Ecology vs Disposable Electronic Cigarette

[ElectronicSupersonic]

Full disclaimer! I do not smoke, neither I do encourage anybody to smoke. Smoking is unhealthy!

Locally it's common place to find discarded disposable electronic cigarettes (DEC). Usually in public trash bins. Together with old-fashioned cigarette buds.

These days in western civilisation ecology is the hottest topic. With every major business virtues signalling how much it cares about ecology (carbon neutrality and such). When we have this thing - DEC. Take a look at the attached image. That's how a typical DEC looks like disassembled.

Compared to the classic cigarette, it most certainly doesn't scream ecology (not that classic cigarettes are eco friendly, but still) . And yet these things are discarded left, right and centre into common garbage bins. 

Hypocrisy in its finest!

[Haenk]

Just awful.

[BrokenYugo]

These all in one throwaway units should really have a fairly substantial deposit (5 bucks?) attached to encourage proper disposal.

[AVGresponding]

The rechargeable Li-ion cells in them are a particularly egregious waste. Big Clive has some videos on this and how to reuse them.

[RJSV]

U.S. is STILL trying (barely) to figure out PROHIBITION.
  I've seen some advanced thinking folks, who believe in a concept called 'Harm Reduction'.
   You can buy all the alcohol you want., over on aisle #2.

[RJSV]

Um, just to clarify:
   I think tobacco is the worst, for shortened life-spans;
Just ask Sir George Harrison (r.i.p. at 57),  or ask
   Eddie Van Halen.  Shortened lives.
   An e-cig deposit, plus a subtle little 'factoid' sheet with every purchase, isn't too much burden.

[victorb]

I used to smoke regular cigarettes and knew it was bad for the planet because of all the litter. That's one reason I switched to vaping. It made me feel better health-wise, and I thought it was a bit better for the environment too.

I've noticed more people around me vaping instead of smoking, which seems to reduce the litter from cigarette butts. But there's still a problem with throwing away used vapes. For over five years, I've been using Lostmary Vapes, and it's been good for me. I like thinking I'm doing something a little better for the earth. Plus, vaping has helped my health, and it's nice to see others choosing it too, hopefully making things a bit cleaner.

[themadhippy]

cant understand people bothering with the disposables,at a  rough guesstimate  i recouped the cost of my vape in about 2 months compared to using disposables.

[SiliconWizard]

cant understand people bothering with the disposables,at a  rough guesstimate  i recouped the cost of my vape in about 2 months compared to using disposables.

Disposables are a disaster from an environmnental perspective, and just for common sense and the consumers' finances.
The reason they appeared is just like for the industrial cigarettes decades ago: it's a potential goldmine for manufacturers, and (some, many for the cigarettes) consumers fall for it because it's quick and easy: no preparation, no maintenance, no nothing.

[Andy Chee]

cant understand people bothering with the disposables

As it is with anything disposable, such as disposable film cameras, or disposable plastic cutlery, or disposable nappies, it all comes down to convenience.

Although disposable vapes may have marginal environmental benefit when compared to cigarettes, disposable vapes do NOT have an environmental benefit when compared to reusable vapes.

In any case, the majority of environmental benefit originates from the user, not the product.  A lazy smoker discarding cigarette butts onto the ground, is no different to a lazy vaper discarding disposable vapes into the regular trash.

[magic]

Although disposable vapes may have marginal environmental benefit when compared to cigarettes, disposable vapes do NOT have an environmental benefit when compared to reusable vapes.

I don't understand in which universe is a coctail of chemicals in the battery and a bunch of plastic and all the filth involved in manufacturing those things supposed to be "cleaner" than a pack of ordinary cigs, which is basically 100% plant material and simple processing.

I would very much prefer to go back to smokers poisoning themselves.

[Andy Chee]

Although disposable vapes may have marginal environmental benefit when compared to cigarettes, disposable vapes do NOT have an environmental benefit when compared to reusable vapes.

I don't understand in which universe is a coctail of chemicals in the battery and a bunch of plastic and all the filth involved in manufacturing those things supposed to be "cleaner" than a pack of ordinary cigs, which is basically 100% plant material and simple processing.

I would very much prefer to go back to smokers poisoning themselves.

You are assuming that smokers are correctly disposing of the cigarette butts.  In Australia, our cigarette smokers drop their butts onto the ground, which makes its way into storm water drains and waterways, eventually washing back up on the beach, or eaten by wildlife.  And sometimes the non-extinguished butts are thrown into dry grassland, igniting bushfires.

Either way, discarded butt waste is the bane of ecological damage.

[magic]

The assumption that they properly dispose of disposable vapes is equally wrong

Butts are biodegradable at least.

[Andy Chee]

Butts are biodegradable at least.

No they are not.

The assumption that they properly dispose of disposable vapes is equally wrong

I'm not necessarily assuming that either, but the evidence here speaks otherwise i.e. I've only picked up about a dozen or so vapes off the street and salvaged the batteries for my collection, compared to thousands of cigarette butts on the street.

[themadhippy]

Quote from: magic on Today at 01:41:52 pm

    Butts are biodegradable at least.

