[quote=spdrun]Better the economy not blossom. More crap imported from China just means more worldwide environmental degradation. Growth is truly a cancer.
I like what the Swedes are planning … pay people to fix existing stuff versus buying new stuff in order to reduce the waste stream…
Re: Singapore, it’s an island smaller than NYC (as a whole, not just Manhattan). Much easier to run things centrally in a tiny country than in the US.[/quote]
What the Swedes are doing is a good idea. I’ve often thought that we should replace our “Energy Star” rating system with a system that takes the total life cycle of a product into account. From mining raw materials, production, shipping, distribution, end-of-life disposal, etc. — the ecological damage from all of these stages should be calculated and given a rating so that the more durable and most easily/cheaply repaired items get the higher ratings. We could offer some kind of a tax incentive, or (even better, IMHO) people could decide for themselves which goods would provide better value for their money.
Here’s a summary of what they’re considering in the EU:
“In this debate, BEUC sees an important need to ensure that the useful lifetime of
consumer products is prolonged through
design for durability, possibility to repair,
upgrade, disassemble and recycle products. Reliable and durable products provide value
for money to consumers and prevent overuse of resources and waste.
Enhancing the reliability of products will not only provide economic benefits to consumers but also to companies and to the overall economy. For instance, greater reliability will reduce product returns due to failure which currently costs retailers and brands a lot of money.”
