Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
Angela Logomasini*
Increasingly, news reports and environ- cals and heavy metals that cannot be disposed
mental activists are claiming that we are fac- of or recycled safely.”2 As a result of such rheto-
ing a new solid waste crisis. “Electronic junk ric, Europe has passed several “e-waste” laws,
[is] piling up everywhere, creating what some U.S. states have begun looking into their own
experts predict will be the largest toxic waste regulations, and members of Congress have
problem of the 21st century,” reads an article in proposed legislation. Unfortunately, misinfor-
Environmental Health Perspectives.1 Similarly, mation about the issue and the naive belief that
Greenpeace claims, “The world is consuming government is positioned to improve electronic
more and more electronic products every year. waste handling is leading to misguided policies
This has caused a dangerous explosion in elec- and legislation.
tronic scrap (e-waste) containing toxic chemi-
Background
models for U.S. regulation. The Directive on the their policy on misinformation, as is appar-
Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous ent from their comments on the topic in the
Substances (RoHS) phases out certain “haz- press.6
ardous substances”—lead, mercury, cadmium, During the 109th Congress, several mem-
hexavalent chromium, bromated flame retar- bers offered e-waste legislation. Representa-
dants—that are used in electronics. The other tive Juanita Millender-McDonald (D-CA) in-
directive, the Waste Electronic and Electrical troduced H.R. 4316 and Senator Ron Wyden
Equipment Directive, mandates that companies (D-OR) introduced S. 510, both of which would
take back electronic equipment for disposal provide tax credits for recycling computers and
starting in 2005. would ban disposal of computer monitors in
The costs of these programs are likely to landfills, among other things. Representative
be significant. The EU government estimates Mike Thompson (D-CA) offered H.R. 425,
that both programs will cost €500 million to which would impose a tax on electronic equip-
€900 million,3 and industry estimates costs of ment sales, levying up to $10 per item. The
up to €62.5 billion.4 According to Gartner Inc., funds would go to the U.S. Environmental Pro-
a U.K.-based technology analysis company, the tection Agency (EPA), which would use them
cost of the two directives will raise personal to award grants to parties working to recycle
computer prices by about $60.5 computers.
The benefits of the programs are assumed, In addition, numerous states are following
rather than assessed through any comprehen- Europe’s lead. For example, in 2001, California
sive study. Instead, these programs are based on banned the disposal of computer monitors in
the precautionary principle, which assumes that landfills, and in 2003, it passed a law to place
in the absence of information about risk, regu- a sales tax on computers—which lawmak-
lators should act to prevent potential risks. ers euphemistically call an “advance disposal
Following Europe’s lead, several members fee.” This new tax is supposed to fund a state
of Congress formed an e-waste task force in computer recycling program, but if costs of
2005 to study the issue and produce legisla- the program grow, the state can increase the
tion. Members of this task force are basing tax to cover its costs. The fee is likely to grow,
because it costs about $20 to $25 to recycle
3. U.K. Department of Trade and Industry, “Explana- each unit. Some program supporters advocate
tory Memorandum on European Community Legisla- increasing the tax to as much as $60 per com-
tion: The Common Position on a Proposal for a Euro- puter sold. E-waste policies are also in place
pean Parliament and Council Directive on Waste from
Electrical and Electronic Equipment,” U.K. Department
in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Washington
of Trade and Industry, London, March 2002, 7.
4. Orgalime, “Detailed Position of Orgalime’s Electri- 6. For example, see Representatives Mike Thompson,
cal and Electronic Liaison Committee in Cooperation Louise Slaughter, Randy Duke Cunningham, and Mary
with European Sector Committees,” Brussels, September Bono, “Electronic Waste,” Letters to the Editor, Wash-
5, 2000, 1. ington Times, July 14, 2005, responding to Dana Joel
5. Meike Escherich, “EU’s New Recycling Rules Could Gattuso, “E-Waste: Electronic Paperweight Crisis?”
Drive Up European PC Prices,” Gartner Inc., January 6, Washington Times, July 12, 2005. See also Gattuso’s
2004, as quoted in Fiona Harvey, “The Greening of Your response, “Straight Scoop on E-Waste,” Letter to the Edi-
PC,” National Post, February 5, 2004. tor, Washington Times, August 21, 2005.
State, Connecticut, Oregon, North Carolina, ing yet.”9 Retailers are already having a prob-
and Texas. lem complying with WEEE’s take back and
recycling mandates.10 California had similar
Fundamental Problems with These problems associated with stockpiling when it
Policies banned the disposal in landfills of computer
monitors.