No they are not.

the filter is the worst offender,the rest is just plant material.

[ebastler]

Quote from: magic on Today at 01:41:52 pm

    Butts are biodegradable at least.

No they are not.

the filter is the worst offender,the rest is just plant material.

By the way: Quoting on this forum is best done via the "Quote" link each post has, right next to the "Reply" link. That inserts a proper quote, with a headline that links to the source of the quote, and with nested quotes inside if applicable. It always starts as a full quote of the respective post, but you can edit it for brevity of course.

[SiliconWizard]

Quote from: magic on Today at 01:41:52 pm

    Butts are biodegradable at least.

No they are not.

the filter is the worst offender,the rest is just plant material.

Well, even the bad filter is candy compared to all materials in a disposable e-cig.

[Kleinstein]

With a lithium cell they should not land in normal waste. Especially if not completely empty  (the user can't tell the difference between empty and broken heater) it is a fire hazzard in the waste.

[tszaboo]

I've read a study about a decade ago that Li-Ion batteries were several times worse for the environment than Li metal primaries. So you need to make sure it is charged and used maybe half a dozen times to break even. Then there is the safety aspect. I don't know if it's an issue of current capability, lack of understanding or price why they are not used for throwaway items like these.

These all in one throwaway units should really have a fairly substantial deposit (5 bucks?) attached to encourage proper disposal.

I'm a bit puzzled that our politicians thought that placing 5 cent deposit on alu beer cans was a good idea and they do nothing about this. They were collected and recycled anyway in the past. And now you cannot just crush it.

[Rick Law]

Trouble with the disposable society we are in now...

From E-Cig to dish washer to refrigerator to even cars.  Everything is made to be throw away after a short life.  With the advancement in manufacturing technologies, making a new one is cheap.  Keeping it going is too expensive.  Disposable E-Cig is guilty but hardly alone.  Average minds have been conditioned to expect things not to be durable.

Looking at present day appliances, so many of them are tied to Apps, which has life expectancy tied to the phone's version, the battery, the manufacturer being around, the ability of Google/Apple supporting certain outdated function, so on, so on... whichever is shortest.

Less than a week ago (Feb 22), AT&T has a nation wide network 11 hours long outage/disruption.  I suppose some would have been unable to unlock their front door; some might have been hungry because they can't order their lunch or dinner; some might have been wondering for 11 hours how dirty his/her clothing must be since the phone still hasn't told them their wash is done...

I recalled years ago in the office, we used to joke about "can you imagine needing to reboot your coffee maker?"  Now it is reality.

May be someday and hopefully someday soon, durability will come back in fashion rather than today's domination of modernity of design.

[RJSV]

   Yes, RickLaw, I see that kind of 'Tech Decay' (and searching for a good, coined term to describe).   I've been using, temporarily, the known common-term, 'Dumb Ass', privately, to connotate a truly smart person or trend, that fails in some common sense level.
Doctors that don't have the social exposure that teaches that all street drugs NOT same, regardless of truly scientifically established 'overdose' and fatality numbers.  Or watched any of the riveting 'Breaking Bad' episodes....
   Dumb+Ass in waste and toxics professions might mean overemphasis on small, apparent waste issues, meanwhile ignoring the large but similar content, like plastic milk and water / beverage containers.
   One of my pet peeves, is how some municipalities can, like, re-consolodate the separated trash routes, back into one big steaming pile, at the waste management site....or was that just a myth going around ?

[Andy Chee]

One of my pet peeves, is how some municipalities can, like, re-consolodate the separated trash routes, back into one big steaming pile, at the waste management site....or was that just a myth going around ?

That often happens where I live.  It's usually because the depot has reached its capacity limit in terms of processing recyclables (for whatever reason, staff shortage, equipment malfunction, etc).  So instead the separated trash gets combined again and the entire lot goes to landfill.

[SiliconWizard]

One of my pet peeves, is how some municipalities can, like, re-consolodate the separated trash routes, back into one big steaming pile, at the waste management site....or was that just a myth going around ?

That often happens where I live.  It's usually because the depot has reached its capacity limit in terms of processing recyclables (for whatever reason, staff shortage, equipment malfunction, etc).  So instead the separated trash gets combined again and the entire lot goes to landfill.

Yes, and meanwhile, they increasingly mandate that people sort their waste and some municipalities can now even fine people if they don't do it properly. And yes, in many cases, a singificant proportion of the sorted waste ends up getting mixed together again. So is the fact that people comply more important than the end result? (I'll ask my favorite sheep.)

[helius]

Less than a week ago (Feb 22), AT&T has a nation wide network 11 hours long outage/disruption.  I suppose some would have been unable to unlock their front door; some might have been hungry because they can't order their lunch or dinner; some might have been wondering for 11 hours how dirty his/her clothing must be since the phone still hasn't told them their wash is done...

I recalled years ago in the office, we used to joke about "can you imagine needing to reboot your coffee maker?"  Now it is reality.

The irony is that this scenario is not any kind of surprise. E.M. Forster wrote "The Machine Stops" over a hundred years ago.
The reason it is inevitable is because the logic of short-term profit (known as finance capitalism or financialization) does not allow any room for durability or resiliency as goals. When things work, the profits are privatized through asset management firms. When they break down, the losses are socialized and bailed out by the taxpayers. The only way out is for a collapse of the entire economic system, which today does not look that far off.

