Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The dark side of electronic waste recycling

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 53 posts

Re: The dark side of electronic waste recycling

#11

Post by iudqnolq »

howmayiannoyyou wrote: post #4
Accujack wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

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.

An extra fee on imported goods isn't a subsidy, it's a tarrif.

Re: The dark side of electronic waste recycling

#12

Post by ceejayoz »

hateful wrote: post #9

Can someone summarize what they did? Just when I think the article is going to tell me - it breaks into the life story of some guy from Seattle.

Claimed to be recycling e-waste safely in the USA. Actually shipped it to China, where workers handle mercury with no safety equipment and breathe in the burnt plastics.

Re: The dark side of electronic waste recycling

#13

Post by the_cat_kittles »

howmayiannoyyou wrote: post #2

Not defending Total Reclaim's misrepresentation BUT.... the market for many recyclable commodities is insufficient to justify processing expense in the US. Why? Two reasons. First, there's little manufacturing capacity remaining in North America to utilize many (not all) recyclable commodities. Second, subsidies and currency manipulation continue to dump virgin commodities and new products into the US. This is not a…

just wrong in general, but if were being specific about total reclaims case, you are suuuuper wrong because they were highly profitable, and despite the hilarious math flub at the end, he is still correct in noting that they would have taken home many millions processing the waste correctly.

Re: The dark side of electronic waste recycling

#14

Post by DougWebb »

crazygringo wrote: post #6
Accujack wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

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 ult…

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.

Re: The dark side of electronic waste recycling

#15

Post by toomuchtodo »

DougWebb wrote: post #14
crazygringo wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ult…

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…

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.

Re: The dark side of electronic waste recycling

#16

Post by whydoyoucare »

hateful wrote: post #9

Can someone summarize what they did? Just when I think the article is going to tell me - it breaks into the life story of some guy from Seattle.

Agreed! The sheer size of the article lost me in the first few paragraphs. But go over the pictures, they tell most of the story.

Re: The dark side of electronic waste recycling

#18

Post by dv_dt »

howmayiannoyyou wrote: post #2

Not defending Total Reclaim's misrepresentation BUT.... the market for many recyclable commodities is insufficient to justify processing expense in the US. Why? Two reasons. First, there's little manufacturing capacity remaining in North America to utilize many (not all) recyclable commodities. Second, subsidies and currency manipulation continue to dump virgin commodities and new products into the US. This is not a…

What a bizarre claim, of course the US can legislate how China manufactures and ships it's products in or out of the nation. There are all sorts of US Customs regulations for all sorts of products moving across our borders. From interception of counterfeit goods, to illegal substances there are a lot of activities for regulation of products.

Wether we have the will to impose such conditions for recycling improvements is questionable though.

Re: The dark side of electronic waste recycling

#19

Post by brewtide »

Accujack wrote: post #3
howmayiannoyyou wrote: post #2

Not defending Total Reclaim's misrepresentation BUT.... the market for many recyclable commodities is insufficient to justify processing expense in the US. Why? Two reasons. First, there's little manufacturing capacity remaining in North America to utilize many (not all) recyclable commodities. Second, subsidies and currency manipulation continue to dump virgin commodities and new products into the US. This is not a…

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 i…

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'.

Re: The dark side of electronic waste recycling

#20

Post by spencey »

Back in 2009 my family member was a partial owner of an electronics recycling facility in northern California. I worked in warehouse at times and I can tell you from experience that everything was incinerated or recycled. They had huge deals at the time with Apple and Lucent. Part of the deal was that all the precious metals that were recovered were given back to the companies for manufacturing. Most surprising thing for me was that the cost of insurance was one of the most expensive things on the books because of the amount of precious metals they had on hand at any given time.
Post reply on HN