product lifetime,if all the people of the world want to do there bit for the environment!?

Question

should companys be made to build things to last as long as humanly possible,instead of building things to fail after so long ,because they want to make monster profits, is it time for the goverment to act,or just blame the little guy for haveing to replace everything so often and bring in green taxs

Answer 1

At last I find a sensible soul-mate, because I have stated exactly this in answer to another question.

With a background in finance and transportation, I know a few things about the global economic system, and quite a lot about the vast amount of energy used to move things around. Globalisation further increases energy use, due to the fact that things are moving all around the planet, and then being distributed.

My first job was as an apprentice organ-builder.......a slow, meticulous, craftsmanship trade, where things don't just last 10 or 20 years, but possibly last for centuries. (The oldest organ I have played was built around 1540).

It is only in the past 100 years that mass-production has replaced craftsmanship, and at an increasing rate during the past 50 years, so that almost everything is now produced quickly, cheaply and efficiently, in huge production plants, and then shipped here, there and everywhere; only to be thrown away after a short period.

As a consequence, most of our effort and most of our working life is spent serving that purpose, and the purpose is consumerism on an unprecedented scale.

Because things fall apart quite quickly very often, we have the situation where NEW things replace old things at an ever increasing rate, and a perfect example of this are computers and mobile phones, which get design-upgraded every 12 months or so; thus making people want the latest product, even though they don't need it. THAT is consumerism rather than NEED.

I have said elsewhere, that forcing manufacturers to make things to an acceptable level of longevity, would have a dramatic effect on production levels, and thus the use of energy. At a stroke almost (maybe 5 to 10 years), this would cut energy use dramatically: not just at source, but in things like transport, re-cycling, warehousing etc etc.

Many would argue that this would cause mass unemployment and stop the development of emerging economies, and as things stand in the world of neo-liberal economics and unchecked monetarism, that may be true. However, on the basis that money equals work/use of resources, as part of the economic cycle, then a shift in priority would not necessarily lead to unemployment. It could, if managed right, result in different and better types of employment for many people.

Having worked as a craftsman, I know that companies who refurbish and rebuild things can make money, and that often includes a degree of modernisation or improvement to the original. It's a far better way of doing things, because it is much less wasteful of precious resources and doesn't create a mountain of mixed waste, which then has to be processed at great expense.

To give a practical example of the possibilities, there is a method of building motor-vehicles known as "base frame construction," where an underlying structure has things bolted to it. (The Rover 2000 was an example of this).

If instead of scrapping, melting down, making new sheet, pressing new bodies (etc), a car could be upgraded and refurbished, then the overall energy used could be cut dramatically. This could apply to many things, from TV's through to computers, fridges, furniture (etc etc)........possibly even houses.

It doesn't have to be all doom and gloom and taxation, because science, technology and production engineers already have the knowledge, and can adapt it to new purposes..

The trick is to convince the financial world of the multi-nationals and institutional investors, who only ever think in terms of maximising profits as quickly as possible.

This is perhaps the different way of doing things, and the accountants and investors could be part of it. If they, and us, cannot find an alternative, and it is left to the blunt instrument of taxation and government legislation, then not only do we suffer, the accountants/investors would suffer also.

Being sensibly "green" does not mean wiping out the entrepreneurs of this world.

Answer 2

yeah definitely we need to get rid of the disposable stuff and start using things we can use for many years. We had a real stupid thing, our Maytag (remember they are supposed to work forever and be the best, the tv commercials showed the guy standing around doing nothing) broke, it's older from the 1970's, the motor blew, well the guy we called said they don't make them anymore and there is no substitute motor that would work, meaning we had to buy a new washer costing several hundred dollars, how stupid is that? Someone could come out with a line of products called Discontinued Goods Unlimited and make or stock parts for everything others stopped making, they would have a good living and help the environment too cause look at all the waste of things we throw out. Our old washer was picked up on big trash day but stlll it probably went to some landfill when all it needed was a motor, that's pathetic.

Everyones so hurry hurry fast gotta have total convenience not caring how it affects other people. Cars aren't meant for more than a few years, that's a major expense and loss, there's all the old body parts laying in dumps. Why not make a good sturdy car and stock the parts so you can use it 20 years instead of 3-4. People are just so stupid, it amazes me. It doesn't take a genius to see how these things affect the environment.

Answer 3

The reason you are correct is because appearances are deceiving. I have seen more people judge another based solely on the way they were dressed. They either avoided them or wanted to be their friend. Case in point; you are at a party. In one corner there sits a poorly dressed person. In the other corner is a white male wearing a 3k dollar suit. Which person would you talk to at the party? Why would you not talk to both? If you chose the well dressed man how do you know that he is trustworthy more then the guy who is dressed poorly? The reason I ask is because reality does not say the better dressed man is more reliable then the poorly dressed man. In reality many people have been duped by well dressed men and have lost everything including their lives. Did the clothes mean he was safer then the poorly dressed man? If you do not believe me then explain this reality. Bernie Madoff, Al Capone, Ted Bundy, Priests, Doctors, Lawyers, watch dateline about predators. They do not look like bums and they work at jobs that you would say wow never would have thought they would do that. We are not equiped to see into the hearts of others we are easily distracted by flare. You must learn to ignore those things and look at the actual person to see who they really are. Do not judge but look and be discerning.

Answer 4

This is a great idea but it will never be put into action. Back in the old days they were making things tough that lasted very long. But nowadays they make it such that it lasts a few years and that's it. One reason is because technology is advancing fast. Let's say they make a computer monitor that lasts a lifetime. Obviously the price for that will be more. The downside will be that it will become obsolete once a new and better technology comes out. So customers will not pay as much for something that have a chance of becoming obsolete in a few years.

Another reason is that the huge corporations donate money to get their favourite politicans elected. And the politicians make sure they do everything in their power to benefit those corporations as much as possible. They don't care about me and you. All they care is more money.

Answer 5

Well said. You'll be pleased to know that the gov. are bringing in a law this year (so I have read in a decent newspaper) that says that electronics companies have to take back their old products free of charge when they need to be recycled. So maybe now the f'ers will make something decent for once and not a piece of cr@p that I have to replace in 2 weeks because its broken, unrepairable or obselete. (mind you, the demand for super cheap goods is partly our fault too. They trick us into it, the slime!)

Answer 6

Here, here! I agree, appliances for example lasted far longer years ago than they do today!
Some of these appliances, eg, fridges cause a great deal of harm to our environment, but in 20yrs of marriage I have had about 5 of them, 3 in the last 8/7years and now this one i have needs replacing!
So, yes, the government should step in! ASAP!

Good point made! Well done!

Answer 7

You are so right, we live in a throw away society and as you say, we hardly have much choice in the matter! Unfortunately the government probably wouldn't want to act because of the economy they generate for the UK! Lose-lose situation!

Answer 8

Where's the money in that? They can build items that could last a lifetime....but why do that? We have economies of growth that rely on consumerism! For our economies to be healthy, people need to buy, and buy and buy and buy!!!!