[Andy Chee]

This is the scene along a freeway concrete dividing barrier.

[Bud]

 

[tszaboo]

This is the scene along a freeway concrete dividing barrier.

And this is the same picture for Africa:

90% of the trash is being disposed uncontrollably. Did you ever wonder where all that plastic in the ocean comes from? Do you really think its the plastic straws served in the mcdonalds in Brussels? While we struggle to get the remaining 0.1% of our trash under control, all of it ends up on the side of the road and in the rivers in Africa. And nothing is being done about it.

[AVGresponding]

Nitpicking I know, but that looks more like India than Africa to me...

[tszaboo]

Nitpicking I know, but that looks more like India than Africa to me...

Source: https://www.forbesafrica.com/focus/environment/2022/04/28/a-waste-of-time-when-will-the-circular-economy-come-around/

[Andy Chee]

Do you really think its the plastic straws served in the mcdonalds in Brussels?

Well it could be?  What does Brussels do with its plastic waste?  Several years ago, Australia used to ship its plastic waste to China.  I'm sure some European countries used to ship their plastic waste to Africa.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/17/waste-plastic-eu-ban-exports-non-oecd-countries

But the vape freeway photo is not in Africa or China, it is in Melbourne, Australia.

[SiliconWizard]

Oh yes, for sure, we do have a lot of plastic waste that we send to poor countries. The above mentioned EU ban is not applicable yet if I'm correct, still being discussed? But even so, companies will easily find ways to circumvent that and send the waste to countries that are not in the list, as the article itself says.

One huge source of plastic waste is not McDonald's straws, it's plastic bottles for water and soda. And I still don't see these banned anywhere.

And yes, oceans are now pumped full of microplastics that you find inside fishes. That's yummy. Would you like some pink rice right from the lab to go with your plastic fish?

[AVGresponding]

Nitpicking I know, but that looks more like India than Africa to me...

Source: https://www.forbesafrica.com/focus/environment/2022/04/28/a-waste-of-time-when-will-the-circular-economy-come-around/

Lazy journalism strikes again...

Tineye shows three results for that pic, all in Bangladesh, so my guess of India was pretty close. Seems to be an Alamy stock pic: https://alamy-ltd.ewrvdi.net/c/77643/748811/10905?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.alamy.com%2Fdhaka-bangladesh-03rd-feb-2022-a-man-seen-ride-tricycle-pass-by-plastic-waste-on-an-agricultural-field-in-gazipur-credit-sopa-images-limitedalamy-live-news-image459912857.html

[Andy Chee]

Oh yes, for sure, we do have a lot of plastic waste that we send to poor countries.

It's not dodgy technology, but shipping waste to poor countries is definitely dodgy!

Not just shipping plastic waste, but shipping e-waste is only going to grow as technology grows (not forgetting that disposable vapes are e-waste).

I do my best to pick stuff out of the e-waste to reuse in my own electronics projects, but I'm only one person!

[SiliconWizard]

Nitpicking I know, but that looks more like India than Africa to me...

Source: https://www.forbesafrica.com/focus/environment/2022/04/28/a-waste-of-time-when-will-the-circular-economy-come-around/

Lazy journalism strikes again...

Tineye shows three results for that pic, all in Bangladesh, so my guess of India was pretty close. Seems to be an Alamy stock pic: https://alamy-ltd.ewrvdi.net/c/77643/748811/10905?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.alamy.com%2Fdhaka-bangladesh-03rd-feb-2022-a-man-seen-ride-tricycle-pass-by-plastic-waste-on-an-agricultural-field-in-gazipur-credit-sopa-images-limitedalamy-live-news-image459912857.html

Yes, that looked more like an asian country than Africa.
And yes, just because you see a picture in a news article doesn't mean it's genuinely what it's claimed to be. Sometimes it's out of laziness, sometimes it's for propaganda.

[Zero999]

Nitpicking I know, but that looks more like India than Africa to me...

Source: https://www.forbesafrica.com/focus/environment/2022/04/28/a-waste-of-time-when-will-the-circular-economy-come-around/

Lazy journalism strikes again...

Tineye shows three results for that pic, all in Bangladesh, so my guess of India was pretty close. Seems to be an Alamy stock pic: https://alamy-ltd.ewrvdi.net/c/77643/748811/10905?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.alamy.com%2Fdhaka-bangladesh-03rd-feb-2022-a-man-seen-ride-tricycle-pass-by-plastic-waste-on-an-agricultural-field-in-gazipur-credit-sopa-images-limitedalamy-live-news-image459912857.html

Yes, that looked more like an asian country than Africa.
And yes, just because you see a picture in a news article doesn't mean it's genuinely what it's claimed to be. Sometimes it's out of laziness, sometimes it's for propaganda.

It could be North Africa, which is Islamic and the people there have a similar skin type to those in South Asia.

[tszaboo]

Nitpicking I know, but that looks more like India than Africa to me...

