I worked at a circular economy startup for about two years... if you think it's hard to get people to reduce their carbon footprints, it's really hard to get people to reuse stuff. The startup...
Exemplary
I worked at a circular economy startup for about two years... if you think it's hard to get people to reduce their carbon footprints, it's really hard to get people to reuse stuff.
The startup focused on FF&E (basically, stuff companies have lying around). For many businesses, it's way cheaper to trash all their furniture & buy new than it is to go through the effort of documenting what they have & redistributing it. We liked to say our main competitor was a garbage dump.
Part of the reason I left was because I didn't feel like we, as a society, are ready to embrace circular economies yet. Capitalism doesn't reward good deeds, and thus most people will only give a shit once it starts to become cheaper to reuse than buy new. (Incidentally, I believe this is why orgs like Goodwill or Buy Nothing flourish; they target people who have hit the inflection point of "need to get used because of costs.")
As someone who's working for a frugal non-profit in a high CoL area, you're absolutely right. If we need a first aid kit, it is literally less expensive to order a new one off of Amazon than it is...
As someone who's working for a frugal non-profit in a high CoL area, you're absolutely right. If we need a first aid kit, it is literally less expensive to order a new one off of Amazon than it is to take the time (and thus payroll cost) for me to walk downstairs and look in our storage unit. The comparative cost of labor and materials are such that buying a new thing is nigh-automatically the fiscally sensible choice.
Compare it to Victorian London, where there were rag pickers, sewer divers, and pure finders (people who would salvage feces off the street to sell to tanners.) Labor was worth so little, and resources so precious, that every bit of value was extracted from materials.
Personally, I try to lean as heavily on reuse and reduce as possible, but you're right that it's a systemic problem. Unfortunately, the solutions are to devalue labor or increase the costs for non-essential goods. Tariffs would, if targeted properly, lower consumption of things we should hold more dear. They may be able to be manufactured and shipped cheaply, but if the prices spike for the end consumer we may see changing behavior regarding the willingness to reuse things.
In a sense, capitalism was too successful in making people materially prosperous. There’s a parallel problem in food waste: we waste so much food because the incentives to fight waste are minimal....
Capitalism doesn't reward good deeds, and thus most people will only give a shit once it starts to become cheaper to reuse than buy new.
Labor was worth so little, and resources so precious, that every bit of value was extracted from materials.
In a sense, capitalism was too successful in making people materially prosperous.
There’s a parallel problem in food waste: we waste so much food because the incentives to fight waste are minimal. In the past, people would work hard to preserve and use every scrap of food. Now? We have food in the pantry we forget about and let expire: for most people, it’s not life or death.
I'd say the issue is more that businesses successfully externalized the cost of environmental degradation and waste disposal. If businesses were actually liable for the harms they cause, things...
I'd say the issue is more that businesses successfully externalized the cost of environmental degradation and waste disposal. If businesses were actually liable for the harms they cause, things would look much different.
That is true. But this has been a collaboration across all sectors of society: businesses wanting more profit, consumers wanting cheaper goods, and politicians wanting to push/keep consumer prices...
That is true. But this has been a collaboration across all sectors of society: businesses wanting more profit, consumers wanting cheaper goods, and politicians wanting to push/keep consumer prices down.
I was very disappointed when Kamala Harris called tariffs on China a "sales tax on the people" during the presidential debate. Outsourcing manufacturing to countries like China makes it really easy to externalize environmental costs, as well as human costs.
I know a few people who are trying to do ethical consumer goods, but it's impossible for them to scale up in the US and Europe: beyond the few affluent consumers who don't mind paying a hefty premium to feel good about themselves, most consumers don't see the point in paying more than they have to.
I'd like to see policies where tariffs are calculated based on how strong a trade partner country's environmental and labor protections are, so that the competitive advantage of cutting corners on sustainability in low-regulation countries is eliminated.
There’s also the issue of damaged but repairable items. If you missing the time, tools, or expertise to repair them, they’ll either sit around waiting for a repair that will never happen or be...
There’s also the issue of damaged but repairable items. If you missing the time, tools, or expertise to repair them, they’ll either sit around waiting for a repair that will never happen or be donated to the landfill. Doesn’t help any that the process of tracking inventory when you’re not on the clock is an annoying hassle.
Repairs can easily cost more than buying new, too, at least as a non-company individual. Like the time I bought a £6 spring to repair the clasp on a £5 bag strap, or the £95 quote to fix a bag I...
