|
 
- 帖子
- 137
- 积分
- 34
- 原创译作
- 24 篇
- 注册时间
- 2009-11-19
|
Extended producer responsibility spreads
Junk bond
垃圾之约
Governments oblige manufacturers to take back used goods for disposal
各政府责成制造商回收处理废旧物品
Mar 31st 2010 | NEW YORK | From The Economist print edition
FOR seasoned shoppers, “buyer’s remorse” is a familiar feeling. “Seller’s remorse” may also become common soon, as ever more governments order manufacturers to assume the cost of disposing of their products after consumers are done with them. Until recently, most laws on “extended producer responsibility” (EPR) or "product stewardship" applied only to specific types of goods, such as car tyres or electronics. But in late March Maine, following the lead of several Canadian provinces, became the first American state to enact a blanket EPR law, which could in principle cover any product.
对购物老手们来说，买家的烦恼感受是何等地熟悉。随着越来越多的政府规定制造商要对顾客消费其产品后所产生的处置成本承担责任，卖家的烦恼不久也会渐变司见惯。至今，大多关于“延伸生产者责任”和“产品职责”法律仅适用于一些特殊商品，比如汽车轮胎和电子产品。在加拿大几个省的带领下，三月下旬缅因州成为美国{dy}个颁布全体EPR法律的州，该法律在原则上将覆盖任何产品。
Governments are eager to unload some responsibility for waste management onto manufacturers, especially for products that are hard to recycle or may be toxic, such as electronics, batteries, paint, car parts and pesticide containers. It helps them cut costs, for one thing—handy for local authorities short of cash in the recession. In Maine, which has had an EPR law for electronic waste since 2004, municipalities save $1.5m-3m annually because manufacturers have picked up the cost of collection, according to the Natural Resources Council of Maine. Governments also hope that EPR laws will encourage firms to rethink the way they make products, designing them for longevity and recyclability rather than for the landfill.
各政府渴望摆脱与制造商废物管理相关的一些责任，尤其对那些难以回收或可能致毒的产品，比如电池、颜料、汽车零部件和农药容器。这能帮助他们砍掉费用，特别是在缺钱的萧条时期，这对地方当局而言是好事。在缅怀州自2004年起已有关于电子废弃物EPR法律，据缅因州自然资源委员会报告，因制造商们负责收集费用让市政当局每年节省了150万—300万的开支。各政府也希望EPR法律能够鼓励各公司改造产品生产方式，在设计上更多考虑延长产品寿命和回收利用而不是垃扱填埋。
Thirty-one of America’s 50 states have produc-specific EPR laws. The European Union requires manufacturers to dispose of packaging, electronics and vehicles. Canada and Japan also have EPR laws. Other countries, such as Australia, have flirted with the idea.
美国50个州中有31个州有特定产品的EPR法律。欧盟要求生产商对包装、电子产品和车辆进行处置。加拿大和日本亦有EPR法律。其它国家诸如澳大利亚等也曾有相关的想法。
Maine’s new “framework” law makes it much easier to expand the scope of EPR schemes, by establishing a process for adding products to the list of those covered without requiring a new law each time. The state government, which already enforces five product-specific EPR laws, is now said to have carpet-makers and drugs firms in its sights.
缅因州的新法律体系让EPR方案扩大范围变得容易许多，通过对所覆盖产品目录的增加设立法定程序，这样就不用每次增加都要颁布新法律。已执行五项特定产品EPR法律的缅因州政府现据说又要把地毯制造商和药品制造商囊括其中。
This worries businesses, few of which are eager to pick up the bill for waste disposal. Some business associations, such as the California Chamber of Commerce, have denounced EPR bills as “job killers”. They point out that the increased costs are ultimately borne by consumers. But that does not worry supporters of EPR, who argue that the price of a product should reflect its full “life-cycle” costs, including disposal, rather than simply leaving taxpayers to make up the difference. Moreover, unless manufacturers are forced to bear the costs, they will have no incentive to make their wares easy to dispose of.
这让各公司忧虑重重，它们中鲜有打算承担废品处理的。一些商业协会，诸如加州商会，就谴责EPR帐单为职业杀手。他们指出这些增长的支出最终会传递到消费者。但EPR的支持者对此不以为然，他们认为产品的价格应该反应产品生命周期内所有的支出，包括处置费用，而不是仅让纳税人来填补其中的空缺。因此，除非生产商被迫承担支出，否则他们没有动力去改造他们货物以便于处置。
Scott Cassel, executive director of the Product Stewardship Institute, a non-profit organisation, says he has noticed different “stages of grief for companies” coping with the reality of EPR, starting with denial and moving to begrudging acceptance. Not all companies are mourning, however. Some manufacturers and retailers have voluntarily rolled out collection programmes in states that do not require them. Hewlett-Packard, a technology firm, claims to design its products with ease of recycling in mind—cradle-to-cradle, as the jargon has it. Staples, which sells office supplies, and Home Depot, a home-improvement retailer, both offer national take-back programmes in their stores for such items as computer monitors, compact fluorescent light bulbs and batteries. Such programmes may enhance customer loyalty, particularly among environmentally conscious consumers.
Scott Cassel，是产品管理学院—一家非赢利组织的执行董事，他说他已注意到在应对EPR这事实中各公司有不同阶段的伤痛反应，开始时是反对，接着是不情愿地接受。然而并非所有的公司都为此悲伤。在某些州，在无人要求下，一些制造商和零售商已自发地推出回收计划。惠普公司，一家科技公司，声明在它的产品设计中就秉承了易于回收的理念，正如行话所言：从摇篮到摇篮。斯特普尔斯，一家卖办公设备零售商，家得宝公司，一家家装零售商，这俩公司都提出在它们店内对某些品类实行全国性的回收计划，比如电脑显示器、紧凑型荧光灯泡和电池。此类活动能够加强顾客的忠诚度，尤其对那些具有环保意识的顾客。
Some companies may also be hoping that starting their own collection programmes could help them pre-empt legislation. “We thought we could get out in front of this and set up a system to collect our products, and the exact opposite happened,” says Doug Smith of Sony, an electronics giant. He does not believe EPR laws have much impact on product design.
某些公司可能也希望自行开展回收计划能够帮助他们先行于法律。“我们认为我们能够先于法律解决这些问题，并建立一系统回收我们的产品，由此正确的对应效果就会产生。”
电子产品巨头公司索尼的Doug Smith如是说道。他并不认为EPR法律对产品设计有重大影响。
Companies’ biggest gripe about EPR laws is not their cost but their inconsistency. Few states have the same requirement,making compliance complicated. Many businesses would favour a national policy rather than a patchwork of local laws. EPR laws, it seems, are set to win extended responsibility themselves.
各公司对EPR法律{zd0}的抱怨不是成本支出而是它们的非一致性。鲜有州有相同的要求，这让制造商要遵循的制度错综复杂。许多公司都宁可喜欢一个国家政策而不是东拼西凑的地方性法规。EPR法律的设立似乎是为它们自己挣取更多的职责。 |
|
积累
现金
本周之星
奖励译文
![酒泉[腾讯新闻]耐腐蚀背景墙](https://pic17_1.qiyeku.com/qiyeku_pic/2017/6/28/mnkzs/news/news_pic/image/2017_08_04/20170804030353797.jpg)