Source: https://www.forbesafrica.com/focus/environment/2022/04/28/a-waste-of-time-when-will-the-circular-economy-come-around/

Lazy journalism strikes again...

Tineye shows three results for that pic, all in Bangladesh, so my guess of India was pretty close. Seems to be an Alamy stock pic: https://alamy-ltd.ewrvdi.net/c/77643/748811/10905?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.alamy.com%2Fdhaka-bangladesh-03rd-feb-2022-a-man-seen-ride-tricycle-pass-by-plastic-waste-on-an-agricultural-field-in-gazipur-credit-sopa-images-limitedalamy-live-news-image459912857.html

Yes, that looked more like an asian country than Africa.
And yes, just because you see a picture in a news article doesn't mean it's genuinely what it's claimed to be. Sometimes it's out of laziness, sometimes it's for propaganda.

A) Having it on another continent doesn't make it any better.
B) If you watched the latest episode of the Grand tour, every single town they visited was completely littered with trash.
C) just look at videos like these:

[AVGresponding]

Nitpicking I know, but that looks more like India than Africa to me...

Source: https://www.forbesafrica.com/focus/environment/2022/04/28/a-waste-of-time-when-will-the-circular-economy-come-around/

Lazy journalism strikes again...

Tineye shows three results for that pic, all in Bangladesh, so my guess of India was pretty close. Seems to be an Alamy stock pic: https://alamy-ltd.ewrvdi.net/c/77643/748811/10905?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.alamy.com%2Fdhaka-bangladesh-03rd-feb-2022-a-man-seen-ride-tricycle-pass-by-plastic-waste-on-an-agricultural-field-in-gazipur-credit-sopa-images-limitedalamy-live-news-image459912857.html

Yes, that looked more like an asian country than Africa.
And yes, just because you see a picture in a news article doesn't mean it's genuinely what it's claimed to be. Sometimes it's out of laziness, sometimes it's for propaganda.

A) Having it on another continent doesn't make it any better.
B) If you watched the latest episode of the Grand tour, every single town they visited was completely littered with trash.
C) just look at videos like these:

I wasn't arguing against any points whatsoever, I was merely pointing out that the stated location did not match the picture. Like I said, nitpicking.

[tszaboo]

So these just got banned in Belgium.
https://www.brusselstimes.com/belgium/978742/first-in-europe-belgium-will-ban-sale-of-disposable-vapes-from-2025

[Zero999]

The UK is also banning disposable vapes. The stated reason is to protect children, but I don't think it'll make much difference to children and support it to protect the environment. Unfortunately they also want to ban tobacco, but that's another story.
https://educationhub.blog.gov.uk/2024/01/29/disposable-vape-ban-and-what-it-means-for-young-people/

[SiliconWizard]

Does the UK want to ban Kate as well?

[NiHaoMike]

The UK is also banning disposable vapes. The stated reason is to protect children, but I don't think it'll make much difference to children and support it to protect the environment. Unfortunately they also want to ban tobacco, but that's another story.

A tobacco ban would be a great thing, even if it only applies to the use of tobacco products in public. It's one thing for people to pollute their own bodies, it's another when it pollutes the air near others and when it adds to healthcare costs. (The health insurance I get through work charges a hefty extra for smokers, but ecigs without tobacco are currently exempt from that.)

[Zero999]

The UK is also banning disposable vapes. The stated reason is to protect children, but I don't think it'll make much difference to children and support it to protect the environment. Unfortunately they also want to ban tobacco, but that's another story.

A tobacco ban would be a great thing, even if it only applies to the use of tobacco products in public. It's one thing for people to pollute their own bodies, it's another when it pollutes the air near others and when it adds to healthcare costs. (The health insurance I get through work charges a hefty extra for smokers, but ecigs without tobacco are currently exempt from that.)

Smoking is already banned in the UK in enclosed public spaces. Passive smoking outdoors is less of a risk.

Tobacco taxes more than pay for the increased health care costs.

Why not ban junk food and alcohol then? The US tried the latter and it didn't work. Oh perhaps cars should also be banned too: fewer road fatalities, less obesity has people are forced to cycle and walk to the bus stop/train station.

[tszaboo]

The UK is also banning disposable vapes. The stated reason is to protect children, but I don't think it'll make much difference to children and support it to protect the environment. Unfortunately they also want to ban tobacco, but that's another story.

A tobacco ban would be a great thing, even if it only applies to the use of tobacco products in public. It's one thing for people to pollute their own bodies, it's another when it pollutes the air near others and when it adds to healthcare costs. (The health insurance I get through work charges a hefty extra for smokers, but ecigs without tobacco are currently exempt from that.)

Smoking is already banned in the UK in enclosed public spaces. Passive smoking outdoors is less of a risk.

Tobacco taxes more than pay for the increased health care costs.

Why not ban junk food and alcohol then? The US tried the latter and it didn't work. Oh perhaps cars should also be banned too: fewer road fatalities, less obesity has people are forced to cycle and walk to the bus stop/train station.

When they banned it back home, I was a university student. It was quite refreshing that you could go to the local pub, and didn't have to throw all your clothes into the washing machine immediately after coming home.
There have been studies that time and time again proving that the taxes don't cover the increased healthcare costs. That being said, I don't think it should be banned, people should have the freedom to do unhealthy things if they choose to.

