It's time for another try . . . Senator Mark Miller, and a large number of bi-partisan supporters, have put forth another iteration of an electronics recycling law for Wisconsin (SB 107). A lot of stakeholder input has gone into this legislation, and I believe it's something everyone from the state should get behind.
This legislation
is important because (1) it will increase access to responsible recycling for
individuals; (2) it bans households from disposing the same toxic electronics
that businesses have been restricted from landfilling for decades; (3) it
protects the state from unscrupulous recyclers, and; (4) it shifts the burden
of recycling from the taxpayer to the manufacturer and the consumer. I’d like to speak to each of these points
briefly.
(1) Previously, there was a concern about the availability
of an infrastructure to meet the growing demand for electronics recycling. In the past several years, a significant
number of new companies have emerged in the state and region to increase
recycling capacity. Trade groups and
certifying bodies provide useful guidance and tools to aid in the development
and expansion of e-scrap businesses.
The nature of this industry is one in which capacity is often limited by staffing for production and not by large capital equipment. By passing this legislation, you will foster investment and growth of businesses in Wisconsin as we prepare for the known increase in volumes of electronics to recycle. In every other state where electronics legislation has passed, collectors and processors have increased the availability and choice to individuals looking to recycle. Today, more than ever, we need to create more jobs and develop new markets for Wisconsin commodities – and this legislation will foster this type of growth in relatively short order.
(2) This legislation also makes Wisconsin’s disposal policy fair. Under federal hazardous waste rules,
businesses were not allowed to dispose of most electronics in Wisconsin landfills for decades. The lead solder
on circuit boards, mercury lamps in laptops, and cadmium in video phosphor
powders turn electronics into a hazardous waste when disposed. But individuals have been allowed to throw
these same toxic elements into our dumps.
By enacting an across the board landfill ban on specific electronic devices, we treat all hazardous waste the same. We also help to clarify what can and cannot be recycled, which will reduce ambiguity around this issue and improve recovery rates.
(3) I am very pleased to see this round of legislation
including some additional requirements of recyclers. As a member of this industry, it is important
to me that all recyclers who offer services to the state meet basic standards
that protect the health of their workers, reduce liability and risk to the
customers they serve, and promote a healthy environment. While I think these standards could go
further, they are an important first step.
One important requirement in the legislation that should not go unnoticed in this day and age is the need to have a financial assurance program in place in the event a recycling firm closes. When the economy took a nose dive last fall, recyclable commodity prices dropped precipitously. I am aware of several large recyclers that went bankrupt or shuttered their doors and left warehouses of unprocessed electronics for their state to deal with. If Wisconsin is to endorse the use of certain recyclers through this program, it must ensure protections are established so that the state is not liable for recyclers who go out of business, pollute the environment, harm their workers, or dump electronics improperly. Adequate funding and support of the DNR to provide continual monitoring of recyclers and their protection programs is essential to the long term viability of this program.
(4) Finally, this legislation helps to ease taxpayer
subsidies which pay for recycling programs and electronic waste clean-up that should
be borne by the manufacturer of those products and the consumers who purchase
those products. We’ve seen in Madison, where people are
asked to pay to recycle their own electronics, that consumers are willing to
pay to ensure their computers and TVs are disposed properly. But the pay as you throw model limits the
opportunity for capturing electronics from the general public. There are free riders in this system. Those people enjoy their electronic gadgets
and toss them in the trash with little regard for the externalized costs of
their action. By essentially embedding
recycling costs in the purchase price of consumer electronics, this legislation
will fairly distribute the total life cycle cost to the consumer of that
product while creating incentives for manufacturers to improve the
environmental performance of their product.
People take greater care of their goods when they bear the full extent
of their costs.
In closing, Senate
Bill 107 is good for Wisconsin. It protects the environment, supports
business growth, and reduces taxpayer costs.
The bill has evolved over the years and has been improved by
understanding the impact of other state e-scrap laws. My company, and I personally, strongly
encourage your support of this bill a so that we can get working with our industry
colleagues, manufacturers, municipalities and the DNR to successfully implement
this law.
the Vermont House of Representatives passed S.77, An Act Relating to the Disposal of Electronic Waste. The bill bans the disposal in landfills of computers and other electronic devices that contain toxins, and it establishes a convenient, free way for consumers to recycle them.
In 2008, 1.6 million pounds of discarded electronics—the fastest growing portion of solid waste in the state and the country—were collected in Vermont . The collection and recycling of these materials have largely been the financial responsibility of consumers and solid waste districts.
Posted by: computer recycling | March 02, 2010 at 02:09 PM
What I'm starting to find more and more is that the inability to recycle e-waste is pretty much synonymous with an inability to produce a viable business model for the generation of capital from waste. It's not that difficult to build a recycling model that will allow for manual recovery processes, with little or no residue and sufficient ferrous, precious rare metals for recycling. However, costs are associated more with the collection process, which can be very costly. This is where help is needed from the producer/ manufacturer.
Posted by: bedford computer recycling | June 29, 2010 at 01:56 AM
I would like to improve the recovery of waste is a lot of time learning, I want to import live in Turkey, a very big goals!
hurda demir
hurda kağıt
kağıt geri dönüşüm
Posted by: Dilaver | June 19, 2011 at 11:14 AM