“Right To Repair” Now Taken Over By Cult Of Climastrology

We see this all the time: there’s a legitimate, real world issue, big or small, doesn’t matter, and the Believers in the Cult of Climastrology show up and subsume it into their cultish dogma

Climate change: ‘Right to repair’ gathers force

It is frustrating: you buy a new appliance then just after the warranty runs out, it gives up the ghost.

You can’t repair it and can’t find anyone else to at a decent price, so it joins the global mountain of junk.

You’re forced to buy a replacement, which fuels climate change from the greenhouse gases released in the manufacturing process.

But help is at hand, because citizens in the EU and parts of the USA will soon get a “right to repair” – of sorts.

This consists of a series of proposals from European environment ministers to force manufacturers to make goods that last longer and are easier to mend.

The European proposals refer to lighting, televisions and large home appliances.

At least 18 US states are considering similar laws in a growing backlash against products which can’t be prised apart because they’re glued together, or which don’t have a supply of spare parts, or repair instructions.

Can’t the Cult just leave things alone? Mind their own business? Stop trying to ruin everything? Because you know a lot of people will simply dismiss this out of hand due to the Warmists injecting themselves, despite being a somewhat good idea.

It is a shame, and a waste of a device, and they build up in landfills and such when it is too costly to repair. Sadly, this applies to a lot of products. I thought my fridge had gone on the fritz when I came home the other day and the freezer was melting. Could have been due to an ice cube that got stuck in the outflow, which causes a defrost cycle, or a couple bad things. An error code was flashing. So, I unplugged it for a few minutes, seems OK, but, I’ll have to watch it. Now, if I had to call the repairman, if it was above $400 it would be better to get a new one.

If your TV dies, the cost to repair is usually not worth it. Since many have appliances for years and years, when they die parts are often not available because it is such an “old model.” Things change too quickly. If either my washer or dryer die, or dishwasher, there’s almost no way I’m getting parts for them, as they are both old….heck, the washer and dryer are over 20 years old (which is why buying stuff from Sears was great).

Unfortunately, things are not made to last like they used to be. It’s a disposable system. Everyone is always looking for something newer, so, why make things that last? When I started in wireless way back in 1994 manufacturers talked about their phones lasting 10-15 years. Now you’re lucky if they last 2. Costs are a lot less. In 2008 I bought a 37 inch 1080p TV for $1100 (which had awesome speakers, which today’s tvs do not). Go to Amazon or Best Buy to see what you can get for that now. The 50 and 55 inch TVs I’m looking at to replace the 42 inch I purchased two years ago to replace the 37 (getting vertical lines in screen, guess what, not worth repairing) are both under $800, are highly rated and reviewed, and have everything I want.

The policies have been driven by some arresting statistics.

  • One study showed that between 2004 and 2012, the proportion of major household appliances that died within five years rose from 3.5% to 8.3%.
  • An analysis of junked washing machines at a recycling centre showed that more than 10% were less than five years old.
  • Another study estimates that because of the CO2 emitted in the manufacturing process, a long-lasting washing machine will generate over two decades 1.1 tonnes less CO2 than a short-lived model.
  • Many lamps sold in Europe come with individual light bulbs that can’t be replaced. So when one bulb packs in, the whole lamp has to be jettisoned.

On one hand, it is sometimes better to get a new machine that will be more efficient. But, really, there isn’t that much change in 5 years. I’m not getting the lamps thing. Is that some sort of European thing? Why would you buy a light with a bulb that can’t be a replaced? Unless it is something minor like one of those solar powered lights for your walkway outside that cost $5-$10.

Regardless, Warmists just need to go away.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

9 Responses to ““Right To Repair” Now Taken Over By Cult Of Climastrology”

  1. Professor Hale says:

    There is a reason that no one repairs light bulbs. They are much cheaper to build new ones than fix old ones. There is no possibility that lawmakers will be able to craft a law that can encompass all the possibilities of economically reparable products while excluding those that are not, and update that every 3 months to accommodate the market. The good news is, they don’t have to. The market already provides consumers a wide selection of products that last a long time and products that don’t and consumers are free to choose what they prefer. Even so-called non-reparable cell phones can be repaired for dozens of things that are likely to go wrong, such as cracked screens and dead batteries. Every town has several small shops that specialize in that.

    • I think what they mean for lights are that there are apparently light fixtures, lamps, etc, with non-replaceable bulbs. Not sure why someone would purchase something like that, either than inexpensive stuff. Never really seen that here in the US.

      One thing they aren’t considering is that people will often purchase lower cost stuff that isn’t meant to last that long. Instead of buying a higher end fridge for $1200+, they get the $500-700 one. When my fridge went bad a few years back, I couldn’t afford a really good one, but I did get a good one. I’d like a new 50-55 inch tv, but, I’m not going to buy a $300-$500 one. Besides wanting a very specific feature (at least true 120hz screen, pref 240), I will get a better quality TV. I do not like replacing that often.

  2. gitarcarver says:

    Years ago, a car manufacturer wrote as part of their warranty that the use of non-company parts would violate the warranty for the whole car. That meant if you changed spark plugs or oil filters and didn’t use the manufacturers brand, if the transmission blew up, you were out of luck.

    It took a court to stop that ridiculous practice.

    The same thing happened with printers and printer ink. Manufacturers said the use of non company approved ink was a violation of the warranty. If the sheet feed mechanism failed, and the company saw a secondary market print cartridge, they would deny warranty repair.