[themadhippy]

There have been studies that time and time again proving that the taxes don't cover the increased healthcare costs.

no need to waste money on studies ,smoking in the uk cost the nhs about £3 billion,tax revenue from tobacco £10 billion for  2022-23.

[NiHaoMike]

Why not ban junk food and alcohol then? The US tried the latter and it didn't work.

Rather than a ban, just raise taxes on them. Or ban certain ingredients that are common in junk food and are known to cause health problems, for example high fructose corn syrup.

Oh perhaps cars should also be banned too: fewer road fatalities, less obesity has people are forced to cycle and walk to the bus stop/train station.

Just massively raise the training required to get a driver's license.

[SiliconWizard]

I'm not for banning that altogether, it never works and can only favor trafficking and make things even worse.

One good step, I agree, would be to ban a number of specific chemicals that are used in most industrial cigarettes, and known to cause various problems. That is not "banning tobacco", would do absolutely nothing to favor trafficking (no customer will want an illegal product just because it contains nasty chemicals that provide no benefit to them, not even getting them high.)

Heck, we could even ban cigarettes, but not tobacco (as in the old days before industrial cigarettes became mainstream.) That would drastically reduce the number of smokers while not being a complete ban.

Same for food indeed.

But even that is dubious - as you mentioned, taxes that are raised from it all are so huge that no state can really afford to do without them.
If it loses 10 billions a year, that's 10 billions that people will have to pay another way, and all of them, not just those who chose to smoke.

Health costs resulting from that are much lower, as some have pointed out, and even so, the effect on health costs would be seen only maybe a full generation later. Not that it's a good reason for not doing it, but just mentioning that for a generation, people will HAVE to pay a lot more in other taxes to compensate.

[Rick Law]

May be it is just around here (North East USA).  I see a good number of weed-smoking anti-tobacco folks here.  I would believe that their support of banning tobacco is health related if they also ban cannabis with equal enthusiasm.

If health is the focus, it is more important to ban cannabis than tobacco (lid or vape).  According to this^[1] study by Medical Research Institute of New Zealand, cannabis is at least 2.5X to 5X worst.

References:

[1] Study Says Smoking Marijuana Worse for Lungs than Cigarettes
"Smoking a single marijuana joint is equivalent to smoking 2.5 to 5 cigarettes in terms of damage to the lungs, largely due to differences in how pot and cigarette users smoke... ... ..."

^{https://drugfree.org/drug-and-alcohol-news/study-says-smoking-marijuana-worse-for-lungs-than-cigarettes/}

[Bud]

Do not ban eSigs, we need free Li-ion batteries supply for our projects to keep coming.

[themadhippy]

[Zero999]

Why not ban junk food and alcohol then? The US tried the latter and it didn't work.

Rather than a ban, just raise taxes on them. Or ban certain ingredients that are common in junk food and are known to cause health problems, for example high fructose corn syrup.

Oh perhaps cars should also be banned too: fewer road fatalities, less obesity has people are forced to cycle and walk to the bus stop/train station.

Just massively raise the training required to get a driver's license.

Taxes are already high in the UK. Especially on cigarettes.

I doubt junk food taxes would work. There's already a sugar tax on soft drinks over a certain percentage of sugar, but the manufactures simply replaced some of the sugar with artificial sweeteners, which aren't proven to be any more healthy or result in weight loss. Food is already processed enough. I doubt anyone wants it to become more artificial to circumvent taxes.

The driving test is already difficult enough as it is. There's a computer based simulator and written exam as well as the practical test. A big weakness is, foreigners from countries with less stringent driving tests can come here and drive on an international license, but I doubt the government will stop that.

[IDEngineer]

Back on the whole "disposable vs. make it last" question: One aspect often forgotten is the rapid pace of tech advancement. There's no point in making something better, or more repairable, or longer lasting if it's rendered obsolete quickly.

Example: The media almost daily reports how unhappy the greenies are that existing ICE cars are so reliable and last so long, because they see that as delaying their complete replacement by EV's. With that kind of mindset, short-term thinking and throw-away mentality is a unavoidable.

If the state of the art in PC's or cellphones radically improves in 12-24 months, what motivation is there to keep old equipment running? Yes, this argument doesn't apply to all products but it does to a very large segment of the commercial economy.

[tszaboo]

There have been studies that time and time again proving that the taxes don't cover the increased healthcare costs.

no need to waste money on studies ,smoking in the uk cost the nhs about £3 billion,tax revenue from tobacco £10 billion for  2022-23.

3 Billion? Not even close:
https://ash.org.uk/media-centre/news/press-releases/new-figures-show-smoking-costs-billions-more-than-tobacco-taxes-as-consultation-on-creating-a-smokefree-generation-closes
But honestly, I don't think I wish to discuss this further, because both of us are talking out of or arses about something we don't understand because it's not driven by electrons.

[Zero999]

There have been studies that time and time again proving that the taxes don't cover the increased healthcare costs.

no need to waste money on studies ,smoking in the uk cost the nhs about £3 billion,tax revenue from tobacco £10 billion for  2022-23.

