Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Extended producer responsibility
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
==Electronics== Many governments and companies have adopted extended producer responsibility to help address the growing problem of [[electronic waste|e-waste]]βused electrical and electronic equipment that contains materials that cannot be safely thrown away with regular [[Garbage|household trash]]. In 2007, according to the [[United States Environmental Protection Agency|Environmental Protection Agency]], people threw away 2.5 million tons of [[cell phone]]s, TVs, computers, and printers.<ref name=":0">{{cite journal |author-last=Reagan |author-first=Robert |title=A Comparison of E-Waste Extended Producer Responsibility Laws in the European Union and China |date=2015-03-15 |journal=Vermont Journal of Environmental Law |volume=16 |issue=4 |pages=662β687 |doi=10.2307/vermjenvilaw.16.4.662 |jstor=vermjenvilaw.16.4.662}}</ref> Many governments have partnered with corporations in creating the necessary collection and recycling infrastructure.<ref>{{cite web |title=Manufacturer Takeback Programs |url=http://www.electronicstakeback.com/how-to-recycle-electronics/manufacturer-takeback-programs/|publisher=Electronics Takeback Coalition |access-date=2012-06-06 |archive-date=2012-06-05 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120605011203/http://www.electronicstakeback.com/how-to-recycle-electronics/manufacturer-takeback-programs/ |url-status=usurped}}</ref> The kinds of chemicals found in e-waste that are particularly dangerous to human health and the environment are [[lead]], [[Mercury (element)|mercury]], [[brominated flame-retardant]]s, and [[cadmium]]. Lead is found in the screens of phones, TVs and computer monitors and can damage kidneys, nerves, blood, bones, reproductive organs, and muscles. Mercury is found in flat screen TVs, laptop screens, and fluorescent bulbs, and can cause damage to the kidneys and the nervous system. Brominated flame-retardants found in cables and plastic cases can cause cancer, disruption of liver function, and nerve damage. Cadmium is found in [[rechargeable batteries]] and can cause kidney damage and cancer. Poorer countries are dumping grounds for e-waste as many governments accept money for disposing of this waste on their lands. This causes increased health risks for people in these countries, especially ones who work or live close to these dumps.<ref name=":0"/> In the United States, 25 states have implemented laws that require the recycling of electronic waste. Of those, 23 have incorporated some form of extended producer responsibility into their laws.<ref name=":1">{{cite web |url=http://www.electronicstakeback.com/wp-content/uploads/Lessons-Learned-from-State-E-waste-laws.pdf |title=Ten Lessons Learned from State E-Waste Laws |website=Electronics TakeBack Coalition |access-date=2016-05-23 |archive-date=2021-03-23 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210323012308/http://www.electronicstakeback.com/wp-content/uploads/Lessons-Learned-from-State-E-waste-laws.pdf |url-status=usurped}}</ref> According to analysis done by the Product Stewardship Institute, some states have not enacted EPR laws because of a lack of recycling infrastructure and funds for proper e-waste disposal.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.productstewardship.us/page/State_EPR_Laws_Map |title=Map of State EPR Laws|date=May 2016 |website=Product Stewardship Institute |access-date=2016-05-23 |archive-date=2016-06-23 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160623173221/http://www.productstewardship.us/page/State_EPR_Laws_Map |url-status=live}}</ref> In contrast, according to a study of EPR legislation by the [[Electronics TakeBack Coalition]] (ETBC), states that have seen success in their [[e-waste recycling]] programs have done so because they have developed a convenient e-waste infrastructure or the state governments have instituted goals for manufacturers to meet. Advocates for EPR also argue that including "high expectations for performance" into the laws, and ensuring that those are only minimum requirements, contribute to making the laws successful. The larger the scope of products that can be collected, the more e-waste will be disposed of properly.<ref name=":1"/> Similar laws have been passed in other parts of the world as well. The [[Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive|European Union]] has taken steps to address some electronic waste management issues. They have restricted the use of harmful substances in member countries and have made it illegal to export waste.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/everyday-tech/e-waste1.htm |title=How E-waste Works |author-last=Toothman |author-first=Jessika |website=How Stuff Works |date=2008-06-04 |access-date=2016-05-23 |archive-date=2016-06-01 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160601231342/http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/everyday-tech/e-waste1.htm |url-status=live}}</ref> China banned the import of e-waste in 2000, and adopted EPR in 2012. This has proven to be difficult, however, because illegal smuggling of waste still occurs in the country.