Recycling e-waste: Who should pay?

A recent study by Pike Research has found that over 76 percent of consumers see recycling as the key to reducing the world's e-waste.

However, 37 percent of consumers also think that recycling their e-waste should be a free service, according to "Electronics Recycling and E-Waste Issues," a study released Thursday.

That's not to say consumers necessarily believe electronics manufacturers should be the ones picking up the tab. Only 10 percent of those surveyed saw recycling as a "producer responsibility," and only 14 percent thought the cost of free e-waste recycling should be built-in as part of product purchase price.

The independent survey was conducted by the research firm as a Web-based questionnaire on a "demographically balanced" sampling of 1,000 Americans.

The study results are a bit surprising because many companies offer rebates on new items in exchange for recycled goods, implying that there is already an e-waste recycle tax built into the price of products. There are also many company-sponsored recycling programs. If you go by the statistics in their sustainability reports, the biggest producers and sellers of electronics also do recycle a relatively large amount of consumer e-waste.

Some consumers might also be a bit lazy when it comes to recycling their old tech junk. The average consumer had "2.8 pieces of unused, broken, or obsolete electronics equipment in their home or storage area," according to Pike Research.

Thirty-five percent also thought there should be a convenient service wherein e-waste recycling is picked up at their curb, like they have for other trash.

But not to worry, Pike Research released a report in May that concluded that e-waste build-up will plateau by 2015.

[Al Boone]

The people that profit the most from the constant upgrading and updating of tech equipment should bear the responsibility of paying for e-waste disposal. Intel and Microsoft should be at the top of the list, along with Dell, HP, Gateway and the rest. It is not the customer's fault that anything they buy is obsolete in two years or less. Why not improve the quality so that things last longer and decrease the upgrade cycles?

[SteveW928]

That's a good point. A 'weighted' voucher system like I described below would really help balance this out. I'm not sure there is any more direct way to do it... but putting a higher price on short-term or cheapo stuff right up front would push design towards more long-term thinking at the place it really matters to companies and consumers... the pocket-book.

[SteveW928]

Hmm... maybe a good way to do it would be to put the cost right up-front at the time of purchase, with a voucher to get part of the money back when turning it in for recycling. Think of it like the bottle return fee to help ensure the product comes back to be recycled. The fee should also be based on the actual environmental impact of the product... not just a generic fee. This would do a couple things....<br />1) It would reenforce the recycling idea into the mentality of the buyer... both in method, but also the pocketbook.<br />2) It would drive people to buy products with less impact, as well as better designed (longer lasting) products in order to keep their fees lower.<br />3) This would reward companies who do a better job of designing for low environmental impact, and put a penalty price on the el-cheapo stuff flooding the market. If it were made a large enough amount of $, it would level out the playing field a bit in the final cost to the consumer (further pushing them towards making a better choice).<br />4) The voucher would have actual value, and enough so to make it worth passing along with used equipment sales to help ensure the device really does get recycled. Other way of doing it just make people avoid the system and randomly dump stuff to avoid fees. (Think of it like glass bottles... what if when you brought in a bottle to the trash, they charged you to take it.... how many would recycle?)

[ca5ter]

This idea has worked great for cans and bottles. In almost half the states, there is an amount you are charged up front (¢10, ¢5, etc.) when you buy a canned or bottled drink. But the consumer can redeem the amount once the container is turned into a recycle center. <br /><br />Electronics should be handled the same way. It would be great incentive for consumers to dispose of the product correctly. Meanwhile, it could help hold down the cost.

[cvaldes1831]

The consumer ends up paying anyhow whether in the form of an upfront fee or by paying for a product whose price includes a recycling fee charged to the manufacturer.<br /><br />However, any explicit e-waste charge directed at the consumer will not encourage proper disposal. Consumers prefer convenience; they will toss a CRT into the dumpster if proper e-waste recycling requires them to drive somewhere and pay a fee.

[NervClaX]

"Thirty-five percent also thought there should be a convenient service wherein e-waste recycling is picked up at their curb, like they have for other trash." <br /> <br />Another public works project for the mafia to control. Nice. <br /> <br />The cost of disposing of the item should be priced into the cost of the item. Consumers should be given a rebate for bringing e-waste in for recycling.

[Matthew Hurst]

If only there some sort of local government agency that we were already paying taxes to that could take care of trash and recycling.

[biffhenerson]

The solution is simple. Just do what the government already does with old buses, light rail train cars, and ships. Dump them in the ocean and call it a new "artificial reef". <br /> <br />Or simply bury them in a landfill. This would create mining jobs for the future generations. Kind of a investment in our future. A stimulus. <br /> <br />If it costs people money to get rid of them, they will most likely end up alongside the road in a ditch somewhere.

[JonathonStriker]

Someone would argue not to have recycling built in because they aren't going to be recycled anyway (unless of course state law says you must). I fell the same though about not paying for recycling electronics, as I don't for the glass and newspapers (besides it being paid for by taxes). And I drop my plastic shopping bags in the recycling at Walmart or Giant, and send my used ink cartridges back in a little bag that says 'No postage necessary', so once you get used to doing your little part to save the earth, you don't want to have to pay for other ways to help the environment.

[ceebee23]

The European experience shows that that there is money BIG money in recycling!!! PCs and other e-waste contain huge amounts of valuable and rare metals.<br /><br />The situation in Germany reached the absurd situation of court cases to resolve whether private contractors could even take e-waste left on the kerb (they can't ..but can if you leave it in the driveway) ... basically you had local governments and private recyclers fighting over the right to your rubbish.<br /><br />For any system to work it has to be based on leaving the waste on the kerb or similar. <br /><br />And dumping e-waste in a tip is throwing away a very valuable resource... far easier to extract that gold, cadmium etc from a PC than to dig it up and refine it.

[marvindmeh]

Make it like the rest of recycling. Have a small tax of a dollar or two a year. I have We all throw these things out anyway.

[William Crow]

marvindmeh,<br />You fell for it! The article was an advertisement for another tax!

[ferricoxide]

An e-waste disposal fee would be similar to the tire disposal fees that we have to pay whenever we get new tires for our car (dunno if this is local or national). Don't have a choice on it: it simply shows up as a line item on the purchase receipt, much like sales tax does.

[William Crow]

Don't recyclers make money recycling? Is this article an advertisement for another tax?

[Michichael]

California already forces a recycling fee on monitors and TV's. Nonrefundable.

[wwwpcrecycleca]

Recyclers don't make money with every aspect of recycling, and are dependent on the value of the materials that fluctuates a lot. Some fee to the person/company needing the service is necessary for the survival of the process. Without a fee, the equipment ends up filling some lanndfill where health and conditions of the inhabitant are miserable, as you can see on http://www.pcrecycle.ca