Europe may be overreaching with its environmental compliance laws. Don’t get me wrong. I believe state, federal, and international environmental regulations are good. Without them, do you really think recycling programs would have created themselves or organizations would have willingly stopped producing devices containing harmful substances?
WEEE is the fastest growing garbage problem in Europe… Annual generation of unwanted TVs, computers, mobile phones, kettles, refrigerators and the like, far outstrips the ability to collect and recycle it. By 2020 Europeans will be creating more than 12 million tonnes [sic] annually.
WEEE, which has been in force since early 2003, restricts the use of hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (banning things like lead, mercury, and cadmium) and ensures the creation of collection schemes that allow consumers to return their used e-waste free of charge, according to the European Commission.
By the EC’s own estimates, only one-third of the region’s electrical and electronic waste is reported as separately collected and appropriately treated, despite the legislation. As the EC notes on its Website:
A part of the other two thirds is potentially still going to landfills and to sub-standard treatment sites in or outside the European Union. The collection target of 4 kilograms per person per year does not properly reflect the amount of WEEE arising in individual Member States. Illegal trade of electrical and electronic waste to non-EU countries continues to be identified at EU borders.
Astounding isn’t it? Even Europe -- where many member countries have incredibly progressive stances on environmental protection, recycling, and renewable energy -- can’t get a handle on its own idealistic ambitions.
As if that weren’t enough, the European Council will temper near-term collection targets. In February, the European Parliament initially proposed a 2012 e-waste collection target of the greater of either the existing level of e-waste per inhabitant (4kg) or the same weight as in 2010; by 2016 that number, the parliament expects, could climb to 85 percent of the e-waste produced, according to an article in the Green IT Review. However, in March, the European Council, which must weigh in on legislation, reduced the proposed 2016 target from 85 percent to 45 percent, and it's moving the 2020 target to 65 percent, according to the article.
On one hand, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that rules like this only work if people and companies actually follow them, or if a stern enforcement authority "compels" compliance.
There seems to be some degree of enforcement, and wrongdoers are coming before tribunals for breaking the law. A few weeks ago, eWEEK Europe UK reported that 14 defendants appeared in a British court and pleaded not guilty or entered "no plea" responses to charges of illegally exporting electrical waste from the UK to developing countries. The Website said the defendants were a mix of companies and private individuals. While the accused are slated to return to court in October, I did raise my skeptical eyebrows and ask: For every person caught, how many get away with it?
Flipping the coin, I can't totally blame the enforcement gap as the sole culprit in missing take-back targets. Clearly, there has not been enough economic motivation to add teeth to the feel-good, do-good, protect-the-planet regulations. If consumers don't have to pay for these services, and companies cry about the hefty price tags associated with following various versions of these laws worldwide, legislation will continue to go only so far. It seems to me, now's the time for business and government to reexamine the financial models and come up with realistic goals.
For sure, social good doesn't have to mean crafting totally non-profitable models. There are plenty of opportunities to cash in while addressing the bigger issue of collecting what we’ve made, used, and no longer need.
British recycling firm Sunersol provides an example. The company began trading in the fourth quarter of 2010 and had secured in excess of 20,000 tons of WEEE through contracts before its official launch, noted a report in the Yorkshire Evening Post. So far, it has created 40 new jobs and plans to offer dozens more in the near future.
This all raises the obvious question: Can we save the planet, make products safer, and still live up to, not just regulated ideals, but moral ones?
Can we have some kind of a traceability of ownership for e-products. If we take the case of Automobiles, from the time a vehicle rolls out from the assembly line till it is declared as scrap its ownership is tracable and for anything from accident, use for criminal purpose, theft or illegal scrapping, it is the owner of that vehicle at that point in time who is held responsible. If similar traceability and responsibility is attached to all the e-products then there could be some check on how these products are disposed. Any thoughts ?
It is like anything else in China, If someone can make an 10c recycling something in a dangerous fashion, then they will, its a bit like the news item last night in China, a sewer worker was recycling food and bread , then making it is to 'new' product so that he could sell it.
Unfortunately the mentality in China is geared towards making money rather than the legalities of things, the sad thing is that a significant number of people do not seem to balk at the issue of poisoning their own comrades, A day spent reading Chinese press articles regarding contaminated food, soon leads one to the conclusion that if they happily contaminate the food and water, why should recycling of electronics, plastics and metals be any different.
This is the indifference that the government agencies are continually battling in an attempt to move China forward.