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/eight-million-tons-illegal-e-waste-smuggled-china-each-year-180949930/ |title=Eight Million Tons of Illegal E-Waste is Smuggled into China Each Year |author-last=Nuwer |author-first=Rachel |author-link=Rachel Nuwer |date=2014-02-28 |website=Smithsonian |access-date=2016-05-23 |archive-date=2016-05-21 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160521064951/http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/eight-million-tons-illegal-e-waste-smuggled-china-each-year-180949930/ |url-status=live}}</ref> In order to dispose of [[e-waste in China]] today, a license is required and plants are held responsible for treating pollution. EPR laws in the U.S. still allow e-waste to be exported to China. The [[Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers|Institute of Electronics and Electrical Engineers]] (IEEE) has also proposed a deposit-refund system dealt with by producers.<ref>{{cite book |author-last1=Zhong |author-first1=Hua |author-last2=Zhao |author-first2=Chen |title=Icsssm12 |chapter=E-waste Deposit system under EPR in China: A view from closed-loop supply chain |date=2012-07-30 |pages=239β243 |doi=10.1109/ICSSSM.2012.6252228 |isbn=978-1-4577-2025-3 |s2cid=31799448}}</ref> ===Advantages=== When producers face either the financial or physical burden of recycling their electronics after use, they may be incentivized to design more sustainable, less [[electronic waste|toxic]], and more easily recyclable electronics.<ref name="Sierra Club"/><ref name="epa">{{cite web |url=http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/partnerships/stewardship/basic.htm |title=Basic Information | Product Stewardship | US EPA |access-date=2010-05-27 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100806123116/http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/partnerships/stewardship/basic.htm |archive-date=2010-08-06}}</ref><ref name="seven">{{cite web |url=http://72.10.40.168/commentaries/scarlett_20001004.shtml |title=Reason Foundation Commentary: E-Waste Politics |access-date=2010-05-27 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://archive.today/20070812124841/http://72.10.40.168/commentaries/scarlett_20001004.shtml |archive-date=2007-08-12}}</ref> Using fewer materials and designing products to last longer can directly reduce producers' end-of-life costs.<ref name="epa"/><ref name="epr">{{cite web |url=http://www.eprworkinggroup.org/ |title=EPR Working Group |access-date=2010-05-27 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091125001503/http://www.eprworkinggroup.org/ |archive-date=2009-11-25 |url-status=dead}}</ref> Thus, extended producer responsibility is often cited<ref>{{cite web |author-last=Prakash |author-first=Bhavani |title=The Light Bulb Conspiracy: The Story of Planned Obsolescence |url=http://www.ecowalkthetalk.com/blog/2011/08/26/the-light-bulb-conspiracy-the-story-of-planned-obsolescence/ |publisher=Eco Walk the Talk |access-date=2012-06-06 |archive-date=2012-01-30 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120130070308/http://www.ecowalkthetalk.com/blog/2011/08/26/the-light-bulb-conspiracy-the-story-of-planned-obsolescence/ |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Annie Leonard interview & "Story of Electronics" release|url=http://www.nourishthespirit.com/annie-leonard-interview-story-of-electronics-release/ |publisher=Nourish the Spirit |access-date=2012-06-06 |archive-date=2013-05-09 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130509041737/http://www.nourishthespirit.com/annie-leonard-interview-story-of-electronics-release/ |url-status=live}}</ref> as one way to fight [[planned obsolescence]], because it financially encourages manufacturers to design for recycling and make products last longer. In addition to fighting planned obsolescence, by allocating part of the financial responsibility for paying for and managing waste on the producer, the pressures placed on governments may be alleviated. Currently, many governments bear the weight of disposal and spend millions of dollars on collecting and removing electronic waste.<ref name=":2">{{cite web |url=https://www.wastetodaymagazine.com/article/extended-producer-responsibility-us-product-stewardship-institute/|title=Building capacity for EPR in the US |website=Waste Today |language=en |access-date=2020-03-02 |archive-date=2019-12-08 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191208183641/https://www.wastetodaymagazine.com/article/extended-producer-responsibility-us-product-stewardship-institute/ |url-status=live}}</ref> However, these plans usually fail because governments do not have enough money to create and enforce them properly.<ref name=":2"/> Placing responsibility on producers to dispose of their products can give governments more freedom to create legislation which benefits sustainability with little cost to both parties, while also raising awareness about the issues EPR seeks to solve.<ref name=":2"/> One of the advantages of EPR is that it becomes more and more effective as the EPR policy puts pressure on countries that export their E-waste. The regulation of this E-waste forces infrastructure to deal with the waste or implement new ways of creating products from the producers.