Upload
claire-sparks
View
215
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Introduction
Product Stewardship and How it Moves Costs from Local Governments to Consumers and Manufacturers
Sego Jackson
NW HW ConferenceJune 2003
A presentation by the Northwest Product Stewardship Councilon Product Stewardship & Electronics
Toxic substances in electronics Toxicity in all phases of product life Production – mining and manufacturing Use – off-gassing of flame retardants Recycling and disassembly – potential for
worker exposure and toxic releases Disposal – lead, copper, mercury, etc.
TOXICITY
The Case for Product Stewardship
Electronics Product StewardshipElectronics Product Stewardship
Manufactured Globally
Manufactured Globally
No economic
incentive for
manufacturers to
minimize environmental
Impacts.
Product Management – The Old EditionManufactured Globally
Disposed LocallyDisposed Locally
GO DIRECTLY TO LANDFILL.
DO NOT PASS GO.
Product Management – The Old Edition
Disposed LocallyDisposed Locally
Should local governments
and rate payers cover the
costs of handling
electronic wastes?
Product Management – The Old Edition
Linear LifecycleThe Linear Lifecycle of Consumer Goods
Product Management – The Old Edition
The New Edition
Create Economic Incentives
Create economic
incentives for
manufacturers to
redesign products to make
them “greener.”
Closed Loop Lifecycle
The Closed Loop Lifecycle of Consumer Goods
Japanese Model
JAPANESE MODELMandated Responsibility
Manufacturers set front-end fees for end-of-life management
Retailers collect fees
Fees cover orphan & historic waste
Consumers return products to retailers or municipalities
Manufacturers compete to lower fees
Manufacturers and recyclers are financially linked
Old/New Editions
Local governments manage product end-of-life.
Rate payers and local government cover product end-of-life costs.
Manufacturers responsible for product take-back.
Costs of product end-of-life are included in price.
Old/New Editions
No incentives to alter current design.
Continuing toxic legacy.
Incentives to redesign products to make them “greener.”
Upstream thinking.
Review Goals:
Shift costs from Governments/Taxpayers to Manufacturers/Customers
IN A WAY that drives product and system design to be more environmentally sound
Government provides “free” collection
Manufacturer, retailer and customer have no role No design driver to reduce toxicity up or downstream, make more
recyclable. No driver for industry to develop markets for recovered materials No driver for industry to assist in making system function smoothly Every government is on its own - very inefficient
Government Charges End of Life Fee
Costs shifted to user instead of taxpayer. Stockpiling continues, illegal dumping increases All other problems remain, but funds are raised to
cover costs.
Manufacturer Charges End of Life Fee
Shift costs from Governments/Taxpayers to Customers Governments still stuck with illegal dumping Must be very convenient. Mail back programs aren’t. Manufacturer may have some incentive to reduce costs
of system
Visible Advance Recovery Fee(pay $10 when buy computer,
government collects)
Shift costs from Governments/Taxpayers to Customers
Manufacturers/retailers have no role No incentive for design or system efficiency
Invisible Advance Recovery Fee(fee is passed from manufacturer to
retailer, included in price, but not shown as stand-alone charge)
This begins to bring about design drivers due to price competition
Need to be alert to “cutting corners”
Full Cost Internalization (fee is incorporated into price by
manufacturer. Manufacturer pays for end of life management)
Can create strong design drivers Manufacturer concerned about functioning of entire system Need to be alert to “cutting corners”
Partial Cost Internalization (fee is incorporated into price by
manufacturer for portion of system, which manufacturer pays for.)
This brings about design drivers due to price competition Manufacturer doesn’t care about functionality of rest of system Rest of system costs return to governments/taxpayers
$$$ Scope of Issue
$200,000 per year = Snohomish County $210 million - National annual cost of collection,
consolidation, transport, processing of NEPSI electronics (not including education, etc.)
EOL vs Front-end Financing
Snohomish County television = $20 (losing $) 30,000,000 televisions sold annually $210,000,000 /30,000,000 = $7 fee on new televisions to pay for
entire system for recycling computers, monitors, tvs and more!
Instead of paying, governments and other collectors get paid!
Advanced Recovery Fee system includes collection cost payment to collector on per pound basis
Allows diverse and extensive collection infrastructure including repair shops, charities
What to watch out for...
Government pays all programs. “You don’t charge for HHW, why would you charge for
our electronic products!” “You don’t make other producers pay for their product
management. This is unfair!” Settling for any opportunity, no matter how
inconvenient, as good enough. “If one location in the county is good enough for really
hazardous things like pesticides, your politicians have decided that’s all that’s needed. Why do we need more convenient electronics drop-off!?”
“We already steward our products. We have a mail back system where the customer pays.”
What to watch out for...
Partial Cost Internalization (HP Model) “If you get full truck loads of our brand and transport it
to our recycler (in California), we’ll pay for the recycling.”
Agreements without measurable goals and without environmentally sound management requirements.
Customers and Citizens are the same. They are going to pay one way or the other so what’s the difference!?
Take the Money and Run. Cost shifting that provides funding to governments but
doesn’t provide design and system incentives.
Introduction
THAT’S ALL FOLKS!