Hacker News Reader

Comment by kijin | Hacker News Reader

The problem is that current market prices do not accurately reflect negative externalities such as pollution, exploitation of cheap labor, depletion of natural resources, and exacerbation of socioeconomic inequalities. We just dump our trash somewhere and hope that someone else will deal with it someday.

If there's a reliable mechanism to make market prices better reflect such externalities, I'm all for it. But until we've found and implemented such a mechanism on a large scale, a bit of moralizing wouldn't hurt.

View on HN

Even to the extent that may be true, it does not follow that "As individual consumers, the single best thing we can do for the planet is to keep our stuff in use longer." as the article claims. There are almost certainly better things most individuals could do.

I think moralizing is actually pretty harmful in the context of environmental issues. It leads to things like wasted resources on inefficient recycling programs, ill advised programs like ethanol subsidies, biased evaluation of the merits of the best options for power generation and other examples of schemes that prioritize moralizing and making people feel that they're doing something over actual positive results.

I agree with you about moralizing - it can be (and often is) harmful. But in this case the advice is sound. Taking care of your stuff, not discarding it just because it is a bit worn around the edges, and trying to repair it instead of just discarding + buying new; is there something wrong with this approach? not sure it is a "single best thing", but it would make a difference. A large one imho.

It's almost certainly not economically efficient for a software engineer to be darning their own socks. Economic efficiency doesn't align perfectly with resource or energy efficiency in an environmental sense but in this example it is still likely true.

There are economic and environmental costs to everyone having the tools, skills and supplies to repair a reasonable range of products. At the least it likely makes more sense to have a specialist perform any but the most basic repairs rather than doing it yourself.

In some cases repairs make sense from an efficiency perspective, in some they don't. All I'm really saying is that it's better to evaluate the more efficient choice dispassionately rather than painting repair as somehow morally superior to buying new.

You can pay someone to repair your stuff and make the local economy grow instead of dumping and buying a shiny new toy from a big corporation.

Buying new is often not optimal since the stuff you buy istantly is worth something like 20% less from the moment you buy it.

You pay to avoid the risk of buying an used object, for example, but I'm not sure that buying new is the more efficient choice every time.

I'm pretty sure that neither buying new nor repairing is the most efficient choice every time. I also think that it should be a decision based on efficiency and not moralizing.

Buying new may or may not be optimal in any given situation but the resale value is only relevant if you decide to resell, it's not a general argument against buying new.

Perhaps the software engineer will become redundant and have to take up darning socks when AI replaces them? It starts to get kind of sketchy when you start dictating how people should spend their time, as if the economy will always take care of them and the environment, so long as they play by the rules of economic efficiency. There are perverse/detrimental incentives in most economies. To suggest that economies and markets are inherently well intentioned seems simplistic and naive.

Environmental economic impact are usually only felt when the damage is so severe it starts to affect the supply chain while a company is still in business, which may take years or decades to manifest. By then the economic cost of the environmental damage may be too great for the company to properly deal with. All too often companies leave behind environmental devastation for others to clean up, and are absolved of the actual economic and environmental harm of their actions. Perhaps it becomes something that society has to deal with through higher taxes, but that just hides the cost rather than including it in the price seen on store shelves.

  It's almost certainly not economically efficient for a software engineer
  to be darning their own socks.

...or cooking their own meals. Or raising their own children. Or commenting on HN.

I don't know about you, but I don't do a very good job of software engineering 100% of my waking time, even if doing so would certainly be more economically efficient than the alternative. 8 hours a day? Sure. 10 hours? Maybe. 12? Probably not, especially for extended periods.

We all make decisions about how we spend our time, both on and off the clock. Personally, I'm perfectly capable of sewing a loose button while watching TV and still consider it downtime. Even if I could easily afford to buy a new shirt instead.

I agree with you that you shouldn't at all costs repair everything or do everything yourself. But I'll happily assign some of my spare time to maintenance tasks, and I think doing so does make economic sense as well as environmental.

I would not be surprised if that is truly the most effective behavior change for a group of people to execute on.

I'm sure that individuals among us may be in a position to help our planet in a more effective manner, but the old saying "reduce, reuse, recycle" is in that order for a reason.

I'm sure this campaign brings a ton of branding benefit to Patagonia, but I certainly can't dismiss it as a cynical ploy to take a hypocritical moral stand. It takes a fair bit of courage to take out a huge ad on Black Friday and say "our company's products damage the earth. Here are the numbers. Please don't buy them unless you need to." The world would be a better place if more companies were willing to be that forthright.

In any event, they are literally publishing numbers about the impact of their manufacturing process. So it should be straightforward to determine how optimal her strategy is.

(Incidentally, I'd love to see those sorts of numbers across more industries. For example: should I keep driving my 9-year-old gas car, or should I incur the environmental impact of battery manufacture etc. for a new hybrid or all-electric? If the former, then at what point should I ditch my current car, given how many miles I drive annually?)

You have changed 'individual consumers' to individual.

As a consumer, make the choice to consume goods that cause less harm and then make them last longer. As an individual, there are likely better things you can do, sure.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com