E-Waste Recycling Alternatives Exist, But Not Always Used By The Public

Lawmakers in 11 states are considering E-waste legislation this year to deal with the mountain of broken TVs, computers, vcrs, etc. that persons are normally loading up the nation's landfills with. Some potential environmental hazzards exist from the 4-8 pounds of lead in many cathode ray tubes. This lead could cause potential risk to humans should it enter the water supply through rain or other leakage and lead to nervous system, blood or kidney damage. Printed circuit boards contain both lead in the solder connection joints as well as small amounts of mercury that is associated with damage to the brain. Cadmium is also present in some storage batteries, along with cigarette smoke, and has a dangerous link to prostate and kidney problems such as cancer.

But the lawmakers in many states are interested in creating new taxs or fees on these electronics or even some new state bureau, when old fashioned ways existed for many years for persons to safely discard such electronics. It may cost a person a $10 extra garbage fee to have a small TV thrown out at curbside, but charity organizations for many years have been recycling these items for free for consumers, but many consumers just have been using these services.

In the 1980's, I ran a TV recycling business that purchased TVs from the Goodwill or St. Vincent DePaul and was able to restore about 80% of these broken electronics to working condition to be resold. I also accepted donations of broken sets or would arrange a pickup of these goods for persons. But at the time, I ran into nothing but "zoning" problems with the City Of Portland because the business involved a great deal of space to warehouse parts and broken sets to put two together to build one good one, etc. This used TV recycling business was an excellent modal for what should a model for other businesses to operate to cut down on E-waste.

Legislators think that more new taxes or a new bureacracy will help to solve this problem. Yet few of them have ever repaired or recycled even one single broken electronics item back to life. I've repaired thousands of items and brought about 80% of them back to life.

Many persons of limited means count on buying broken TVs, vcrs, computers, etc. at the "as-is" areas of charities such as the Goodwill, St. Vincent DePaul, Salvation Army or other thrift businesses. This provides funds for these organization's work, as well as some self-employment for some poor devil trying to earn a few dollars.

Some companies such as HP have been pressured by government or "do-gooders" to operate a computer take-back or recycling program for old equipment. But this only takes these off the market and reduces the number of broken ones available to persons who rebuild and resale them or lower cost used ones to families who cannot afford to pay $1,000 for a really nice new HP model.

The Goodwill of Portland, Oregon represents the best private handling for E-waste that should be a role model for the rest of the country. A TV and electronics shop that gives employment at the Goodwill for electronics workers checks out or repairs many of the donated goods for resale in the main store. What can't be fixed or put up for sale is either sent to a recycler that carefully handles the potentially toxic compounds and the rest is put up for sale in the as-is store, that guys will buy and rebuild for themselves or to sell. No new taxes or government bureaucracy to deal with this E-waste problem.

Why government does not simply legislate that all broken electronics must be donated to organizations such as the Goodwill for their existing model for E-waste recycling is a good question. A public advertising campaign and other notifications would cheaply resolve this problem with E-waste and return about 80% of broken electronics back to useful service for sale to lower income customers who cannot afford to buy new electronics such as a TV or computer. The environment and consumer as well as charity organizations and lower income persons and electronically skilled persons who need an income would all benefit from this system. Government wants something that would drive up costs of electronics, and sharply reduce the number of used items on the market, which only benefits the big companies to sell more, instead of allowing the marketplace to recycle a majority of existing broken electronics back to life again. In this case more government is not the solution.