ReplyDeleteYou're absolutely right. I don't know that I'd made the connection with socialized waste disposal.
Re: Point 2
I see your point, but there have to be materials out there that cannot be recycled and materials that cannot be manufactured from recycled material. Obviously, I don't have an example or I would have cited it. My assumption in saying that EPR could stifle innovation is that, if those materials are central to the performance of a given machine, and if they are no longer available, the performance of the machine will suffer. An example of this is carbon fiber, a material performance bikes have come to rely on and which is not recyclable (with current technology, as far as I know). Take away carbon fiber and many bikes get heavier. So maybe it's not that EPR might stifle innovation, but that it might affect the performance of machines upon which we've come to depend, none of which precludes our ability to come up with a different approach to solving the problem.
Re: Point 3
I'm with you...sort of. The way I see it, science offers us the best means of making informed decisions. We study a system, find out it's going to kill the planet, and we then have a decision to make. There are going to be people out there who decide the benefits of the system are worth it, consequences be damned, and those who would change the system. I stand by my statement that to say either is "right" or "wrong" is meaningless. But, at the end of the day, one of those people is still going to be around and the other won't.
On Point 2 - I have absolute faith in the human capacity for invention subject to some moral standard (Point 3). In other words, if people want a light bike that also "has to be" recyclable, someone WILL invent one.
ReplyDeleteOn Point 3 - Sustainability "has to be" (Point 2) our moral standard. I can hear my colleagues whining about "what does that mean?" just making such a statement. I don't thinks it's too hard to figure out. I think that is what you are getting at. (See http://bit.ly/ceaCzZ for details).