|
States
with takeback bills pending View
|
| Detail
on Producer Takeback Legislation View |
|
One
page (PDF)
Summary of Initial Steps legislative options View
|
 |
|
|
E-waste
laws in other countries View
|
| Model
bill language on Producer Takeback Legislation View |
|
|
Learn
more about Extended Producer Responsibility. View
report by Clean Production Action.
|
|
|
Legislative
Solutions to the E-Waste Problem
Goals of e-waste legislation
The
Computer TakeBack Campaign believes that the ultimate goals
of recycling legislation should be:
1.
To create an effective system for environmentally responsible
recycling and re-use of consumer electronic products.
Effective means:
-
Easy to use. People won't do it if it's not easy.
- Significantly
increases amount of products recycled, both to get the products
out of the waste stream, and to create a high enough volume
to help drive the recycling industry
-
Products are recycled as completely and safely as technology
allows
- "Low
end" and dangerous recycling options must be prevented
to encourage the growth of "high end" solutions
2.
Design Incentives: To create incentives for electronic
producers to design their products to have longer life-spans,
increased recyclability, and with fewer toxic chemicals and
materials.
|
|
Start
with state solution
While
a federal solution is a long-term goal, it makes sense to
initially pursue some state solutions first to work out the
right model. Three states (Maine, California, Maryland) have
passed laws so far, and as each bill is implemented, we learn
more about the problem and how to address it in the best way.
In our discussion with all the parties working on state solutions
- the producers, local government officials, recyclers, retailers
- we all agree that we understand the complexities of an electronics
recycling infrastructure and challenges much better now than
even a year ago, as a result of working out details of state
programs.
While some warn against the "dangers of a patchwork of
state solutions," we think the states are in the best
position to take action on this important problem right away.
|
|
"Producer
responsibility along with state-led recycling plans
for any residual e-waste is the best path for now to
solve this fast-growing problem."
Christian
Science Monitor
August 8, 2005
Read
full editorial from the Christian Science Monitor
|
|
Overview
of Legislative Approaches
Many
states have considered e-waste bills in the last few years.
These bills fall into two categories:
|
|
Comprehensive
State Legislation
|
Initial
Steps Bills
|
|
Solving
the E-waste problem requires comprehensive solutions.
There are three basic models that states use:
Producer
Takeback Program
This is sometimes called EPR or Extended Producer
Responsibility. The Computer TakeBack Campaign supports
this approach.
ARF
- Advanced Recycling Fee
Tax
Incentives
While
tax incentives aren't really a comprehensive system,
some states propose this as a primary solution.
What
States Have Introduced Producer Takeback Bills?
Massachusetts
HB
3238
Nebraska
LB1031
New
Hampshire HB1455
New Jersey S
554 and A1663
New York State - A3200
Vermont S270
Washington State HB2662
and SB6428
(same text)
Wisconsin SB367
New York City bill
|
Some
states start working on the e-waste issue with introductory
legislative steps, such as:
Study
Bills
Passing
study bills to develop comprehensive solutions with
stakeholders
Disposal Bans
Implementing
landfill and incinerator bans
Recycling State Equipment
Instituting programs for recycling state-owned electronic
waste
State Procurement of Electronics
Adopting
procurement policies for state equipment that require
recycling and reductions in hazardous materials and
guaranteed takeback language.
More
detail on Initial Steps Bills
View one page (printable) summary
of Initial Steps options
|
|
Essential
Elements of E-Waste Recycling Legislation
| 1.
Definition and Scope of Products |
Effective
legislation must define “electronic equipment”
sufficiently broad to embrace legacy waste (old TVs, computers,
etc.) and anticipate new gadgetry likely to come on the
market; definition of electronic equipment should include
anything with a circuit board,
complex circuitry, signal processing, or that contains
one or more hazardous substances. |
| 2.
Producer Responsibility |
Effective
legislation must require development and implementation
a system of brand owner/producer financial responsibility
for equipment currently entering the marketplace. Legislation
should require that brand owners, producers and distributors,
or a consortium of brand owners, develop an approved system
for financing the environmentally superior collection
and recycling of discarded electronic equipment, with
applicable rates
and dates. While the producers will certainly pass on
these costs to consumers in their pricing structures,
this system provides the crucial financial incentive for
producers to design their products with recycling and
toxics reduction in mind. |
| 3.
Performance Measures |
Effective legislation must set performance measures and
time tables for meeting these performance goals. Performance
could be measured in one of several ways,
including:
Collection, recovery and recycling of a percentage of
the brand owners products;
Collection, recovery and recycling of an amount per person
based on the population of the state in question (e.g.,
4 kilograms per person per year);
A level of service and convenience, measured by a required
number of drop-off or collection locations per unit of
population |
| 4.
