PRINT
EMAIL
COMMENT
DEL.ICIO.US
DIGG
OUR PREMIUM CONTENT
The Kiplinger Agriculture Letter
The Kiplinger California Letter
Kiplinger's Biofuels Market Alert
Kiplinger's Retirement Report
SUBSCRIBER HELP
CURRENT LETTER
McCain vs. Obama:
Another Close Race
PREVIOUS ISSUES
Several more states will move to require that electronics be recycled. State legislators are increasingly concerned about health risks created by "e-waste" sent to landfills or incinerators. Broken or obsolete TVs, DVD players, personal computers, printers, fax machines, photocopiers, video gaming systems and cell phones often contain large amounts of toxic materials.
For manufacturers, the cost of compliance is a potential nightmare. Differing proposals in Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, Virginia, Vermont and Wisconsin would require electronics makers to pay for collecting and recycling e-waste. South Carolina and Pennsylvania are looking at requiring consumers to pay a fee up front that would go into a state fund to cover recycling and collection costs.
But it's possible that consumers could see recycling costs passed on to them elsewhere. California, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Texas and Washington, plus New York City, already have electronics recycling laws on the books.
Electronics makers want a federal law to replace the state hodgepodge. Working out a single solution that allows for greater recycling would help companies hold down compliance costs and reduce public health risks. It would also help to rescue nontoxic metals from the scrap heap at a time when the prices of such commodities are skyrocketing.
"These products contain precious metals like gold and copper, and it doesn't make sense to put gold in a dump," said Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN), chairman of the House Science and Technology Committee, at a recent hearing on e-waste.
But a federal solution is still several years away. The various stakeholders --manufacturers, retailers, state and local governments and consumer groups -- are still far apart on how much of the costs each should have to pay. Parker Brugge, vice president of environmental affairs and corporate sustainability for the Consumer Electronics Association, an industry group, says that any national system must be easy and convenient for consumers. But he notes that manufacturers don't want a system such as the producer-pays model that most states are considering.
"Our point has always been that consumers bear some responsibility," says Brugge. "They purchased the product. They enjoy the use of it. They should get it to the point where it could be recycled."
Sheila Davis, executive director of the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, an environmental advocacy group based in San Jose, Calif., counters that consumers may be willing to pay some but not all of the cost of recycling. "A lot of TV manufacturers over the last several years have been recalcitrant over producer responsibility…they don't want to have to pay for [recycling] all those old TVs," Davis says.
The latest study available on the issue from the Environmental Protection Agency shows the U.S. produced 2.6 million tons of electronic waste in 2005. Only 12.5% of it wound up being recycled, with the rest either dumped in landfills or burned in incinerators. All of this contributes to groundwater and air pollution from heavy metals (such as lead, mercury and cadmium), plastics and hazardous chemicals.
Adding to the problem next year: the disposal of large numbers of obsolete television sets. Effective Feb. 17, 2009, television broadcasters will cease broadcasting analog signals, switching entirely to digital transmissions. People with analog sets will be able to receive the signals if they have cable or satellite TV subscriptions or purchase a digital-to-analog converter. But many will wind up ditching their analog sets as the economy recovers and consumption picks up.
For weekly updates on topics to improve your business decisionmaking, click here.
POSTED BY: CJ (May 09, 2008 09:44 AM)
The best way to do this is to offer both consumers and producers incentives. Just like bottle recycling programs in many states (like Oregon) both parties should pay a fee up front, and then get a partial (or full) refund when they return and recycle the item. Everybody wins that way, including the environment. We can make this work. We HAVE to do so, or else (eventually).
-CJ
E-Mail Article
Print Article
Reprint Article
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
