5 ms·

There's no for-profit motive to justify recycling of much, that's true. However, recycling can still work well if there's money built in to the price of items

There's no for-profit motive to justify recycling of much, that's true. However, recycling can still work well if there's money built in to the price of items for recycling what they're made of. In other words, a surcharge built into the cost of e.g. a flatscreen monitor for recycling is held in escrow during the device's lifetime. When it's end of life, the company that recycles it can claim that charge as part of its fee for ensuring the materials are not improperly disposed of. This sort of system would also have the benefit of encouraging purchase of more recyclable items by making the less recyclable ones more expensive. Of course, there are a thousand ways this system could be subverted... and the real problem in the US is a corrupt government that won't create laws to stop export of e-waste.

howmayiannoyyou 7y ago
There is no way the CCP is going to legislate that into reality. There is no way the US Congress is going to further handicap American industry with what then amounts to another subsidy to China. It's not a solution. Nor is barring e-waste exports a solution. That material will end up in landfill. Terrible idea.
- baxtr 7y ago
  What is a solution then?
- iudqnolq 7y ago
  An extra fee on imported goods isn't a subsidy, it's a tarrif.
- Accujack 7y ago
  >There is no way the CCP is going to legislate that into reality. Not the CCP, the US government. That's why I mentioned the corruption of it being a problem. E-waste from the US should be kept in the US where we can ensure it's recycled properly, not shipped overseas to make a quick buck. China's lack of regulation and pollution is another problem entirely.
crazygringo 7y ago
This is exactly it. There's no reason we need to be held hostage to China's lack of environmental concern. When a device is imported from China or manufactured domestically, a fee is tacked on that includes the price of recycling processing. Congress just has to pass a law, period. Then recycling companies demonstrate responsible recycling and recover the fees. Fees are set per-product in order to ensure they are ultimately profitable. Resulting pure compounds, proven to not require further recycling processing bad for the environment, can then be re-exported to China for use in manufacturing at market rates. But as you say, it depends on Congress and on actual regulation and inspections/audits with teeth and meaningful penalties. To actually work, auditable photographic/video evidence of the entire workflow accounting for every single shipment would be a first step. But Congress depends on voters, so it's really up to us to force politicians to campaign on it.
- DougWebb 7y ago
  So, your suggestion is that the US consumer has to pay a "tacked-on fee" when they purchase a recyclable product. That fee, presumably, is held by the US government. In other words, it's a sales tax. When the consumer wants to get rid of the product, they can just throw it out and send it to a landfill. If they do, the fee is kept by the government. Or, the consumer can get the product to a recycling company, somehow. The recycling company can then request the fee amount from the government. This would require tracking the product's UPC and proof of the # of items recycled, or individual serial numbers. (The tracking info, from sale to disposal, could be sold to marketers for additional revenue. For extra value, attach the info to the consumer for targeted advertising.) Finally, the recycling company, after getting the sales tax money from the consumer and selling the consumer's data for targeted marketing, can now sell the recycled components back to the manufacturing companies. None of the proceeds make their way back to the consumer, of course. I don't see any economic benefit for consumers here; in fact the cost burden is mostly on them. That suggests Congress would probably love the idea.
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    Everything you mentioned as possible public policy is done for the benefit of the environment and the people who live in it, not shortsighted consumers. You’re not paying for it because it’s good for you, but because it harms others.
pkaye 7y ago
California has electronic waste recycling fees at time of purchase for televisions, monitors, laptops, and tablets. The questions is given that we are paying this fee, are they properly recycling those devices?
brewtide 7y ago
They do this with paint now. 75 cents surcharge on a gallon, which in turn allows you to bring back partials you will never use / have gone bad / etc 'free of charge'.
throwaway1777 7y ago
There's no way this would work practically. For one thing: an escrow system?! Who's going to pay for that? Secondly no politician is going to create a bill which makes electronics far more expensive. That's not corruption, it's simply not wanting to piss off your constituents.
- Ndymium 7y ago
  Something like this is already in use in Finland. AFAIK it's at least for electronics, cars, car tires, and plastics. The manufacturers/importers are responsible for handling their recycling costs and so they put the cost into the product. Products are more expensive but they are then free to recycle.
- Accujack 7y ago
  Have you ever heard of deposits on soda bottles? It's quite doable.
gioele 7y ago
> In other words, a surcharge built into the cost of e.g. a flatscreen monitor for recycling is held in escrow during the device's lifetime. When it's end of life, the company that recycles it can claim that charge as part of its fee for ensuring the materials are not improperly disposed of. Something similar is done in Italy by CONAI [1], a private-but-public organization that collects small fees for each piece of packaging that the members (basically all factories) produce. This cost is carried on until the good is sold and the recycling facilities can claim it back. [2] The mount of money per packaging is minuscule (I think in the order of a tenth of a Euro cent per m^2 cardboard, for example), but it has been enough to create an incentive to kick-start the whole recycling industry. The result: 88% recycling country-wide. [2] [1] https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consorzio_nazionale_imballaggi https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consorzio_nazionale_imballaggi [2] http://www.comieco.org/faq/ http://www.comieco.org/faq/
crc32 7y ago
This is called a "Pigouvian tax" or "externality tax" and a common example is a tax on fuel: "In the United States, the federal gas tax was $0.183 per gallon in 2019... The revenue goes into the federal Highway Trust Fund to pay for roadway maintenance." https://www.thebalance.com/pigouvian-tax-definition-and-examples-4157479 https://www.thebalance.com/pigouvian-tax-definition-and-exam...
LoSboccacc 7y ago
yeah let's keep taxing ourselves while other nations pollute, that will teach them.