Despite claims to the contrary, there are Likewise, RoHS-styled bans on substances
many problems with the EU e-waste programs used in electronic products are problematic
and the U.S. versions of these laws. The re- for a number of reasons. First, they ignore
cycling mandates, like those under Europe’s important benefits of the so-called hazardous
WEEE program, may actually mean more air, substances that are being banned—benefits
water, and solid waste pollution as products are that may make final products safer and lon-
collected, sorted, and recycled. In fact, the U.K. ger lasting. Moreover, the risks of these sub-
Department of Trade and Industry notes, “For stances can be managed without banning them
certain items, [the directive] may not be the best completely.
practicable environmental option.”7 Ironically, the risks created by the RoHS
In addition, WEEE presents some serious program itself may be more problematic than
practical problems associated with collect- the risks it attempts to control. Consider the
ing and recycling all the products concerned. ban on using lead as solder in computers. Lead
When the EU implemented a similar program is banned for this purpose even though there
for refrigerators in 1998, the products were are no proven problems associated with using
collected but there was nowhere to recycle lead in computers. However, the substance con-
them, leading to a massive stockpiling of re- veys many benefits, which substitute substances
frigerators, now known as the “fridge fiasco.” might not deliver.
An estimated 6,500 refrigerators piled up For one thing, lead solder is very energy ef-
daily—2.4 million annually. According to the ficient; it requires less energy than alternatives
U.K. government, the cost of managing these because it melts at low temperatures. Accord-
wastes was £75 million.8 WEEE’s impacts ing to a U.K. Trade and Industry study, substi-
could be much worse. According to the U.K. tutes increase energy usage by 6 to 18 percent.11
Environment Agency, “Fridges are just one tiny Similarly, a University of Stuttgart study of sub-
part of the WEEE directive—if we think we stitutes for lead solder indicates that the envi-
have problems now, then we ain’t seen noth-
9. “Government Warned to Avoid Fridge-like Crisis for
7. U.K. Department of Trade and Industry, “Consulta- Electronic Directive,” letsrecycle.com, January 30, 2002,
tion Paper: Proposed EC Directive on Waste Electrical http://www.letsrecycle.com/news/news.jsp?story=1002.
and Electronic Equipment and Proposed EC Directive 10. Graham Grant, “Phony War on Waste: Scots Face
on the Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Sub- Huge Bill for Growing Mountain of Discarded Electri-
stances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment,” U.K. cal Goods as Shops Fail to Comply with New Recycling
Department of Trade and Industry, London, August 11, Directive,” Daily Mail (UK), January 4, 2008.
2000, 52. 11. U.K. Department of Trade and Industry, Consulta-
8. Nicholas Watt, “Taskforce to Tackle #75m ‘Fridge tion Paper, U.K. Department of Trade and Industry, Lon-
Mountain,’” Guardian, January 21, 2002. don, 48.
In contrast to the many problems with Despite claims to the contrary, there is no real
government recycling programs, private ef- e-waste crisis, and the risks and costs of e-waste
forts to recycle commuters have proven are manageable. Government programs promise
much more effective. In 2004, Dell, Hewlett- to promote inefficiencies, increase environmental
Packard, and IBM collected and recycled problems, and hinder market solutions. Market
160 million pounds of computer equipment. forces can and will produce optimal management
These programs are voluntary, fee-based, and of e-waste—if only the regulators allow them.
affordable. At this point, Dell recycles com-
puters for $10. (This service provides users Experts
with an airway bill for shipping the computer
to Dell.) Dana Joel Gattuso, Adjunct Scholar, Com-
Ironically, Representative Thompson’s bill petitive Enterprise Institute.
would tax consumers who buy computers to Angela Logomasini, Director of Risk and
provide grants to fund computer recycling— Environmental Policy, Competitive Enterprise
but computer recycling is already occurring Institute, alogomasini@cei.org
in the private sector. The difference is that the
private initiatives operate without taxing con- Recommended Reading
sumers and charge only those who dispose of
waste, not everyone who buys a computer. If Gattuso, Dana Joel. 2005. “Mandated Re-
the Thompson bill passed into law, it could cycling of Electronics: A Lose-Lose-Lose
have undermined the productive private efforts Proposition.” Issue Analysis 2, Competitive
by replacing them with a less efficient govern- Enterprise Institute, Washington, DC, 2005.
ment program. http://www.cei.org/pdf/4386.pdf.