State Level Environmental Advocacy Has a Dark Side
by John Laumer, Philadelphia on 06.16.08
At the close of a decades-long period in which there was almost a complete absence of progressive environmental policy and law making at the US Federal level, US states have shown us how to lead. The Clean Energy States Alliance is but one example of how information sharing among states has created cost-effective, green policy and law making. The 'green-state-laboratory' strategy, effective as it has been, is easily turned around for "un-green" purposes, however. Anecdotal evidence indicates the State-based approach to national advocacy is being utilized by PR firms and major industries, for very different outcomes.
A notable example was Monsanto getting several States to ban, either by law or executive declaration, the labeling of dairy products as being produced without bovine growth hormone. (See:- Astroturf Alert: Afact Fights Absence Labeling)
Push back happened when the operation was revealed as something less than grass roots. And, ground gained by the operation was seemingly lost when Wal-Mart announced they were phasing out milk made with the aid of hormones.
From Cows To Computers:
Dell Computer recently distributed model state legislation called INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY MODEL STATE LEGISLATION (downloadable as pdf file here).
Oklahoma, Texas, and Virginia have adopted Dell's framework with various alterations for extended producer responsibility (EPR). A similar bill is awaiting the governor's signature in Missouri.Sounds like it might be a good starting point for uniform State-level electronics "take back" regulations until you read over the details.Dell's mild solution is in the legislative hopper in at least three other states. The model bill does not require the government to approve a manufacturer's plan to recover its own branded products, although Oklahoma has added that provision. Collection systems must simply be reasonable [and] convenient. Whatever works best for the manufacturers and brand owners complies with the law. However, collection does have to be offered free of charge to the consumer.
Televisions are "exempted" in the model legislation proposed by Dell. Wait until 2009 when the HDTV broadcast standard becomes mandatory and curb-sides and empty lots all over North America become littered with old TVs. Then we'll see what's convenient for local officials and US State Legislators.
Here, incidentally, is the link to the Dell online catalog where one can buy televisions from such notable brands as Sony, Sharp, Phillips, and Vizio. Wonder what those firms' respective advocacy people think about the No-TVs approach to e-waste management? Here's an excerpt from the model.
This legislative approach covers computer, display and printing devices. It does not attempt to include other very different products, such as TVs, phones, or PDAs. The goal of this legislative approach is to offer a simple, convenient recovery system. Adding other products, manufacturers, and collection approaches would make this too complex and likely unworkable.This, however, is the real kicker: the darkside.TVs are excluded because returned TVs are older, bulkier, heavier, less likely to be refurbished and reused, and of less value for components than returned IT products. It makes more sense to adopt separate solutions to address such different products. TVs are defined here to be telecommunication system devices that can broadcast and receive moving pictures and sound over a distance, and include a TV tuner.
The Dell approach would preempt state laws in the event that a national program is established that 'substantially meets the intent' of the model bill provisions.So, if the US Congress can be persuaded to enact similar legislation, and the President signs it into law, it will contain a poison pill that uses the "superior authority" of the Federal government to overturn any preexisting, more stringent, state law provisions.
SECTION 11. FEDERAL PREEMPTION. This Act shall be deemed repealed if a federal law or a combination of federal laws takes effect that establishes a national program for the collection and recycling of covered devices that substantially meets the intent of this Act.See also:: Prototype Sony Product Take-Back Scheme AnnouncedAlthough each state might seek to address this important resource recovery issue on its own, the most efficient and effective approach is not a state-by-state one but a national solution.
The National Center for Electronics Recycling has calculated that having different state
programs carries significant costs above and beyond what would be needed for a uniform national approach ($25 million per year in such “dead weight” costs with just the four current state programs), which consumers and manufacturers bear through increased fees and product costs.
Via: The always insightful and worth-your-consideration Crosslands Bulletin, by subscription. Image::CityPages, Get ready for another E-Junk Tsunami
Electric Car Conversion Eases Gaza's Oil Shortage
|
Construction Starting On Dubious Dubai Twirling Tower?
|
And people wonder why we'd rather live without Monsanto's version of agriculture here in Europe!
Weee, my friend, we are doing our best here to stop that onslaught, but the Big M just keeps coming faster and faster; now with the Round-Up ready sugar beets! (to match the corn and the soy, etc, etc.)
My cousin was one of the leaders in the early days of GM when it was used to make higher yielding wheat and rice with vitamins to alleviate nutritional blindness. He got out because he saw where it was going; now GM is just used to add poisons and make money. It is a tool like nuclear fission; dangerous at best and the root of evil when used in an improper manner. Shame on Monsanto!
All that said, I do think things are getting better. My brother, the committed urbanite modern, was preaching organic food to me the other day! A sure sign...
Orwell envisioned double-speak as a positive-only language. What we got instead was corporate-centered language. Time after time whatever a corporation prints on a box should be exactly the thing you shouldn't want. Cereal fortified with vitamins and minerals or oatmeal with a few nuts and seasonal fruit? Bread fortified with vitamins or bread that will go bad in 3-4 days if not eaten or stored? Take back programs that make it easy to take back computer parts or take back programs that actually take everything back? Federal funding for nutrition education that includes the place of sugar/soda/fast food in a healthy diet or gym classes?
I'm going to jump in here on the commentary about Dell -- I work at Dell on environment issues. No surprise we see things differently than the Crosslands Bulletin, which incidentally, failed to contact Dell for any perspective for their story.
A couple of quick points and happy to discuss this further with anyone:
* Dell offers customers around the globe free recycling at any time for anything with the Dell brand on it -- no one else in the computer industry is offering this.
* We have supported legislation that is in line with our recognition of producer responsiblity. And progressive e-cycling legislation is getting passed in states around the country who previously did not have tools to address electronics recycling. The base requirements of those state laws are they require manufacturers to provide FREE recycling for consumers.
* let's talk TVs -- we agree that TVs should be addressed, and there is a good deal of work looking at television recycling, but it is difficult and more contentious . Separating the solutions also allows progress to happen now, even if it is politically infeasible to pass a TV solution. We think that TVs can and should be addressed as soon as possible, and have worked with different stakeholders to marry the IT solution with legislative solutions for TVs.
* The idea that federal preemption is the "dark side" is ridiculous. Federal preemption drives harmonization and efficiency. Having differing state laws on e-cycling drives up costs for manufacturers and consumers alike.
In short - Dell's not exactly a great illustration for your argument -- we're offering consumers the most comprehensive and free recycling solutions in our industry, and partnering with elected officials and stakeholders to ensure more consumers have access to free recycling.
==== author's response follows ====
Thank you for the clarifying statements and additional insights. Please fell free to come back and offer more.
I offer one clarification. It is standard in the EU for Commission Directives to be a ceiling which member state mandates must not exceed.
Since the early 1970's major environmental acts were passed and the various enabling regulations promulgated by USEPA, quite the opposite has been the norm in the USA. Federal rules were the minimum (a floor) which states had to comply with in promulgating and enforcing their own laws and regulations. USEPA would allow more stringent state rules at the behest of states, when interstate commerce was not interfered with, for example.
California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts were the traditional leading states in promulgating more stringent rules than Federal; and they still are.
As often has been the case, what California did is copied in other states, several years later, eventually forcing the Federal laws or regulations to made more stringent where it made sense.
It is not coincidence that much of what is in Prop 65 is what is controversial still in chemical risk management, and being followed in Europe.
The same is true of California energy efficiency and climate protection laws passed within the last two years.
Managing US states rights in a fashion more like Europe is an inversion of long standing US governance tradition. I stick by my characterization of "dark side."