From Trash to Treasure:

The Promise of E-Waste

Elisabeth Graf
What is e-waste?
● electrical and electronic equipment that is obsolete, discarded, unwanted, or
at the end of its useful life

What are the problems?

● Environmental, justice, and economic

What are the benefits?

● Contains valuable metals that can be recovered through recycling
● Reduces need to mine ores, a depletable resource
● Can be reused or repaired for a prolonged life in developing countries
● Can generate profits for recycling companies
What are the environmental problems?
● contains hazardous materials, such as lead, mercury, cadmium, chromium,

and brominated flame retardants (Cho, 2018)

- If improperly handled, can leach into groundwater, infiltrate soil, or release

toxins into air

● uses up landfill space

- Recycling rates too low

What are the justice problems?
● Pollution haven hypothesis - E-waste exported from developed to developing
countries where it’s often informally recycled (vs formally)
● Poor people come into contact with hazardous materials and also use
dangerous procedures to disassemble products
● Basel Convention
● Simplification - high levels of intra regional trade (i.e., between developing
countries)
Formal vs Informal Recycling
What are the economic problems?
● For consumers - transaction costs, disposal fees

● For recyclers - high recycling costs, fluctuating prices for recycled materials

● In the US - lack of federally mandated program

● Goods don’t reflect true costs

- Result: tragedy of the commons regarding landfill space
Solutions
Economic Social

● Game theory ~ Nash eqilibrium ~ StEP ● Convenient Recycling - such as EcoATMs

initiative ● Different ideas of ownership
● Pareto optimality ~ Pigouvian tax ~ Landfill ● Prevent export of e-waste to developing
bans countries
● Profit maximization ~ Subsidies for ● Right to repair
recyclers ~ Consumer recycling fees ~ Tax
breaks for companies that process used
devices ~ Accurate product pricing

Technological

● Better recycling
● Mixed plastic processing
● Use less toxic materials in products
● Design products easier to
disassemble
Maine
● Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)

● High burden on manufacturer - required to recycle products and pay the recycling costs

● Also must consider orphan waste

● Consumers responsible to finance some of recycling process but pay less to recycle

● If the marginal cost increases (from the disposal costs added to unit production costs) beyond what

consumers are willing to pay, some manufacturers would be forced to exit the market. (Drayton,

2018)
California
● Advanced Recovery Fee (ARF)

● Consumers must pay a disposal and/or recycling cost when buying a covered electronic product

● Goal: internalize costs before disposal

● Criticisms: consumer fee moves the responsibility of disposal from the manufacturer to the

government and discourages manufacturers from designing better products; consumers can

purchase electronic goods outside the state to avoid paying the fee

● Benefits: large profits have been realized for those recyclers already in existence at time of

legislation (Drayton, 2018)

Washington
● Extended Producer Responsibility
● Manufacturers responsible for all costs (but not responsible for orphan waste);
completely free to residents, businesses, schools, governments, and charities
● Manufacturers can join state plan or develop their own
● Benefits: Incentivizes design changes
● Criticisms: manufacturers being forced to become garbage collection experts
(Drayton, 2018)
European Union
● Aims: Stop chemicals from entering electronics; EPR - manufacturers must
pay for recycling of products (vs US - encourage green purchases and
regulate disposal)
● Protections against free riding and orphan waste
● Financing comes from insurance or contribution arrangements
● Producers can manage individually or be part of central plan
● Patchwork problem exists due to each country having to implement its own
plan (Drayton, 2018)
Sources
Cho, R. (2018). What Can We Do About the Growing E-Waste Problem?. Retrieved from
https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/08/27/growing-e-waste-problem/

Drayton, H. L. (2007). Economics of Electronic Waste Disposal Regulations. Hofstra Law Review, 36 (1).
Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3186/892054feccc1bdd1c67ad68cc974e2711074.pdf

Lepawsky, J., & McNabb, C. (2010). Mapping international flows of electronic waste. The Canadian Geographer, 54 (2), 1-19.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0064.2009.00279.x

Regional E-Waste Status and Trends. (2017). In Global E-Waste Monitor (Chapter 10). Retrieved from
https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Climate-Change/Documents/GEM%202017/Global-E-waste%20Monitor%202017%2
0-%20Chapter%2010.pdf

Regional E-Waste Status and Trends. (2017). In Global E-Waste Monitor (Chapter 10). Retrieved from
https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Climate-Change/Documents/GEM%202017/Global-E-waste%20Monitor%202017%2
0-%20Chapter%2010.pdf

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. (2018). Researchers tap problematic e-waste surplus to recover high-quality polymers.
Retrieved from https://phys.org/news/2018-03-eco-friendly-alternative-recycling-e-waste.html