3 Billion? Not even close:
https://ash.org.uk/media-centre/news/press-releases/new-figures-show-smoking-costs-billions-more-than-tobacco-taxes-as-consultation-on-creating-a-smokefree-generation-closes
But honestly, I don't think I wish to discuss this further, because both of us are talking out of or arses about something we don't understand because it's not driven by electrons.

Did you look at the website citing that study? ASH (Action on Smoking and Health) are an anti-tobacco charity, so it's in their interests to cite information which makes smoking look as bad as possible.

It's very difficult to come to an exact figure regarding the costs of something like tobacco. This isn't helped by the fact that people will cherry pick data and bias studies to suite their point of view.

Banning tobacco will also be costly. It will become an illicit drug, which means criminal organisations will fill the void, left by legal manufactures and retailers.

I don't smoke myself, but am biased towards libertarianism and as fewer laws as possible.

[themadhippy]

3 Billion? Not even close:

your right,from the nhs own figures ,not some vested interest group,but the actual people who pick up the bill

It is estimated that smoking has cost the NHS in England £2.6 billion per year

.

[tszaboo]

There have been studies that time and time again proving that the taxes don't cover the increased healthcare costs.

no need to waste money on studies ,smoking in the uk cost the nhs about £3 billion,tax revenue from tobacco £10 billion for  2022-23.

3 Billion? Not even close:
https://ash.org.uk/media-centre/news/press-releases/new-figures-show-smoking-costs-billions-more-than-tobacco-taxes-as-consultation-on-creating-a-smokefree-generation-closes
But honestly, I don't think I wish to discuss this further, because both of us are talking out of or arses about something we don't understand because it's not driven by electrons.

Did you look at the website citing that study? ASH (Action on Smoking and Health) are an anti-tobacco charity, so it's in their interests to cite information which makes smoking look as bad as possible.

It's very difficult to come to an exact figure regarding the costs of something like tobacco. This isn't helped by the fact that people will cherry pick data and bias studies to suite their point of view.

Banning tobacco will also be costly. It will become an illicit drug, which means criminal organisations will fill the void, left by legal manufactures and retailers.

I don't smoke myself, but am biased towards libertarianism and as fewer laws as possible.

I did look at the source. The actual number will be somewhere in the middle. The NHS will only report surgeries and something that is directly related to smoking. For example someone getting pneumonia, and complications for the rest of their life, who was also a smoker, where do you place the blame?

[BrokenYugo]

Back on the whole "disposable vs. make it last" question: One aspect often forgotten is the rapid pace of tech advancement. There's no point in making something better, or more repairable, or longer lasting if it's rendered obsolete quickly.

Example: The media almost daily reports how unhappy the greenies are that existing ICE cars are so reliable and last so long, because they see that as delaying their complete replacement by EV's. With that kind of mindset, short-term thinking and throw-away mentality is a unavoidable.

If the state of the art in PC's or cellphones radically improves in 12-24 months, what motivation is there to keep old equipment running? Yes, this argument doesn't apply to all products but it does to a very large segment of the commercial economy.

In this case the cartridge based vape/ecig system has had a defacto standard connector ("510 thread") for about a decade.

[NiHaoMike]

I doubt junk food taxes would work. There's already a sugar tax on soft drinks over a certain percentage of sugar, but the manufactures simply replaced some of the sugar with artificial sweeteners, which aren't proven to be any more healthy or result in weight loss. Food is already processed enough. I doubt anyone wants it to become more artificial to circumvent taxes.

Then just ban or massively tax the artificial sweeteners and other problematic additives as well.

The driving test is already difficult enough as it is. There's a computer based simulator and written exam as well as the practical test. A big weakness is, foreigners from countries with less stringent driving tests can come here and drive on an international license, but I doubt the government will stop that.

The US really needs to get up to that level.

Example: The media almost daily reports how unhappy the greenies are that existing ICE cars are so reliable and last so long, because they see that as delaying their complete replacement by EV's. With that kind of mindset, short-term thinking and throw-away mentality is a unavoidable.

That's certainly a common "complaint" with the Prius. While it can be upgraded to a PHEV, how many actually want to spend thousands on an upgrade for an old car?

[Andy Chee]

I don't smoke myself, but am biased towards libertarianism and as fewer laws as possible.

In jurisdictions with socialised healthcare e.g. UK, it is incumbent upon the government to reduce the cost of treating smoking related diseases. So in that circumstance it makes rational sense for governments to do all they can to reduce smoking rates in the community.

[SiliconWizard]

Back on the whole "disposable vs. make it last" question: One aspect often forgotten is the rapid pace of tech advancement. There's no point in making something better, or more repairable, or longer lasting if it's rendered obsolete quickly.

Example: The media almost daily reports how unhappy the greenies are that existing ICE cars are so reliable and last so long, because they see that as delaying their complete replacement by EV's. With that kind of mindset, short-term thinking and throw-away mentality is a unavoidable.

