Millions of tons of technology are pitched into the trash or
taken to recycling centers each year.
Stateline
Posted: 11/09/2015 10:56 AM EST | Edited:
11/09/2015 11:51 AM EST
BELISARIO ROLDAN/GETTY IMAGES
This
piece comes to us courtesy of Stateline. Stateline is a nonpartisan, nonprofit
news service of the Pew Charitable Trusts that provides daily reporting and
analysis on trends in state policy.
An old
television. A first-generation iPhone. The free printer that came with a new
computer.
These once novel items are among the
millions of tons of technology pitched into the trash
or taken to recycling centers each year. Though states have been trying to get
manufacturers to help pay for electronics recycling since the early 2000s, half
do not have statewide recycling programs and those that do are evaluating how
to make their programs work as the size, volume and value of recycled
electronics change.
Many
electronic devices should not be thrown away with regular trash because they
contain hazardous materials, such as mercury and lead, which can seep into soil
and groundwater. And much of the metal, plastic and glass in devices can be
recycled.
California became the first state to pass a law mandating “e-cycling”—electronic
recycling or recycling e-waste—in 2003. Under its program, consumers pay a fee
that supports e-cycling when they buy a product. The remaining 24 states and D.C. put the cost of e-cycling
programs on manufacturers, often by requiring them to pay for the collection
and processing of a certain amount of e-waste based on how much they sell
within the state.
Five
states—Connecticut, Maine, Oregon, Vermont and Washington—have “centralized” or
“convenience-based” programs requiring electronics makers to help pay for local
drop-off centers.
This patchwork of laws, coupled with
a variety of registration and reporting requirements, makes compliance
difficult for manufacturers, said Walter Alcorn, a vice president at the
Consumer Electronics Association (CEA).
States with
recycling quotas can see unanticipated costs when a manufacturer meets its
annual goal and stops paying for local programs.
Initially,
the CEA, which represents retailers and manufacturers, lobbied for laws
requiring consumers to bear recycling costs, as they do in California. Now the
group is working with states to make existing laws similar across states and
more agreeable to the industry.
“We want to
see recycling incorporated into these corporate business models,” Alcorn said.
“That’s where they can thrive and companies can get creative in getting their
customers to bring back their used products.”
ASSOCIATED PRESS
STATE HURDLES
State laws that require
manufacturers to pay for a set amount of e-cycling can backfire when annual
recycling goals are met before the end of the year and manufacturers stop
participating, said Resa Dimino, a senior adviser at the Product Stewardship
Institute (PSI).
When that
happens, nonprofits and state and local governments are left to either pay for
recycling efforts themselves or shut them down, she said.
PSI provides
technical and policy support to states with e-cycling laws and Dimino said that
modifying programs so producers are required to keep paying for recycling
collection, even after they’ve met their quota, is one way states could
maintain manufacturer financing.
Manufacturers
in Washington and Oregon pay for municipalities to have a collection sites, Dimino
said. Access to recycling centers makes it easy for residents to recycle and,
without quotas, the states don’t have to worry about suddenly losing
manufacturers’ funding. E-cycling in those states is more stable as a result.
Washington and Oregon have some of
the highest rates of e-cycling per capita in the
country, but experts warn against state comparisons because the products
designated for recycling vary from state to state.
JOHANNES EISELE/GETTY IMAGES
CRT GLASS
As electronic devices become smaller
and people hold on to them longer, there’s sometimes a different problem: it
may be difficult for electronics companies to collect enough recycled materials to meet the
state-imposed quotas, said Allison Schumacher, a policy manager with CEA.
She points to recent reforms of an
e-cycling law in South Carolina to give antitrust
protection to electronics makers so they can collaborate on financing
strategies, selecting vendors and partnering with local governments.
Schumacher
said the reforms, which are in their first year, will give manufacturers the
flexibility to meet state recycling requirements. She hopes other states will
be able to use it as a model.
“We’ve always
been concerned with the idea of having these arbitrary targets, they don’t
necessarily mean anything,” Schumacher said.
Manufacturers’
ability to meet recycling quotas also might decline because there are fewer
cathode ray tubes (CRTs) in the recycling stream. CRTs, a component of bulky
older televisions and computer monitors, usually containing leaded glass, have
largely faded out of production since 2010.
Heavy CRT
devices helped manufacturers meet their recycling weight requirements, but at
this point fewer of them are entering the waste stream. Once they are gone,
meeting recycling goals will be harder, Schumacher said.
“I would say
that we’re probably now peaking on the return for CRTs,” Schumacher said.
“We’re past the halfway point.”
Some states,
such as Washington, have leveled off in CRT recycling, Dimino said, but the
real impact on e-cycling of the demise of CRTs and the upswing of smaller and
longer-lasting handheld devices is yet to be seen.
Alcorn
predicted it would be more difficult to get rid of CRT devices in coming years
because they are not valuable to manufacturers, even though they contribute
significantly to weight quotas.
When
electronics are recycled they are either refurbished for resale or broken down
to have their commodities, such as plastic and metal, sold by manufacturers or
recycling companies.
“You have to
use a lot of energy to get the lead out of this glass,” Alcorn said. “It’s
better if you find something where the leaded glass is useful [and] the demand
has faded considerably.”
GETTY IMAGES/ISTOCKPHOTO
NO LAWS
States without formal e-cycling
programs are not without recycling opportunities. Programs in those states are
supported by companies that host electronics buyback programs as well as
nonprofit and local government initiatives, said Jason Linnell, director of the
National Center for Electronics Recycling (NCER).
“States that
don’t have the laws tend to be the ones that don’t have a number of other
environmental laws on the books anyway,” he said.
Instead of
advocating for more state laws, NCER helps states implement existing laws more
efficiently. Linnell said he does not expect more statewide laws to pass in
coming years.
In Massachusetts, where CRTs have
been banned from landfills and trash incinerators
since 2000, no statewide program exists and the burden of recycling falls to
municipalities, said Brooke Nash, who manages recycling for the state’s
environmental agency.
Initially the
state provided grants to municipalities so they could afford e-cycling, but
that has since ceased. Lawmakers have made several unsuccessful attempts to
pass a statewide law, and they are expected to try again in 2016.
But
Massachusetts does benefit in some ways from being surrounded by other states
that force manufacturers to support e-cycling, Nash said. Because electronics
makers and third party recycling vendors come to Massachusetts to collect e-waste,
the cost of recycling has actually come down in that state.
“We are
riding the coattails of the regional market,” she said
|