howmayiannoyyou 7y ago

There is no way the CCP is going to legislate that into reality. There is no way the US Congress is going to further handicap American industry with what then amounts to another subsidy to China. It's not a solution. Nor is barring e-waste exports a solution. That material will end up in landfill. Terrible idea.

baxtr 7y ago
What is a solution then?
iudqnolq 7y ago
An extra fee on imported goods isn't a subsidy, it's a tarrif.
Accujack 7y ago
>There is no way the CCP is going to legislate that into reality. Not the CCP, the US government. That's why I mentioned the corruption of it being a problem. E-waste from the US should be kept in the US where we can ensure it's recycled properly, not shipped overseas to make a quick buck. China's lack of regulation and pollution is another problem entirely.

crazygringo 7y ago

This is exactly it. There's no reason we need to be held hostage to China's lack of environmental concern. When a device is imported from China or manufactured domestically, a fee is tacked on that includes the price of recycling processing. Congress just has to pass a law, period. Then recycling companies demonstrate responsible recycling and recover the fees. Fees are set per-product in order to ensure they are ultimately profitable. Resulting pure compounds, proven to not require further recycling processing bad for the environment, can then be re-exported to China for use in manufacturing at market rates. But as you say, it depends on Congress and on actual regulation and inspections/audits with teeth and meaningful penalties. To actually work, auditable photographic/video evidence of the entire workflow accounting for every single shipment would be a first step. But Congress depends on voters, so it's really up to us to force politicians to campaign on it.

DougWebb 7y ago
So, your suggestion is that the US consumer has to pay a "tacked-on fee" when they purchase a recyclable product. That fee, presumably, is held by the US government. In other words, it's a sales tax. When the consumer wants to get rid of the product, they can just throw it out and send it to a landfill. If they do, the fee is kept by the government. Or, the consumer can get the product to a recycling company, somehow. The recycling company can then request the fee amount from the government. This would require tracking the product's UPC and proof of the # of items recycled, or individual serial numbers. (The tracking info, from sale to disposal, could be sold to marketers for additional revenue. For extra value, attach the info to the consumer for targeted advertising.) Finally, the recycling company, after getting the sales tax money from the consumer and selling the consumer's data for targeted marketing, can now sell the recycled components back to the manufacturing companies. None of the proceeds make their way back to the consumer, of course. I don't see any economic benefit for consumers here; in fact the cost burden is mostly on them. That suggests Congress would probably love the idea.
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  Everything you mentioned as possible public policy is done for the benefit of the environment and the people who live in it, not shortsighted consumers. You’re not paying for it because it’s good for you, but because it harms others.

pkaye 7y ago

California has electronic waste recycling fees at time of purchase for televisions, monitors, laptops, and tablets. The questions is given that we are paying this fee, are they properly recycling those devices?

brewtide 7y ago

They do this with paint now. 75 cents surcharge on a gallon, which in turn allows you to bring back partials you will never use / have gone bad / etc 'free of charge'.

throwaway1777 7y ago

There's no way this would work practically. For one thing: an escrow system?! Who's going to pay for that? Secondly no politician is going to create a bill which makes electronics far more expensive. That's not corruption, it's simply not wanting to piss off your constituents.

Ndymium 7y ago
Something like this is already in use in Finland. AFAIK it's at least for electronics, cars, car tires, and plastics. The manufacturers/importers are responsible for handling their recycling costs and so they put the cost into the product. Products are more expensive but they are then free to recycle.
Accujack 7y ago
Have you ever heard of deposits on soda bottles? It's quite doable.

gioele 7y ago

> In other words, a surcharge built into the cost of e.g. a flatscreen monitor for recycling is held in escrow during the device's lifetime. When it's end of life, the company that recycles it can claim that charge as part of its fee for ensuring the materials are not improperly disposed of. Something similar is done in Italy by CONAI [1], a private-but-public organization that collects small fees for each piece of packaging that the members (basically all factories) produce. This cost is carried on until the good is sold and the recycling facilities can claim it back. [2] The mount of money per packaging is minuscule (I think in the order of a tenth of a Euro cent per m^2 cardboard, for example), but it has been enough to create an incentive to kick-start the whole recycling industry. The result: 88% recycling country-wide. [2] [1] https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consorzio_nazionale_imballaggi https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consorzio_nazionale_imballaggi [2] http://www.comieco.org/faq/ http://www.comieco.org/faq/

crc32 7y ago

This is called a "Pigouvian tax" or "externality tax" and a common example is a tax on fuel: "In the United States, the federal gas tax was $0.183 per gallon in 2019... The revenue goes into the federal Highway Trust Fund to pay for roadway maintenance." https://www.thebalance.com/pigouvian-tax-definition-and-examples-4157479 https://www.thebalance.com/pigouvian-tax-definition-and-exam...

LoSboccacc 7y ago

yeah let's keep taxing ourselves while other nations pollute, that will teach them.