That is a good point, and a very problematic one leading to a "green" paradox: you're mentioning the ICE -> EV transition, but of course you realize the same will apply from one generation of EV to the next. The next gen will probably be much more "environmentally friendly" in isolation, for instance the batteries, and that will trigger the replacement of the whole EV park in the same way. That's unreasonable.

The solution to this is quite simple though: do the maths, and do them honestly. Check what is worse, over the lifetime of the vehicles, between keeping a vehicle that runs perfectly fine but is a bit more polluting, vs. one that is less polluting but will have to be manufactured from scratch, and the associated cost of dismantling the old ones.

In other words, our decisions should be rational and, as much as possible, without any conflict of interest.

TLDR; it won't happen.

[NiHaoMike]

That is a good point, and a very problematic one leading to a "green" paradox: you're mentioning the ICE -> EV transition, but of course you realize the same will apply from one generation of EV to the next. The next gen will probably be much more "environmentally friendly" in isolation, for instance the batteries, and that will trigger the replacement of the whole EV park in the same way. That's unreasonable.

The solution to this is quite simple though: do the maths, and do them honestly. Check what is worse, over the lifetime of the vehicles, between keeping a vehicle that runs perfectly fine but is a bit more polluting, vs. one that is less polluting but will have to be manufactured from scratch, and the associated cost of dismantling the old ones.

Isn't it that modern EVs are already pretty close to the theoretical maximum efficiency? In that case, there wouldn't be a whole lot of improvement replacing an EV with a newer one.

[Zero999]

I doubt junk food taxes would work. There's already a sugar tax on soft drinks over a certain percentage of sugar, but the manufactures simply replaced some of the sugar with artificial sweeteners, which aren't proven to be any more healthy or result in weight loss. Food is already processed enough. I doubt anyone wants it to become more artificial to circumvent taxes.

Then just ban or massively tax the artificial sweeteners and other problematic additives as well.

Great. More laws.

The problem is there isn't a scientific consensus on what's harmful and what isn't. For example aspartame is generally considered safe. It might be carcinogenic in large quantities, but the same is true for other chemicals which are present in food, or develop during cooking.

Quite often it's the food as a whole which is healthy or not so healthy, rather than the individual ingredients. For example, whole oranges are high in sugar, yet don't result in the same sugar spikes as orange juice, which is similar to a fizzy drink. What law can deal with that?

I don't smoke myself, but am biased towards libertarianism and as fewer laws as possible.

In jurisdictions with socialised healthcare e.g. UK, it is incumbent upon the government to reduce the cost of treating smoking related diseases. So in that circumstance it makes rational sense for governments to do all they can to reduce smoking rates in the community.

The same is true of other vices such as alcohol.

That is a good point, and a very problematic one leading to a "green" paradox: you're mentioning the ICE -> EV transition, but of course you realize the same will apply from one generation of EV to the next. The next gen will probably be much more "environmentally friendly" in isolation, for instance the batteries, and that will trigger the replacement of the whole EV park in the same way. That's unreasonable.

The solution to this is quite simple though: do the maths, and do them honestly. Check what is worse, over the lifetime of the vehicles, between keeping a vehicle that runs perfectly fine but is a bit more polluting, vs. one that is less polluting but will have to be manufactured from scratch, and the associated cost of dismantling the old ones.

Isn't it that modern EVs are already pretty close to the theoretical maximum efficiency? In that case, there wouldn't be a whole lot of improvement replacing an EV with a newer one.

That's not true. A much lighter, energy dense battery would greatly increase the efficiency, as well as causing less air pollution from brake and rubber dust.

[tszaboo]

That is a good point, and a very problematic one leading to a "green" paradox: you're mentioning the ICE -> EV transition, but of course you realize the same will apply from one generation of EV to the next. The next gen will probably be much more "environmentally friendly" in isolation, for instance the batteries, and that will trigger the replacement of the whole EV park in the same way. That's unreasonable.

The solution to this is quite simple though: do the maths, and do them honestly. Check what is worse, over the lifetime of the vehicles, between keeping a vehicle that runs perfectly fine but is a bit more polluting, vs. one that is less polluting but will have to be manufactured from scratch, and the associated cost of dismantling the old ones.

Isn't it that modern EVs are already pretty close to the theoretical maximum efficiency? In that case, there wouldn't be a whole lot of improvement replacing an EV with a newer one.

Solid state lithium batteries will be half the size (and safer). Axial Flux motors can save several kilograms of copper windings. Charging losses can be greatly reduced if the car manufacturers would spend a little more effort on software, because the charger itself is efficient but the car wastes a bunch of energy needlessly running everything else.

[SiliconWizard]

That is a good point, and a very problematic one leading to a "green" paradox: you're mentioning the ICE -> EV transition, but of course you realize the same will apply from one generation of EV to the next. The next gen will probably be much more "environmentally friendly" in isolation, for instance the batteries, and that will trigger the replacement of the whole EV park in the same way. That's unreasonable.

The solution to this is quite simple though: do the maths, and do them honestly. Check what is worse, over the lifetime of the vehicles, between keeping a vehicle that runs perfectly fine but is a bit more polluting, vs. one that is less polluting but will have to be manufactured from scratch, and the associated cost of dismantling the old ones.

