fbpx
  1. Eduardo Garza
  2. General discussions
  3. Wednesday, 13 April 2016
I am sure that most of the e-waste that is produced around the world is caused by our unsustainable consumption patterns and life-styles.

Those patterns are characterized by our "necessity" to purchase the newest electronic devices or those that are popular without analyzing the environmental and health impacts that this product has or will generete during all its life-cycle.

Despite of many informative campaigns about environmental and health issues related to e-waste, people is not changing its consumption practices and a lot of people keep on thinking that our planet has infinite resources and that "someone" is in charge of waste; that is, throwing our consumption responsabilities to others.

So, how can we promote a real change of consumption life-styles towards those that consider sustainability? I feel that all efforts around the world are not enough to produce the change that our planet needs to fulfill the necessities of our and future generations.
Comment
The growth of consumption in developed countries is closely related to changes in sustainable lifestyles to successfully encourage bearable feasting. Hotels are classified according to six levels of sustainability from zero to five. Cheap Assignment Writing Service
There are no comments made yet.
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
0
Votes
Undo
Eduardo,

I share same sentiments with you. There is substantive multi-pronged need to overcome the unsustainable consumption patterns involving behavioral change, use of economic instruments, enforcement of rules, public information and advocacy, as well as research and development among others. However, it all starts with the consumers who are the gateway to cause change as they demand / or reject a device.

Kimbowa R
Comment
There are no comments made yet.
  1. more than a month ago
  2. General discussions
  3. # 1
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
0
Votes
Undo
I agree with you Eduardo. Everyone want to be the most sophisticated as far as technological advancement is concerned without considering the environment. We are very eager to discard any of our gadget and get the latest one despite the fact that it is still functional. Both informed and uninformed consumers are guilty of this.
Comment
There are no comments made yet.
  1. more than a month ago
  2. General discussions
  3. # 2
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
0
Votes
Undo
I would like to share with you the results of this survey commissioned by the Commission in view of a review process for substitution of the most hazardous chemicals within RACH Regulation.
This report is intended to provide the Committee for Socio-Economic Analysis (SEAC) of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) with information that could be used in the development of a benchmark for assessing the proportionality of restriction proposals and authorization applications for persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) as well as very persistent, very bioaccumulative (vPvB) substances (henceforth: PBTs).
This survey is a retrospective analysis of various political restrictions and authorization for PBT but this could apply to POP substances as well.
Very quickly, my comments (and simple remarks) on the document are:
- introduction: the proposed change is to do an analysis "cost / effectiveness" rather than cost / benefit ", this being justified by the ability to include qualitative parameters in the analysis" cost / benefit ", which is according to the relevant report for PBT where it is difficult to quantify the long-term impact.
- P12 to 14: Cost Estimates: In the various examples, the report attempts to derive the cost per kg of non PBT rejected. these costs are important ranges of, dependent of course on the substance but also on the uncertainty of the analysis (uncertainty analysis are in my view not well described in the document). For PFOS opportunity costs are huge and unexplained. Yet the analysis of PFOS based on various studies
- P14: Risk Management Measures (RMM) are presented as not relevant for PBT. In my opinion this is a somewhat quick shortcut: if a particular compartment is targeted there are ways to target as RMM. So, the costs listed above are mainly opportunity costs rather than the costs of emission reductions.
- P 19: inclusion and exclusion of cost components: I do not understand if the costs of alternative substances developments are well integrated into the overall costs of substitutions. It deserves to be noted in the report.
- P 25 Conclusions from the analysis of the replacements / substitution costs are lower than the costs of rehabilitation. A cost of € 1,000 to € 50,000 per kg substituted PBT is expected, but in the absence of more examples it is difficult to refine the figure and give an indication threshold above which the substitution is economically irrelevant.
Attachments (1)
Comment
There are no comments made yet.
  1. more than a month ago
  2. General discussions
  3. # 3
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
0
Votes
Undo
I some how feel, It is also about companies and organisation's need to constantly boost sales. Most electronic gadgets companies bring in new models with marginal improvement & features and thus enticing consumers to buy the latest gadget, in the name of upgraded new modelThus boosting their sales year on year and contributing to the e-waste.

Secondly, it is also some kind of secret policy to not make durable products. Compared to earlier decade, electronic gadgets spoil easily or become slow and hence there is again passive push to make consumer buy new gadget.

In the light of mounting e-waste, i think there should be some regulation on the companies to make harward easily upgradable instead of junking it.
Comment
There are no comments made yet.
  1. more than a month ago
  2. General discussions
  3. # 4
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
0
Votes
Undo
Researches says that many of the today's disease are because of the life-style adopted by the people. Health issues are the major aftermaths of these necessities where out activities are shrink. Before, daily activities of people were so much that they had never felt about the diseases we heard now a days. Gadgets socialized us worldwide by sitting on a chair but minimized our social norms too. We found a rush of the people walking for weight loss or diabetic therapy or Cardiac issues in early ages of citizens now a days. But they are on ground after its so late and they are caught into these diseases. Those who have not been yet detected with any of such diseases, they still work, eat and sleep on a same chair and table in front of their laptop taking them towards very difficult stage. Even necessity has some limitations and they could be realized which part should be given how much time. Although, Techno advancement is so fast but these things should not be neglected.
Comment
There are no comments made yet.
  1. more than a month ago
  2. General discussions
  3. # 5
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
0
Votes
Undo
The general definition outlined above set the scope of consumption of goods and services with the aim of
peoples’ quality of life in a long‐term perspective. The sustainability content is the environment and natural
resources. However, the concept of sustainable consumption has evolved over time and different
organisations have contributed to add flavour to the definitions with some modifications in scope, aims and
actors involved. You can refer to an article on Sustainable consumption and lifestyles in the website of Best interior designers in Trivandrum
Comment
There are no comments made yet.
  1. more than a month ago
  2. General discussions
  3. # 6
  • Page :
  • 1


There are no replies made for this post yet.
Be one of the first to reply to this post!