Repairs can easily cost more than buying new, too, at least as a non-company individual. Like the time I bought a £6 spring to repair the clasp on a £5 bag strap, or the £95 quote to fix a bag I paid roughly that for a decade ago.
Business furniture is kind of a niche case. I used to work at a crappy ISP that had few visitors, so it wasn't an issue for them to buy decade-or-more out of date furnishings. [There was a...
Business furniture is kind of a niche case.
I used to work at a crappy ISP that had few visitors, so it wasn't an issue for them to buy decade-or-more out of date furnishings. [There was a business furniture reseller in the neighborhood.] My desk was one of those indestructible mid-20th Century steel monstrosities that weighed 400 lbs. Chipped enamel, bent drawer slides and all, it was a reliable surface if you needed somewhere to put an 80 lb. server for repairs.
More image-conscious businesses don't desire dated or shabby items. My current employer has a very posh demo center with the latest and greatest everything - they replace all the furnishings, cabinetry, and accoutrements every 5 years or so, with emphasis on the most current styles and color schemes in corporate interior design. They donate the removed items, so it's technically reuse, but not a business model of resale.
I would imagine there's also some tax benefits to businesses just scrapping old furniture and buying new? Something related to depreciation? Also, Goodwill is great for more than just those who...
I would imagine there's also some tax benefits to businesses just scrapping old furniture and buying new? Something related to depreciation?
Also, Goodwill is great for more than just those who need to buy lower cost items. Their clothing selection is pretty vast considering they're not limited to a supply line from X number of brands like a (new clothing) store is. We've also bought beat up clothing and other items to use for craft projects.
It depends on the depreciation schedule. Office furniture is expected to have a useful lifespan of 7 years after being placed in service. As such, you can only write off 1/7 of the expense each...
It depends on the depreciation schedule. Office furniture is expected to have a useful lifespan of 7 years after being placed in service. As such, you can only write off 1/7 of the expense each year. If you throw it away sooner than that, you do take an immediate loss on the remaining value. But the usefulness of that loss depends on the corporate tax rate, which varies between 21 and 31% for federal and state taxes. Best case scenario, taking a $100 loss saves you $31 in taxes. If you have to buy another $100 item, you're still out $69 as compared to continuing to use the older furniture.
This is a well written summary of what "sustainability" actually entails, and how far we are from reaching it: Because the article is coming from The Next Web, there's obligatory touting of...
This is a well written summary of what "sustainability" actually entails, and how far we are from reaching it:
The material footprint of the average person stands at about 12 to 13 tonnes per year, almost triple what some scientists estimate to be the sustainable limit.
While we often talk about carbon footprint, the impact of our material consumption — resource depletion, habitat destruction, and pollution — is just as critical. And ironically, decarbonisation efforts could even be fuelling the problem.
The race to net zero is driving demand for everything from EVs and solar panels to semiconductors and batteries. All of these climate technologies require heaps of materials, including vast amounts of rare earths like lithium, cobalt, and nickel. In the current economic system, this means more mining, exacerbating ecological degradation and inequality, particularly in many of the world’s poorest countries.
Because the article is coming from The Next Web, there's obligatory touting of startup companies. Some of the technologies are interesting and show promise as steps towards a more circular economy, like recyclable high-strength wood composites for building, reusable structural components, and so on.
I'm (finally!) on vacation this week, and it happens to have been fruitful for good reading.
Ever since I read Bill Gates’ How to Avoid a Climate Disaster, I’ve been a stark proponent of the “green premiums” theory: People, companies and governments at large will only meaningfully start...
Ever since I read Bill Gates’ How to Avoid a Climate Disaster, I’ve been a stark proponent of the “green premiums” theory: People, companies and governments at large will only meaningfully start switching over to and investing in renewables if the alternative technology is a) cheaper or b) only slightly/acceptably more expensive.
The same presumably holds for material consumption: Being wasteful has got to become more expensive (through legislation), or recycling, reusing etc. has to come with great financial savings. There is no other way, otherwise we will (probably) not see widespread adoption of these practices.
I’ve long thought that there should be a government tax on any one-time-use item. Basically put the 10-cent bag charge on everything. You want to go out to eat? Then prepare to pay extra for your...
I’ve long thought that there should be a government tax on any one-time-use item. Basically put the 10-cent bag charge on everything. You want to go out to eat? Then prepare to pay extra for your cups, the lids, the silverware, and the wrappers. Want to buy a bag of produce? Bring your own or pay for a bag. There are all of these little things we use that could be drastically reduced if we just decide to make them worth the damage they do to our environment.
