E-Scrap Conference ends with clash on national export legislation

E-Scrap Conference ends with clash on federal legislation

By Editorial Staff, Resource Recycling

The 11th annual E-Scrap Conference — held this week in Orlando, Florida — concluded with a debate on the pros and cons of potential national legislation on electronics recycling.

Eric Harris, ISRI director of government and international affairs, argued the bill as currently written would be a burden on processors and impede the growth of the scrap recycling industry. The counterargument was delivered by Neil Peters-Michaud, Cascade Asset Management CEO and a board member for the Coalition for American Electronics Recycling, which is a group of recycling companies collectively lobbying for the passage of the bill. Peters-Michaud argued the potential regulation is necessary to put domestic processors on a level playing field with cheap and environmentally destructive overseas recyclers.

After a failed attempt to pass e-scrap legislation back in 2011, an updated version of the Responsible Electronics Recycling Act (RERA) was reintroduced to Congress in July, submitted by Rep. Gene Greene (D – Texas) and Rep. Mike Thompson (D – California), co-sponsored by one additional Democrat and three Republicans. House Resolution 2791 would ban the U.S. from sending used electronics to developing countries unless they were in working condition. Both Greene and Thompson submitted the original RERA bill and have been long standing supporters of increased recycling regulations in the U.S.

According to Peters-Michaud, this time around the bill has gained traction in Congress, where RERA now benefits from bi-partisan support and through CAER, which now boasts 115 members, some of whom are also members of ISRI. "Legislators are starting to get these issues," Peters-Michaud said.

Harris, however, said his group's conversations with decision makers on Capitol Hill had pointed to a different conclusion: that support for RERA is actually slipping in Washington. The notion that RERA is not politically achievable was one Harris returned to throughout his presentation. "It's not ISRI that moves bills through committee and passes them; it's members of Congress," Harris said. "When they've looked at the issue [of exporting scrap electronics], they said, 'What's the problem?'"

Harris cited research from the last several years that has indicated the amount of untested material heading toward developing countries is not as much as previously believed. Backers of an export ban have often used a 2002 study from the Basel Action Network that claimed 80 percent of the nation's e-scrap was headed overseas. Harris said data from a recent U.S. International Trade Commission Report showed that only around 17 percent of the nation's used electronics are currently exported and of that, the majority was tested and in working condition. RERA, he concluded, is based on a false premise.

But Peters-Michaud countered with numbers of his own, citing independent research that showed the law would create roughly 42,000 domestic jobs as more used electronics stayed within U.S. borders.

The Cascade Asset Management leader also discussed his first-hand experience working in Ethiopia, where increasing amounts of e-scrap produced within the African nation are backing up and where imports of foreign material just add to the problem. He said RERA and other efforts can help that country and others like it focus on their own issues. "Let's work with them to transfer the technology," he said, "and not the trash."

Arcoa Banner

To return to the E-Scrap News newsletter, click here

Comments

Data Integrity Comparison

 The article says Harris cited research but Peters-Michaud countered with numbers of his own. To determine the better argument we need to consider the source of their data. The data Harris uses to support his position are from

1) United States International Trade Commission  (using the same statistical methodology as the U.S. Census Bureau)

 2) United Nations

 3) International Data Corporation

The data and conclusions from the data above are consistent with each other and from highly respected organizations.

Neil Peters-Michaud uses a number from a haphazard report commissioned by his association (CAER) and is a sampling of only CAER members, not exactly a valid scientific method and highly suspect in its conclusion. Why does CAER not offer supportive and independent data from respected sources? It is because ithey don't have any. Further, his assertion is not only based on a fatally flawed paper, it also does not take into account the jobs that would be lost in the U.S. if this bill were passed. At our company jobs would be lost with passage of RERA by impeding sales and increasing costs on legitimate working units. So where is the net job gain/loss? No one knows. Maybe more jobs would actually be lost than gained. We are a certified company and ship no UEPs overseas for repair, refurbishment or recycling so why should CAER  pass a bill that will feed their members that hurts our company and our employees when our processing standards are as high as those of any company? That is an inappropriate attempt to use the U.S. legislative process to gain a competitive advantage. Neil says the desire is to level the playing field but it looks to me like RERA would actually tilt the field unfairly to some recyclers. Come on CAER, let us compete on service, quality and price. Quit looking for a federal subsidy.

 

 

 

US ITC

Yes, the US ITC might use the same statistical methodology as the US CB but if the data isn't good to begin with it doesn't matter what method it used. Honestly, it's hard for me to trust any of the numbers from the ITC report given that the data was procured via a questionnaire sent to companies. Maybe it was a good attempt to learn how much was being exported but it was a far cry from being believable. So, perhaps Harris should be more transparent about the numbers he's using to make his case? Just food for thought.

Just tell us the rules.....we'll play

As always this should create a fascinating volley between protectionism, government intervention and the maverick mentality of independant electronic recyclers. As a veteran of 30+ years in the biz, I say just tell us the rules....we'll play. Sheeeesh!!

The good guys are already using best practices as I see it, and I do business with some of the larger players.

Bob Harris

BCD Electro

.

.