Comprehensive Scope |
Effective legislation would frame a system for e-waste
collection and recycling that applies to all brand owners
regardless of sales channels (retail stores and internet)
and to all end users. |
| 5.
Legacy Waste |
Effective legislation must also create and finance a system
of brand owner/producer responsibility for our stockpiles
of so called “legacy waste,” electronic equipment
sold and discarded prior to the effective date of the
legislation. |
| 6.
No Taxpayer Liability |
Effective legislation must ensure that government and
taxpayers are held harmless from all costs associated
with collection, handling, transportation, storage, recycling,
and disposal of discarded electronics, as well as oversight
and enforcement of systems established to handle these
products. |
| 7.
Disposal Bans |
Effective legislation must ban electronic equipment from
landfills and incinerators. Landfill bans have been put
in place by a handful of states but are not, by themselves,
an effective solution to the problem. |
| 8.
Toxics Reduction |
Effective legislation must phase out specific hazardous
materials from the manufacture of electronic equipment,
including but not limited to lead, mercury, polyvinyl
chloride, and
brominated flame retardants. |
| 9.
Labeling |
Effective legislation must require labeling of electronic
equipment containing hazardous materials. Legislation
should also
require labeling or information provided to consumers
about the
system for managing discarded products. |
| 10.
Responsible Recycling |
Effective
legislation should establish verifiable performance standards
for electronics recyclers, including reporting and penalties
for violations, worker health and safety and
other criteria, to ensure that materials are managed in
an environmentally superior manner. |
| 11.
Procurement |
Effective legislation should establish procurement
requirements for public agencies’ information technology
purchases,
relating to product specifications and end of life product
management. |
| 12.
No Waste Export |
Effective legislation should prohibit export to non-OECD
countries of non working CRTs
and CRT glass waste for any reason. |
| 13.
Governance and Enforcement |
Effective legislation must include means for ensuring
compliance and enforcement. Legislation should require
specific periodic reporting by producers selling in the
state, as
well as public availability of all such reports. Legislation
could require a multi-stakeholder advisory board to review
these reports and make additional recommendations. Legislation
should prohibit sales in the state, or sales to state
agencies and units of government, for failure to abide
by the terms of the legislation. |
| 14.
Economic Development |
Effective legislation could harness the economic power
of recycling and reuse industries by establishing preferences/incentives
for local economic development and job creation through
electronics recycling. |
| 15.
Recycled Content |
Effective legislation should close the electronics recycling
loop by requiring recycled content standards for materials
used in electronic equipment. |
| 16.
No prison labor |
Use of low wage prison labor for recycling services undercuts
our domestic recycling industry, who can’t compete
with contracts paying workers a dollar per hour. |
View
printable list of Essential
Elements on Takeback Legislation (PDF document)
View
details on these elements in Producer Takeback Legislation
|
|
The
ARF model - Advanced Recycling Fee
This
model sets Advanced Recycling Fees (ARFs) which consumers
pay at the time they purchase electronics. This fee, set by
legislation, can vary depending on the product you are purchasing.
For instance, in California (which has an ARF program) the
fee applies to the purchase of computer monitors, and you
pay between six and ten dollars, depending on the size of
the monitor.
Typically,
ARF bills have the funds managed either by a state agency
(as California does) or by a third party organization (TPO).
The funds are used to reimburse certified programs (public,
private and non-profit) for collection and recycling of electronics
products.
Problems
with the ARF Model
Many
of the electronics producers, especially the TV industry and
IBM, support the Advanced Recycling Fee or "ARF"
model. There are many drawbacks to their approach:
- Only
consumers pay. This lets producers off the hook completely
for any responsibility or cost. (This is why they like it.)
While some companies call this "shared responsibility,"
actually, the consumers alone pay for recycling.
- Producers
have no connection to the end of life of their products,
and therefore no incentive to redesign or change anything
about their products.
- There
are no goals to drive more recycling.
- High
transaction costs and bureaucracy. This model uses a
very complicated fee collection system: consumers pay the
retailers who pay state, who pays recyclers who submit their
refunds.
- Fees
set legislatively.
Fees are generally set by legislation. If the fund is not
enough to cover the costs of recycling all products returned,
then local governments will likely pay the difference.
- This
model does not resolve the imbalance between legacy TV waste
and computer waste.
|
|
Tax
Credit Legislative Approach
There
are some federal and state bills that have been introduced
which offer tax credits to recycling businesses and to consumers
who recycle. The Computer TakeBack Campaign doesn't believe
that more taxpayer money should be used for recycling, as
we already have budget deficits in many states. We think there
are market driven solutions that will work if certain parameters
are set. We also think that the tax credit method is unlikely
to meet the fundamental goal of increasing the amount of recycling.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
