by pelmut » Mon Sep 21, 2020 1:24 am
Faldaguy wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 10:05 pm
-- but, is "cost-effective" the bottom line we want --
Yes, if you use 'cost' to represents the true and total cost to the environment, not one that is skewed by subsidies or commercial pressures. Many of the so-called 'green' technologies are made to appear economical by means of subsidies, skewed taxation and feed-in tarrifs. The buyer of a new electric car sees reduced road tax up front, but doesn't see the hidden environmental cost of scrapping the previous car which has become economically unrepairable through bad design, non-availability of parts or changes in regulations or fashion.
Repair is best.
Re-use is second best.
Recycling is bad.
Throwing away is worst of all.
pelmut » Mon Sep 21, 2020 10:29 am
Shilo wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 6:42 am
Another note :- Reduce is better than repair surely
Yes, I think we should add that to the list.
I think the notion of reduce was correctly raised earlier as implied in reduced population and consumption to keep the load on mother earth sustainable; and should be at the top of the list, not just an addendum to newer notions.
With regard to " the buyer of a new electric car" -- Why Pelmut do you focus exclusively on EV's in your contention ("hidden environmental cost of scrapping the previous car which has become economically unrepairable through bad design, non-availability of parts or changes in regulations or fashion.") given that is equally true for the person buying any new car with regard to total environmental impact. Please note, disregarding total environmental cost has been widely used by the purveyors of nuclear power not factoring in the externalities of waste management.
And though I agree with the need to consider the total impacts of our manufacture, purchase and consumption -- the point I was seeking to make was not that -- but when asking is "cost effective" the bottom line we wanted -- I meant to point out that sometimes the best outcomes may actually cost more. I do not want to get the cheapest product if it is detrimental to life. I do not want to support manufacturers who promote a cheap alternative (that often increases their bottom line) if it endangers others. A simple example: Buying organically produced and marketed food often costs the consumer more than the non-organic item at the counter -- but the organic option may have less total cost to the environment, to the health of farm-workers, to the soil, surrounding wildlife, and maybe even our own health and demands upon the medical system. Sometimes it is better to pay a bit more and not be "bottom line" (greed) driven.