An interesting dilemma for the libertarians who read my blog. According to this, many of the industrial materials needed to make things like LCDs will be exhausted from known supplies by 2017. Simply put, if these chemicals are gone, there will not be enough materials anymore to continue making a lot of common display technology. Even copper is starting to become scarce.
So how should this be handled? If it is left up to the free market, there are two possibilities. Either someone will eventually figure out a way to get around this using alternate chemicals, or a company will rise up that does industrial recycling and sells the materials that are harvested from landfills to computer companies--probably at significant cost because of the labor force required to pull out the dead electronics, among other factors. The alternative, is state governments make it a misdemeanor to be caught throwing electronics out in the trash. Instead, you have to take them to a special recycling facility or your trash service will do it for you.
I lean toward the former out of principle, but practicality tells me that the latter might be necessary just because of how many people will act like their human rights have been violated by not being able to constantly consume as much electronic hardware as they can afford.
So how should this be handled? If it is left up to the free market, there are two possibilities. Either someone will eventually figure out a way to get around this using alternate chemicals, or a company will rise up that does industrial recycling and sells the materials that are harvested from landfills to computer companies--probably at significant cost because of the labor force required to pull out the dead electronics, among other factors. The alternative, is state governments make it a misdemeanor to be caught throwing electronics out in the trash. Instead, you have to take them to a special recycling facility or your trash service will do it for you.
I lean toward the former out of principle, but practicality tells me that the latter might be necessary just because of how many people will act like their human rights have been violated by not being able to constantly consume as much electronic hardware as they can afford.
It is already illegal in places due to the fact that there are toxic chemicals in things like computers. but more on the point, this isnt the first time that we have heard that the world is running out of copper. It was a big deal a more than a decade ago. But then something happened... Someone figured out how to push signals across fiberglass cables. And its faster too!
I do see copper continuing to go up in value due to the industrialization in India and China as there isnt any alternative on the horizon that I am aware of.
Oh, and the garbage dump recycling will happen, its just a question of "when." Those materials dumped in there will one day be worth getting when one considers the trio of forces that will act upon it... cost of materials to be retrieved, public sentiment (Save The Earth!!!) and government dictate.
addendum
I meant to add, but didnt, that the copper is being used for electricity. There isnt a viable (at this time) alternative to that. Aluminum is a possibility but it is not as good as copper and there is less of it than copper so its not an answer.
Now if we could just make something useful from feldspar...
Because of the toxic chemicals, I'm not convinced that there is an individual liberty issue with forcing people to spend the money to properly dispose of the chemicals or else face some sort of sanction from the government. It's like the issue of dumping chemical waste on your land. It's all fun and games until your waste ends up in someone else's water or destroying someone else's land.
Well, copper is an element, so the world's supply remains constant. Only copper that has been transmuted via some nuclear process is gone forever.
As to the issue at hand, the free market will work wonders when allowed to do so. Years ago, folks were having this same conversation about whale oil; the whales were being killed off faster than they could reproduce, and the fear was that without whale oil to light their lamps, no one would be able to anything after sunset anymore.
Obviously, this fear was unrealized; yet the solution was not to ration whale oil. The rising price of whale oil encouraged free market innovation, and petroleum (kerosene) entered the picture. Later, electric lights would become widespread. We can light our homes all night now, and without using whale oil at all. There is no reason to think the free market cannot solve the copper problem, so long as it is allowed to do so. Unfortunately, our heavy-handed government prevents an awful lot of innovation.
It's all fun and games until your waste ends up in someone else's water or destroying someone else's land.
I know you're being sarcastic here, but I adhere to this sincerely. I should be able to pollute my own land in any way I see fit. And if my pollution spreads to another's property, then that person can sue my butt off, but not until then. And if I sell my land, I must fully disclose everything; this is a simple issue of fraud.
It all comes down to this: who should get to decide what to do with property; the owner, or someone else?