There's some of that in some places, where people get a refund if they return their cans or bottles, things that were made from materials that can be easily recycled. Sadly, the deposit amount...
There's some of that in some places, where people get a refund if they return their cans or bottles, things that were made from materials that can be easily recycled. Sadly, the deposit amount hasn't kept up with the time, but paired with increased taxes or bans on single-use items, the economic landscape can be pushed more towards reusable or recyclable items.
Exactly… and once implemented, it’s typically pretty darn effective. For example, Germany’s Pfand:
the economic landscape can be pushed more towards reusable or recyclable items.
Exactly… and once implemented, it’s typically pretty darn effective. For example, Germany’s Pfand:
The system has successfully encouraged the recycling of Einwegpfand containers. Between 97 and 99% of non-reusable bottles are returned, and recycling rates for cans are around 99%.
Pfand systems for certain types of bottles isn't even something limited to Germany! Tons of countries in Europe have them, and while the rates vary between countries that have implemented such a...
Pfand systems for certain types of bottles isn't even something limited to Germany! Tons of countries in Europe have them, and while the rates vary between countries that have implemented such a system, they're all pretty high (according to these stats, the Netherlands has the lowest collection rate among those who have already implemented such a system, and it's still 70%).
They are consumable, but they are not one use. If it is packaged in a single use container, perhaps it would be worth discouraging with a tax, but that’s a slightly different scenario in my mind.
They are consumable, but they are not one use. If it is packaged in a single use container, perhaps it would be worth discouraging with a tax, but that’s a slightly different scenario in my mind.
I worked at a circular economy startup for about two years... if you think it's hard to get people to reduce their carbon footprints, it's really hard to get people to reuse stuff.
The startup focused on FF&E (basically, stuff companies have lying around). For many businesses, it's way cheaper to trash all their furniture & buy new than it is to go through the effort of documenting what they have & redistributing it. We liked to say our main competitor was a garbage dump.
Part of the reason I left was because I didn't feel like we, as a society, are ready to embrace circular economies yet. Capitalism doesn't reward good deeds, and thus most people will only give a shit once it starts to become cheaper to reuse than buy new. (Incidentally, I believe this is why orgs like Goodwill or Buy Nothing flourish; they target people who have hit the inflection point of "need to get used because of costs.")
As someone who's working for a frugal non-profit in a high CoL area, you're absolutely right. If we need a first aid kit, it is literally less expensive to order a new one off of Amazon than it is to take the time (and thus payroll cost) for me to walk downstairs and look in our storage unit. The comparative cost of labor and materials are such that buying a new thing is nigh-automatically the fiscally sensible choice.
Compare it to Victorian London, where there were rag pickers, sewer divers, and pure finders (people who would salvage feces off the street to sell to tanners.) Labor was worth so little, and resources so precious, that every bit of value was extracted from materials.
Personally, I try to lean as heavily on reuse and reduce as possible, but you're right that it's a systemic problem. Unfortunately, the solutions are to devalue labor or increase the costs for non-essential goods. Tariffs would, if targeted properly, lower consumption of things we should hold more dear. They may be able to be manufactured and shipped cheaply, but if the prices spike for the end consumer we may see changing behavior regarding the willingness to reuse things.
In a sense, capitalism was too successful in making people materially prosperous.
There’s a parallel problem in food waste: we waste so much food because the incentives to fight waste are minimal. In the past, people would work hard to preserve and use every scrap of food. Now? We have food in the pantry we forget about and let expire: for most people, it’s not life or death.
I'd say the issue is more that businesses successfully externalized the cost of environmental degradation and waste disposal. If businesses were actually liable for the harms they cause, things would look much different.
That is true. But this has been a collaboration across all sectors of society: businesses wanting more profit, consumers wanting cheaper goods, and politicians wanting to push/keep consumer prices down.
I was very disappointed when Kamala Harris called tariffs on China a "sales tax on the people" during the presidential debate. Outsourcing manufacturing to countries like China makes it really easy to externalize environmental costs, as well as human costs.
I know a few people who are trying to do ethical consumer goods, but it's impossible for them to scale up in the US and Europe: beyond the few affluent consumers who don't mind paying a hefty premium to feel good about themselves, most consumers don't see the point in paying more than they have to.
