![]() In practice, EPR laws often assign responsibility for e-waste financing to “a whole class of manufacturers,” rather than to individual companies, argues Josh Lepawsky of Memorial University in Canada. It’s generally assumed that such extended producer responsibility (EPR) laws will not only cover costs, but also give manufacturers an incentive to design greener products, thereby reducing the recycling costs they have to cover.īut that’s in theory. While the California law is financed by an explicit fee, 23 other states require manufacturers to cover the costs involved in collecting and recycling their products to some degree, according to ETBC. That leaves 22 states with no statewide laws, although in many places, take-back programs are offered by private companies, nonprofits and/or local governments (New York was the first major city to set up its own e-waste collection program and to ban electronics from garbage cans). (Massachusetts legislators have tried to pass a statewide e-recycling law for several years without success the state does ban e-waste from landfills). Since then, 27 other states and the District of Columbia have followed suit. The first state to pass an e-recycling law was California, in 2003. And manufacturers are still not on the same page as an industry because of competing interests.” That resulted in no national agreement, and the issue was thrown back to the states to develop their own solutions. “By the end of that process, there were a number of policy options on the table,” according to Cassel, “but the electronics industry could not come to an internal agreement on what it wanted. The EPA facilitated discussions between 20 to try to reach consensus on what could be a national e-waste law, said Scott Cassel, chief executive officer and founder of the Product Stewardship Institute, but without success. ![]() That’s it, legislatively, at the federal level. The only exception, as of December 26, 2014, is the federal CRT (cathode-ray tube) Rule, which led to the much-publicized prosecution of a single Michigan e-waste trader in March 2015. Some in Congress have tried to pass a bill that would make the overseas dumping of toxic e-waste illegal, but the Responsible Electronics Recycling Act (RERA) has been stuck in a House subcommittee for more than two years.Īn existing law, the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) does cover some toxic electronic waste, but according to the Electronics TakeBack Coalition (ETBC), virtually all electronic components that are being exported for recycling are exempted. federal law that requires the recycling of electronic waste or prohibits it from being exported to developing countries. Choosing a New Board Leader: Eight Questions March 7, 2023.Speak With Confidence: Four Fixes That Work April 11, 2023.It’s Not You - It’s Your Goals: Knowing When to Quit May 30, 2023.Generating Ideas: A Process for Breakthrough Innovation June 14, 2023.Meet the Authors: Wharton’s Katy Milkman on How to Change May 14, 2021.Meet the Authors: Mauro Guillén on How Businesses Succeed in a Global Marketplace June 21, 2021.Meet the Authors: Wharton’s Peter Cappelli on The Future of the Office November 4, 2021.Meet the Authors: Erika James and Lynn Perry Wooten on The Prepared Leader October 3, 2022.Navigating Microaggressions at Work November 1, 2022.How National Politics Are Impacting DEI in the Workplace February 7, 2023.Diversity at Work: Why Inclusive Storytelling Matters April 4, 2023.Improving Accessibility in the Workplace - and in Space May 16, 2023.Great Question: Kevin Werbach on Cryptocurrency and Fintech July 21, 2021.Great Question: Dean Erika James on Crisis Management August 16, 2021.Great Question: Wendy De La Rosa on Personal Finance October 15, 2021.Great Question: Witold Henisz on ESG Initiatives November 17, 2021. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |