Page 54

NVLife_JulyAug_2012

Manufacturers Must Rethink Their Systems Responsiblity Needed for Truly “Sustainable” Recycling Programs Hpackaged it, and made you pay for theave you ever bought a product and askedyourself why the manufacturer over- extra packaging? Or why it was designed so you couldn’t repair it? Or why there wasn’t a recycling Retailers program for it? The answers to those questions are simple— Manufacturers the producers of products have no “skin in the game” when it comes to the costs of End-Of-Life Consumers (EOL) management of the products. In fact, Cradle to Cradle System corporations are legally bound to make profit, so their rationale focus is on profit, not on costs that they can “externalize” onto the public garbage rate payer or tax payer for recycling, landfill and incineration. Materials Therefore, in a free-market system, how can are recycled we incentivize producers to design products for into new products Take Back Programs recycling or reuse and not disposal? The answer is mail-back, collection sites, haulers, local governments called Extended Producer Responsibility, or EPR, which is a policy approach requiring producers plans grow governments which try to comply passed in California for carpet and paint, which to extend their responsibility to the lifecycle of with the disposal ban but do not have the each have $255,000 in the state budget for the product. If approached in the right way, EPR money to implement recycling programs that are oversight of the private sector program; those alters the paradigm so that producers design the effective. The result is the worst case scenario – costs are fully covered by producers of carpet and recycling system and pay for the costs. If the cost it forces local government to try to stop illegal paint. In an EPR system, the role of government to recycle is high, they find ways to reduce the disposal of the most costly products without is limited to oversight and enforcement, which packaging or make it out of recyclable materials having adequate funding to do it. Do you want a means the private sector grows most of the to reduce costs. The system will then self-correct 100% rate increase? We didn’t think so... jobs. A full EPR approach represents a “cradle- because producers are getting market signals to EPR is a policy approach used by hundreds of to-cradle” system where the producer, retailers, reduce those EOL costs. At its heart, it’s simple countries around the world and in over twenty consumers and waste haulers/recyclers all and straightforward economics that levels the states in the U.S. to recycle many types of become interconnected as depicted the Cradle- playing field for all producers; the best actors problem products such as electronics, batteries, to-Cradle system illustrated above. EPR is truly a are not penalized for accepting full life-cycle packaging, appliances and even automobiles. win-win for the environment and the economy! responsibility for the products they manufacture The approach transfers the cost of recycling to and distribute so efficiently. the producers, and ultimately they pass those WHAT CAN NAPA DO TO Using market forces to reduce waste and costs on to the consumers, so the costs are no SUPPORT A TRANSITION increase recycling is a major change and shift in strategy for California. Historically, the State TO EPR?longer hidden and borne by the general public we call a “ban without a plan,” where rules like Compare this approach to California’s bottle Nin EPR policy, and adopted policiesapa leaders have long seen the valuethrough increased taxes or garbage rates, butvisible in the product price. of California has used another policy approach one imposed in 2006 banned certain Household bill or e-waste programs. While the goals of supporting them at the state level with Hazardous Waste (HHW) products from the both programs are laudable and recycle a lot of great results. This fall the public will start to trash, but then provided no funding or recovery material, CalRecycle and other state agencies see the change, because paint recycling will system for them. This policy approach does employ about three hundred staff just to run become easier as retail collection begins. The nothing to encourage development of recycling those two programs because the government county government will save approximately systems. Instead, it just frustrates the public, (a) collects the money, (b) administers the fund $150,000 a year just on paint management costs who are told not to throw batteries or fluorescent distribution system, and (c) designs and to a at the south Napa HHW facility. Since Napa is lamps in the trash, but are not provided any large extent operates the recycling program. a leader and took advantage of the new carpet convenient place to recycle them. Bans without Compare that to the first two major EPR laws recycling options as a result of carpet stewardship 52 w w w . n A P A V A L L E Y L I F E m A G A z I n E . c o m


NVLife_JulyAug_2012
To see the actual publication please follow the link above