I'd like to see policies where tariffs are calculated based on how strong a trade partner country's environmental and labor protections are, so that the competitive advantage of cutting corners on sustainability in low-regulation countries is eliminated.
There’s also the issue of damaged but repairable items. If you missing the time, tools, or expertise to repair them, they’ll either sit around waiting for a repair that will never happen or be donated to the landfill. Doesn’t help any that the process of tracking inventory when you’re not on the clock is an annoying hassle.
Repairs can easily cost more than buying new, too, at least as a non-company individual. Like the time I bought a £6 spring to repair the clasp on a £5 bag strap, or the £95 quote to fix a bag I paid roughly that for a decade ago.
Business furniture is kind of a niche case.
I used to work at a crappy ISP that had few visitors, so it wasn't an issue for them to buy decade-or-more out of date furnishings. [There was a business furniture reseller in the neighborhood.] My desk was one of those indestructible mid-20th Century steel monstrosities that weighed 400 lbs. Chipped enamel, bent drawer slides and all, it was a reliable surface if you needed somewhere to put an 80 lb. server for repairs.
More image-conscious businesses don't desire dated or shabby items. My current employer has a very posh demo center with the latest and greatest everything - they replace all the furnishings, cabinetry, and accoutrements every 5 years or so, with emphasis on the most current styles and color schemes in corporate interior design. They donate the removed items, so it's technically reuse, but not a business model of resale.
I would imagine there's also some tax benefits to businesses just scrapping old furniture and buying new? Something related to depreciation?
Also, Goodwill is great for more than just those who need to buy lower cost items. Their clothing selection is pretty vast considering they're not limited to a supply line from X number of brands like a (new clothing) store is. We've also bought beat up clothing and other items to use for craft projects.
It depends on the depreciation schedule. Office furniture is expected to have a useful lifespan of 7 years after being placed in service. As such, you can only write off 1/7 of the expense each year. If you throw it away sooner than that, you do take an immediate loss on the remaining value. But the usefulness of that loss depends on the corporate tax rate, which varies between 21 and 31% for federal and state taxes. Best case scenario, taking a $100 loss saves you $31 in taxes. If you have to buy another $100 item, you're still out $69 as compared to continuing to use the older furniture.
This is a well written summary of what "sustainability" actually entails, and how far we are from reaching it:
Because the article is coming from The Next Web, there's obligatory touting of startup companies. Some of the technologies are interesting and show promise as steps towards a more circular economy, like recyclable high-strength wood composites for building, reusable structural components, and so on.
I'm (finally!) on vacation this week, and it happens to have been fruitful for good reading.
Ever since I read Bill Gates’ How to Avoid a Climate Disaster, I’ve been a stark proponent of the “green premiums” theory: People, companies and governments at large will only meaningfully start switching over to and investing in renewables if the alternative technology is a) cheaper or b) only slightly/acceptably more expensive.
The same presumably holds for material consumption: Being wasteful has got to become more expensive (through legislation), or recycling, reusing etc. has to come with great financial savings. There is no other way, otherwise we will (probably) not see widespread adoption of these practices.
I’ve long thought that there should be a government tax on any one-time-use item. Basically put the 10-cent bag charge on everything. You want to go out to eat? Then prepare to pay extra for your cups, the lids, the silverware, and the wrappers. Want to buy a bag of produce? Bring your own or pay for a bag. There are all of these little things we use that could be drastically reduced if we just decide to make them worth the damage they do to our environment.
There's some of that in some places, where people get a refund if they return their cans or bottles, things that were made from materials that can be easily recycled. Sadly, the deposit amount hasn't kept up with the time, but paired with increased taxes or bans on single-use items, the economic landscape can be pushed more towards reusable or recyclable items.
Exactly… and once implemented, it’s typically pretty darn effective. For example, Germany’s Pfand:
Thanks for sharing! I was just talking theory; it's cool to see it's already been implemented to great effect.
Pfand systems for certain types of bottles isn't even something limited to Germany! Tons of countries in Europe have them, and while the rates vary between countries that have implemented such a system, they're all pretty high (according to these stats, the Netherlands has the lowest collection rate among those who have already implemented such a system, and it's still 70%).
Should that tax apply to lubricants, sprays, salves/putties, and fuels? They're one-use.
They are consumable, but they are not one use. If it is packaged in a single use container, perhaps it would be worth discouraging with a tax, but that’s a slightly different scenario in my mind.