Isn't it that modern EVs are already pretty close to the theoretical maximum efficiency? In that case, there wouldn't be a whole lot of improvement replacing an EV with a newer one.

Far from it, and and it's not just about raw efficiency either: I explicitely mentioned the batteries, which currently still suck and are certainly not the end of the story.
But even the rest is far from having ideal efficiency if you look closely at the whole chain.

Again, my point is: do the maths, don't act with emotion and beliefs.

[NiHaoMike]

Far from it, and and it's not just about raw efficiency either: I explicitely mentioned the batteries, which currently still suck and are certainly not the end of the story.
But even the rest is far from having ideal efficiency if you look closely at the whole chain.

Again, my point is: do the maths, don't act with emotion and beliefs.

Aren't EVs something like 80-90% efficient, as opposed to state of the art gas engines that top out around 40% before considering other losses? I'm sure a lot can be improved on the resources needed to manufacture a new car, but that's irrelevant for a car that's already been in use for many years.

[AVGresponding]

Far from it, and and it's not just about raw efficiency either: I explicitely mentioned the batteries, which currently still suck and are certainly not the end of the story.
But even the rest is far from having ideal efficiency if you look closely at the whole chain.

Again, my point is: do the maths, don't act with emotion and beliefs.

Aren't EVs something like 80-90% efficient, as opposed to state of the art gas engines that top out around 40% before considering other losses? I'm sure a lot can be improved on the resources needed to manufacture a new car, but that's irrelevant for a car that's already been in use for many years.

The motor and battery system may well be, but when you take the system as a whole, ie the whole car, that drops off dramatically

[SiliconWizard]

Far from it, and and it's not just about raw efficiency either: I explicitely mentioned the batteries, which currently still suck and are certainly not the end of the story.
But even the rest is far from having ideal efficiency if you look closely at the whole chain.

Again, my point is: do the maths, don't act with emotion and beliefs.

Aren't EVs something like 80-90% efficient, as opposed to state of the art gas engines that top out around 40% before considering other losses? I'm sure a lot can be improved on the resources needed to manufacture a new car, but that's irrelevant for a car that's already been in use for many years.

Of course not. That's about the efficiency of its main parts separately, as AVGresponding just said above, but of course not the whole chain as I said.
Just start with a very optimistic: 90% for the electric motors, 90% for the power electronics driving these, 90% for the batteries themselves (which is probably very optimistic once they get hot), and another 90% for the charging. That's just 66%, accounting only for the main parts, and probably already very optimistic (real figures under real conditions may well be down to around 50-60%). Still significantly better that ICE for sure, but not that dramatically.

[NiHaoMike]

Of course not. That's about the efficiency of its main parts separately, as AVGresponding just said above, but of course not the whole chain as I said.
Just start with a very optimistic: 90% for the electric motors, 90% for the power electronics driving these, 90% for the batteries themselves (which is probably very optimistic once they get hot), and another 90% for the charging. That's just 66%, accounting only for the main parts, and probably already very optimistic (real figures under real conditions may well be down to around 50-60%). Still significantly better that ICE for sure, but not that dramatically.

ORNL tested the 2012 Leaf motor and inverter at greater than 90% over most of its operating range.
https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2014/03/f13/ape006_burress_2013_o.pdf
The efficiency of the battery itself wasn't mentioned in that PDF but a similar one is listed at 96% round trip. The charger is easily 95% or better for an overall efficiency of greater than 82%.

The motor and battery system may well be, but when you take the system as a whole, ie the whole car, that drops off dramatically

The big improvements there would be aerodynamics and tires, which are already a big focus for EVs. One problem is that the higher efficiency tires are more expensive and wear out before the energy savings pay for themselves, particularly with EVs.

[tszaboo]

Of course not. That's about the efficiency of its main parts separately, as AVGresponding just said above, but of course not the whole chain as I said.
Just start with a very optimistic: 90% for the electric motors, 90% for the power electronics driving these, 90% for the batteries themselves (which is probably very optimistic once they get hot), and another 90% for the charging. That's just 66%, accounting only for the main parts, and probably already very optimistic (real figures under real conditions may well be down to around 50-60%). Still significantly better that ICE for sure, but not that dramatically.

ORNL tested the 2012 Leaf motor and inverter at greater than 90% over most of its operating range.
https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2014/03/f13/ape006_burress_2013_o.pdf
The efficiency of the battery itself wasn't mentioned in that PDF but a similar one is listed at 96% round trip. The charger is easily 95% or better for an overall efficiency of greater than 82%.

The motor and battery system may well be, but when you take the system as a whole, ie the whole car, that drops off dramatically

The big improvements there would be aerodynamics and tires, which are already a big focus for EVs. One problem is that the higher efficiency tires are more expensive and wear out before the energy savings pay for themselves, particularly with EVs.

95% charger efficiency? Not even close. You shouldn't assume things, because you underestimate how bad software and cables can be.
https://www-motor-no.translate.goog/elbil/dette-er-de-mest-og-minst-effektive-elbilene/199860?_x_tr_sl=nl&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp
For example Renault Zoe: 52KWh pack, 54 KWh to charge it, ~81% efficiency.
And all this discussion is off topic still.