Why Manufacturers Must Become the Recyclers
As I mentioned in my last entry, it is better to reduce or reuse than to recycle. But there are some products considered necessary that must be recycled as they are either used up (e.g. light bulbs), become dated (e.g. computers), or otherwise. The typical view of how to provide recycling for such products is to leave the burden on the consumer. That is, they need to find an entity that collects and recycles such products, and pay for the services when they are done with the product.
There are several problems with this. First, it is often difficult to find such entities for recycling products. When found, they may only accept certain types of products, and not all those that the consumer wishes to recycle, meaning more searching. And collection times are often rare for community based programs, meaning the consumer has to not only discover when those times are, but stockpile their recyclables for that occasion. Second, the recycling venues are out of the way, and not part of the consumers typical route.
Third, it is difficult to judge demand for recycling, as the typical response to no recycling options is to just throw something away. Thus not many recycling outlets pop-up. Fourth, it is an additional charge to the consumer, which they would probably pay without thinking if included in the products purchase price, but is a deal breaker coming at the end of the products use. "Why should I have to pay when I'm doing something good?"
Finally, it is going to be expensive. Products will generally not be built to recycle as the manufacturer has no stake in the recycling process. Thus recycling is likely to be difficult. Not designing paint to easily be stripped from plastic either results in an expensive separation process, or an ineffective one where the paint mixes in with the plastic resulting in an inferior material. And there is not much the recycler can do about this as they have no control over the manufacturing process. As a result, they probably won't recycle much of the material they receive.
This is the key reason I believe the recycling burden must fall on the manufacturer. They are the only one capable of controlling how recyclable a product is, and the best way to encourage them to make such products is to have them invested in the recycling process. As they will be passing the cost of recycling on to the consumer (or eating it) they'll have a strong desire to cut that cost. Thus they will make products that can easily be separated into their recyclable components. Further, the manufacturer will have a stronger incentive to meet any regulations of what must be recycled, and may not even need regulations as they see that recycling means they can be the ones to reuse the material, and cut the cost of buying new material.
Now unless consumer pressure is great enough (and it generally isn't) this will need to be a government enforced practice. And as common knowledge dictates, any regulation creates an incredible burden for businesses. And what is bad for businesses is bad for the economy.
Except companies that have started making more sustainable products have generally found it to be an advantage. They now can just reclaim old materials, rather than have to pay for new materials, the cost of which is likely to rise as resources become more scarce, and shipping costs rise with energy costs.
The actual burden comes when a business tries to make the switch when no one else has. Whether doing it for environmental reasons or the long term cost benefits, the initial steps can be costly and can be a disadvantage when their short sighted competitors don't follow suit. A business wanting to take these steps may feel they can't due to these factors. And it's likely that businesses have had to make this unfortunate decision. But if it's a government requirement, this burden disappears. Even those short sighted businesses don't have to pay for their lack of vision.
Though all those extra costs are still bad for the economy, right? Having to pay all those extra workers to research better manufacturing and recycling techniques, and even more workers to implement them. Just think of all the extra money being spent by these workers, and circulating through the economy. I don't understand why these burdens are so popularly held as the bane of our economy.
Though one possible pitfall is if some companies want to avoid these regulations and move elsewhere.
A few points of how I think this process should work:
Companies would have to provide a product collection service through the same channels as their products are sold, making it easy for the consumer to return recyclables, and solving the second problem mentioned above. Businesses would only be liable so far as providing the necessary means for consumers to return products, and then recycling those products, but not for any product the careless consumer sends to the landfill. The recycling could either be handled in house, or through an outside contract.
I believe requiring manufactures to provide recycling, rather than ensuring the products meet certain recycling specifications is the better way to go. Specifications, are likely to be broken, not allowing for some novel recycling methods, and hurting businesses that may be able to recycle their products, but not according to the specifications. Further, something so narrow is likely to have loopholes that break the system. Requiring manufacturer recycling programs, on the other hand, will allow capitalism to work its magic as manufacturers search for the best way to build and recycle their products.
That said, it may be difficult to set that standard for what constitutes recycling of the product. Currently, it may be difficult to recycle all components of a product up to a given standard. A reasonable regulation could be "x% of the product must be recycled to be used for y product life cycles, with no toxic materials from a specified list be dumped." With x, and y differing between industries, and increasing in a predictable fashion. Incentives could also be given to encourage manufacturers to go beyond the current standard.