<ref>{{cite web |author-last= |author-first= |date=2018-07-06 |title=Could the Chinese National Sword inspire global recycling innovation? |url=https://recycling.tomra.com/blog/chinese-national-sword-inspire-global-recycling-innovation |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200302191111/https://recycling.tomra.com/blog/chinese-national-sword-inspire-global-recycling-innovation |archive-date=2020-03-02 |access-date=2020-03-02 |website=recycling.tomra.com |language=en}}</ref> As more countries adopt these policies it restricts other countries from ignoring the issues. For example, when China stopped importing E-waste from the U.S., a build-up of waste was formed at ports.<ref name=":3">{{cite thesis |title=Extended Producer Responsibility in Cleaner Production: Policy Principle to Promote Environmental Improvements of Product Systems |url=https://portal.research.lu.se/portal/en/publications/extended-producer-responsibility-in-cleaner-production-policy-principle-to-promote-environmental-improvements-of-product-systems(e43c538b-edb3-4912-9f7a-0b241e84262f).html |publisher=Lund University |date=2000 |language=en |author-first=Thomas |author-last=Lindhqvist |access-date=2020-03-02 |archive-date=2020-03-02 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200302191111/https://portal.research.lu.se/portal/en/publications/extended-producer-responsibility-in-cleaner-production-policy-principle-to-promote-environmental-improvements-of-product-systems(e43c538b-edb3-4912-9f7a-0b241e84262f).html |url-status=live}}</ref> The lack of infrastructure around recycling E-waste in the US has been possible because of the ability to export and the negligence of producers. The pressure of this growing dump of E-waste forces countries to have their own infrastructure and will force more regulations from the government, state and federal, to be placed on producers.<ref name=":3"/> ===Disadvantages=== Some people have concerns about extended producer responsibility programs for complex electronics that can be difficult to safely recycle, such as [[Lithium-ion polymer battery|lithium-ion polymer batteries]].<ref name="seven"/> Others worry that such laws could increase the cost of electronics because producers would add recycling costs into the initial price tag.<ref name="seven"/> When companies are required to transport their products to a recycling facility, it can be expensive if the product contains hazardous materials and does not have a scrap value, such as with CRT televisions, which can contain up to five pounds of lead.<ref>{{cite web |title=Why do CRT monitors contain lead?|date=2001-07-12 |url=http://computer.howstuffworks.com/question678.htm |publisher=How Stuff Works |access-date=2012-06-06 |archive-date=2012-05-03 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120503022909/http://computer.howstuffworks.com/question678.htm |url-status=live}}</ref> Organizations and researchers against EPR claim that the mandate would slow innovation and impede technological progress.<ref name="seven"/> Other critics<ref>{{cite web |author-last=Rivera |author-first=Ray |title=Mayor Calls Electronics Recycling Bill 'Illegal' |url=http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/15/mayor-says-hell-ignore-veto-on-electronic-recycling/#comment-39647 |work=City Room |date=2008-02-15 |publisher=[[The New York Times]] |access-date=2012-06-06 |archive-date=2012-04-19 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120419072047/http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/15/mayor-says-hell-ignore-veto-on-electronic-recycling/#comment-39647 |url-status=live}}</ref> are concerned that manufacturers may use takeback programs to take secondhand electronics off the reuse market, by shredding rather than reusing or repairing goods that come in for recycling. Another argument against EPR is that EPR policies are not accelerating environmentally friendly designs because "manufacturers are already starting to moving toward reduced material-use per unit of output, reduced energy use in making and delivering each product, and improved environmental performance."<ref>Gattuso, Dana, and Schwartz, Joel. "Extended Producer Responsibility." Reason Foundation. Reason Foundation, 2002-06-01. Web. 2015-05-05.</ref> The [[Reason Foundation]] argues that EPR is not clear in the way fees are established for the particular recycling processes. Fees are set in place to help incentivize recycling, but this may deter the use of manufacturing with better materials for the different electronic products. There are not set fees for certain materials, so confusion occurs when companies do not know what design features to include in their devices.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://reason.org/studies/show/extended-producer-responsibili |title=Extended Producer Responsibility |author-last=Schwartz |author-first=Joel |date=2002-06-01 |website=Reason Foundation |publisher=The Reason Foundation |access-date=2016-05-23 |archive-date=2016-08-04 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160804232614/http://reason.org/studies/show/extended-producer-responsibili |url-status=live}}</ref>
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)