Thanks, Parser. I'll check out the links and examples you mention. Maybe a topic worth exploring for a follow-up post. Also going to look in hardcore's China info.
Simple example is in bottles recycling. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Redemption_Value
I am sure there are more. Apple is doing a lot about battery and computers recycling. However I am not sure how it is organized. When I bought a new MacBook in March year ago I got a free FedEx number for two computers to return that I could recycle back to Apple. I did with one I had, yes with lithium batteries inside. I believe I paid for it the purchase.
(In my previous comment should have written "... to pay upfront at the time of purchase ... ")
"..interesting case is with illegal sales to third word countries of discarded goods due to lack of recycling laws and infrastructure in those countries.A good but costly solution to this is to pay upfront a time of purchase for recycling. There are quite a few programs like that and they need to be spread. Then the recycling centers would pay back for recycling"
Do you know where some of these programs are currently in place? Would like to check them out.
Hardcore - Thanks for the inside track on China's inbound WEEE and domestic recycling hurdles. How depressing to read about this dark side. It such a huge task - sometimes I think we go one step forward, and two backwards.
Standards have their own benefits of easy accommodation for many products, but unfortunately they stifle initiatives and innovations. As simple example at the beginning of the internet, where AOL was the pioneer and first on the market, there was a big hoopla about busy signal using phone line modems. AOL under pressure of public opinion bought massive number of modems and an interesting thing happened. People were afraid that labs were working on high-speed lines like DSL and Cable modems and they got to panic. They went to high court to stop development because they claim only rich would be able to buy it and it would put pressure on middle-income families. The judge said no.
Several decades later we see that nobody is using phone modems anymore. If we stopped scientific research, new ideas and innovations the life would not be worth living. It is not from buyer’s perspective it is form the designer’s perspective. There are so many examples that only progress keeps this world going. I cannot imagine delivery of goods without roads, good trucks, trains and airplanes and without communication tools to 7 billion people. That entire infrastructure has to be improved to be able to serve 10 billion people in not that far away future. Coming back to recycling. An interesting case is with illegal sales to third word countries of discarded goods due to lack of recycling laws and infrastructure in those countries. A good but costly solution to this is to pay upfront a time of purchase for recycling. There are quite a few programs like that and they need to be spread. Then the recycling centers would pay back for recycling. Beside this, we would have to pay for new recycling technology and for teaching generations discipline of recycle.
Natural disasters wreak havoc to the tune of $100 billion in annual damages, says a UN report. To cope, companies need improved risk management strategies.
EBN Dialogue enables and encourages you to participate in live chats with notable leaders and luminaries. Not only editors and journalists, but the entire EBN community is able to comment and ask questions. Listed below are upcoming and archived chats.
Archived Dialogues
Thailand Stages a Comeback Join EBN contributor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday August 23, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. EST for a live chat on how electronic manufacturers in Thailand have shored up their supply chain to reduce the impact of future natural disasters.
Euro-Crisis: What It Means for High-Tech Firms Join EBN Editor in Chief Bolaji Ojo and Contributing Editor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday, July 12, at 10:00 a.m. EDT for a Live Chat on high-tech and Europe's economic difficulties.
Microsoft Surface: Potential Winners & Losers What are the implications for the electronics industry supply chain of Microsoft Corp.'s decision to launch its own tablet PC? Join industry veteran and EE Times' systems and OEM expert Rick Merritt on Tuesday, July 3, at 12:00 pm EDT for a Live Chat on this subject.
Join EBN contributor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday August 23, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. EST for a live chat on how electronic manufacturers in Thailand have shored up their supply chain to reduce the impact of future natural disasters.
Peter Drucker famously said "Trying to predict the future is like trying to drive down a country road at night with no lights while looking out the back window." Yet in the razor's-edge world of electronics—with a lean supply chain and just-in-time demands—the need to know the future is vital.
You've heard the saying "the No. 1 supply chain risk is your people." That hasn't always been the case. But today's complex global supply chain requires a new type of multitalented employee. It's one who understands, finance, marketing, economics, is savvy with technology, graceful with relationships and can think analytically.
Where are these people? Are universities properly preparing the next generation supply chain professionals? How do train your existing workforce for these new, demanding positions?
Brian Fuller, editor-in-chief of EBN, will lead a 60-minute Avnet Velocity panel discussion that will ask and answer these and other questions swirling around today's supply-chain talent challenges.
To save this item to your list of favorite EBN content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
If you found this interesting or useful, please use the links to the services below to share it with other readers. You will need a free account with each service to share an item via that service.
Tweet This