"Over 3,000 tons of electronics are discarded every day in our country," says Thompson, whose district includes the huge swath of coast stretching from Mendocino to the Oregon border. "Obsolete computers are taking up space in closets, warehouses and landfills, and each of these computers contains dangerous materials such as lead and chromium, which pose a significant risk to human health and the environment."
Last month, Thompson and 21 other politicians introduced the National Computer Recycling Act, a proposal that would levy a national sales tax of $10 on each CRT or LCD computer monitor and nearly any other electronic device with a "central processing unit." Proceeds would be awarded to "individuals or organizations" in the form of recycling grants.
The tax would apply to Internet and in-person purchases and cover new and used items, even ones sold at computer shows and flea markets. The Environmental Protection Agency would be responsible for defining exactly what products would be subject to the levy (televisions, typewriters and calculators are expressly exempted, but BlackBerries, cell phones and iPods are not).
But is Thompson's proposal necessary?
Thompson's 3,000-ton figure sure sounds shocking--until you realize that it represents less than 1/10,000th of the more than 30 million tons of solid waste produced by the United States each day. That's according to the Environmental Protection Agency's own information, which also suggests the amount of e-waste entering landfills may be remaining constant year after year. The National Safety Council even estimates that the number of discarded computers will begin declining this year.
Even if new e-waste taxes are wise, state politicians may be better equipped to address the topic with customized legislation. Five states including California, Virginia and Massachusetts already have banned CRTs from landfills. Even more are considering it, and California has imposed an "advanced recovery" tax on new video displays, and TVs as well.
Keep the lead in?
Probably the most compelling argument Thompson and his allies make relates to the potential environmental hazards of toxic substances, especially lead, "leaching" from electronic gear buried in landfills. One of his co-sponsors, Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.), warns that urgent "congressional action is necessary to curb the rising tide of this toxic waste."
Each CRT typically contains about 4 pounds of lead, which is necessary to shield computer users from harmful radiation, and the element also appears in some types of solder used in circuit boards. Lead is a well-known health risk when ingested.
Advocacy groups such as the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition have seized on this topic and published reports calling discarded electronic goods "toxic traps" and suggesting new laws authorizing cities to "charge-back manufacturers for the cost of managing their electronic wastes." Lead and other heavy metals such as mercury and cadmium, the coalition warns, end up being "released into the environment, posing a hazardous legacy for current and future generations" because they'll seep out of the landfill.
If true, that would be worrisome. But the science may not back up that claim so far.
A new report by Dana Gattuso of the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute surveys the current state of scientific research and concludes that politicians are acting on "hype and misinformation."
One 2003 study performed by researchers Timothy Townsend and Yong-Chul Jang of the University of Florida tested soil from 11 actual landfills that included color TVs, monitors and circuit boards. They found concentrations of lead that were less than 1 percent of that which the EPA's computer models had predicted. "There is no compelling evidence" that e-waste is having a negative impact on landfills, Townsend was quoted by Waste Age magazine as saying.
Gattuso also cites a yearlong study that the Solid Waste Association of North America released last year. The study, which was peer-reviewed, concluded that even if heavy metals do leach into landfills, they pose no existing or future threat because they are contained by a landfill's design. Its authors say that "landfills can provide an effective safety net for heavy metal-containing products that are not reduced or recycled."
Perhaps Thompson and his political allies are right and e-waste is a growing menace that demands a new federal tax instead of state-by-state solutions. But extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof, and so far that may be lacking.
Biography
Declan McCullagh is CNET News.com's chief political correspondent. He spent more than a decade in Washington, D.C., chronicling the busy intersection between technology and politics. Previously, he was the Washington bureau chief for Wired News, and a reporter for Time.com, Time magazine and HotWired. McCullagh has taught journalism at American University and been an adjunct professor at Case Western University.
See more CNET content tagged:
landfill, tax, proposal, politician, waste
retired in San Diego, CA.
electronic equipment sold in the province since February 1,
2005. I am not sure of the dollar value of the surcharges but I
think it may range from $5 for a portable computer to $45 for
the in-home media centre televeisions.
"Fear mongering" about practically any matter at all has become the device of choice these days in order to raise the only source of income governments have--taxes--while for political purposes they wish to create the illusion of the "tax cut" at the same time...;)
When taxpayers begin demanding that the politicians they elect (who in turn oversee the unelected bureaucrats who actually spend the money and run up the deficits) be constrained to a *budget* to accomplish their goals on pain of being fired and replaced for failure--perhaps then the government will actually accomplish that which it sets out to do. Until then, though, we can only look forward to tax & spend, tax & spend, in perpetuity, with each year politicians casting about for new ways and means to tax the citizenry in an ever-upward and never-ending spiral. The short of it is that politicians are far more motivated by problems than they are by solutions.
What I want to know is... if I pay my $10 when I buy a monitor, and then recycle or donate it INSTEAD of throwing it in the dump, how do I get my $10 back? Obviously.... it isn't needed if I'm not dumping my monitor, Right?
Robert
it's laughable that in order to refute the reasons why burying toxic waste in the ground is bad the author has to resort to using the report of an obvious PR front for the polluters. what's up Declan, was the Tobacco Research Institute not available to help you out by letting you use some of their time-tested scientific research?
or outline the real issues, rather than writing something useful
and productive. This article is a shameful, unthinking free
market myth knee jerk reaction.
Lifecyles of all products around the globe need to be assessed
for their environmental and social impact from cradle-to-grave.
This just makes sense. Adjustments can frequently be done
without too much long-term disturbance to the business and
consumer. We all, businesses included, need to shoulder
responsibility for keeping this world together. Costs can be
shared. Don't let these businesses scream and run from their
duty, and don't let consumers do so either. And don't pull out
that free market bull***. There's no such animal.
I have no problem citing CEI's work, which largely involved a summary of peer-reviewed papers.
Instead of kvetching about some purported bias, why not try to talk about the actual science? Oh, I know: it would take actual work, rather than just flaming.
outdated computer equipment to help keep these products
out of landfills. I donated 2 old monitors and was happy
with the results.
http://www.throwplace.com
- what point?
- by drewu November 28, 2006 2:27 PM PST
- If we end up needing those metals again, they're gift wrapped (as you said) in a land fill, for easy extraction again.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(16 Comments)