    Apple aggressively tries to stop vendors from importing repair parts and calls the parts “counterfeit” and “trademark infringement.”

    The “right to repair” movement seeks to end ridiculous tactics such as the ones listed. Linking it to the cult of climate change is extreme but the cult is extreme.

    The bottom line is that if I purchase a product, I should have the right to fix it, get it repaired or ditch it without any restrictions from outside sources. It’s mine.

    • Professor Hale says:

      Except it isn’t. In the USA, we have something called “intellectual property”, that never becomes “yours” no matter how many times you buy it. So, the car manufacturer may create a product that is sealed and may not be opened without violating the warranty, just like makers of other products.

      The right answer is for rational people to accept what they are willing to accept for the sake of “warranty” and reject the silly at their own risk. No judges, courts, or legislators needed.

      several years ago, some software makers put a lot of expense and effort into copy protection of their products. They got copied anyway. Other software makers put no effort into copy protection and passed that savings onto consumers, resulting in more sales. Still other software makers released products as “freeware” with paid upgrades. The marketplace delivers. No government needed.

      In almost every case, “consumer protection” is nothing more than government taking bribes to limit the marketplace to only those who are paying the bribes.

      • gitarcarver says:

        Except it isn’t. In the USA, we have something called “intellectual property”, that never becomes “yours” no matter how many times you buy it.

        Actually, courts have held that the property does become mine if used for the purpose it was intended. If it were not mine, I could not sell it and courts continue to hold the “right of second sale” to be valid.

        IP is under the same patent and copyright laws as anything else. If I go in and copy chips or software or and image and use it to make my own copy of the product, that is not the same thing as what I was describing where a spark plug was claimed to violate a warranty on the transmission.

        (And by the way, when you buy a transmission, water pump, alternator, etc, you don’t have to buy a licensed product and may buy a remanned or rebuilt unit without the approval or permission of the car company. So if I can do that, the units that are rebuilt come off of other vehicles which means that the person who bought the car can in fact sell or return the part for an in-trade value.)

        There is a whole industry out there that takes things like defective motherboards, electronic parts, and repairs them.

        I have a TV where this came into play. The mainboard died and I was able to find a replacement for it for $40. The cost of replacing the TV itself was over $300 at the time and the mfg was not selling mainboards.

        It’s mine. I paid for it. I did not do anything that affected the IP of the chips or circuits. That is what the right to repair is about.

      • gitarcarver says:

        professor hale,

        With all due respect, you might want to take a gander at the case Impressions v. Lexmark.

        In that case, which in part was based on bypassing coding on a printer cartridge (IP) and reselling the cart itself.

        In the case, in a 7-1 opinion, the Supreme Court held:

        Lexmark exhausted its patent rights in the Return Program cartridges that it sold in the United States. A patentee’s decision to sell a product exhausts all of its patent rights in that item, regardless of
        any restrictions the patentee purports to impose. As a result, even if
        the restrictions in Lexmark’s contracts with its customers were clear
        and enforceable under contract law, they do not entitle Lexmark to retain patent rights in an item that it has elected to sell.

        Quoting another article that sums up the decision:

        The justices agreed 7-1 that Lexmark can’t [stop the sale of remanned cartridges.] (Justice Neil Gorsuch was appointed after the court heard the case.) The court held that Lexmark exhausted its patent rights when it sold its cartridges “regardless of any restrictions the patentee purports to impose.” To allow otherwise, the justices ruled, would adversely impact the economy.

        “Take a shop that restores and sells used cars,” chief justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “The business works because the shop can rest assured that, so long as those bringing in the cars own them, the shop is free to repair and resell those vehicles. That smooth flow of commerce would sputter if companies that make the thousands of parts that go into a vehicle could keep their patent rights after the first sale.”

    • On one hand, I agree. On the other hand, in certain cases, there’s a reason for using certain parts. When I was with wireless, the proliferation of cheap car chargers was killing phones, and the manufacturers could actually tell when one was used, and refused to replace under warranty. My Jeep takes very specific anti-freeze (I think I have a slow leak), and I can really only get it at Jeep. Granted, not under warranty, but they really really really recommend not using just any old anti-freeze.

      They are fixing my shower right now, and can only use Kholer parts. But, I do get your point, because there are many parts that are just fine aftermarket, and may work better. Jeep (and Chrysler products) have a habit of having the window motor part break, so the window will not stay up. Original parts are the same crappy plastic, and cost more. I bought a kit for $80 instead of $400, and the piece was metal.

      • gitarcarver says:

        in certain cases, there’s a reason for using certain parts. When I was with wireless, the proliferation of cheap car chargers was killing phones, and the manufacturers could actually tell when one was used, and refused to replace under warranty.

        So the cheap part actually affected the operation of the cell phone. That’s not the same thing as a spark plug affecting a transmission.

        That’s not the same thing as a printer ink affecting the paper transport mechanism.

        If there is a direct correlation between the replaced part and failure, I have no problem saying the person is out of luck. Still, I have the right to try a cheaper part (if it is made) and live with the consequences.

  3. Dan says:

    Designed obsolescence is real….and it exsts to make tich companies richer at the expense of EVERYONE else…..including the environment. It’s not unreasonable to require companies to make their products robust enough to last a reasonable amount of time AND to make them repairable…AND to make the parts needed to keep them repairable. Efficiency and thrift are NOT dirty words.

Bad Behavior has blocked 4846 access attempts in the last 7 days.