The New York City Council overwhelmingly passed a bill last Wednesday that would require electronics manufacturers to take back products for recycling. But on Friday, NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg said he'll veto it -- and that if his veto is overridden, he'll choose not to enforce the law. The council estimates that more than 25,000 tons of TVs, computers, cameras, and other products are thrown out by NYC residents each year. Bloomberg, generally a greenish kinda guy, admitted that e-waste is a concern, but likened requiring manufacturers to take back electronics to publishers being responsible for readers recycling newspapers. Councilman and bill sponsor Bill De Blasio was bemused: "If there's a legal concern we've said consistently we are willing to try and keep working together. But I'm perplexed because it seems to me they don't disagree with the goals."
source: Associated Press, The New York Times
Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success
Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting
Comments
View as Flat
Wolverine Posted 3:31 pm
19 Feb 2008
Permalink
morganmghee Posted 4:51 pm
19 Feb 2008
only works if the above were not a good idea too, but it actually is.
They are just not getting it, we are asking for a CHANGE, all the way down to the basic trains of thought. All Aboard!
Permalink
Matt Posted 9:45 pm
19 Feb 2008
If the executive officer refuses to enforce a law, can we hold him responsible and toss him in jail?
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 4:38 am
20 Feb 2008
The executive branch is solely in charge of enforcement. Courts have consistently refused to order executives or their agencies to enforce laws. The theory is that if you don't like the fact that the executive or his/her agencies are not enforcing certain laws, you should elect someone who will enforce them.
The problem is that in electoral districts with large numbers of people (mayoral, gubernatorial, senatorial, and worst of all, presidential), it's impossible to get anyone into office who actually represents the majority of the people. This is because large numbers of people follow herding instincts and the candidate who appeals to the lowest common denominator almost always wins. In modern times, large expensive PR machines create images of these candidates for the masses, who are then elected based on those images, even though the images have little or nothing to do with reality (Clinton is a leftist, Obama is against war, etc.).
A parliamentary system where the prime minister has little power would be far more representative. Executives should not have veto power -- this is tyrannical -- and should not appoint heads of agencies, which should be appointed by Congress. Remove all private campaign financing, force the TV networks to give free air time to all candidates and prevent any exclusion from debates, replace our current winner-take-all system with proportional representation, get rid of the House of Lords (AKA, the Senate), and you'll have a much more representative government.
The U.S. has a very right wing population, but it's not as right wing as its government. Of course, people as a whole get the government they deserver, so ...
Permalink
EeeGee Posted 7:39 am
21 Feb 2008
"How'd Bloomberg make all his fortunes?" she asked me.
"Financial data, right?" I replied.
"Yes, but how do they distribute that data?"
"Hmmmm, ya stumped me there, hon."
Well, apparently, Bloomberg transmits all that freshly crunched, up to the minute financial data via special proprietary receiver boxes, which sit on the desks of financial sector professionals worldwide. And probably, they need to be updated/replaced pretty often to keep up w/technology advances. Which means that if there were a take-back mandate, Ol' Bloomie himself (or at least his company) would probably end up with heaps of obsolete BloomBoxes to deal with. And we wouldn't want THAT would we?
We could be wrong, but it's as good an explanation as any.....
Permalink