Notes on the failure of California's SB-20/50, and proposed solutions
This was published in March 2006. Please see also our opinion about the proposed AB3001, published April 25, 2006.
Problem
Brief
- SB-20/50 generates less funding than it consumes.
- SB-20/50 encourages planned obsolescence and as such is wasteful and detrimental to the consumer and the environment as it only funds the destruction of hardware.
- SB-20/50 as currently implemented is self defeating and far overdue in regards to disbursement of funds.
- SB-20/50 requires a level of paperwork that neither the recycler nor the state can handle in a timely or efficient manner.
Demonstrations
SB-20/50 generates less funding than it consumes
Under SB-20/50 the state charges between 6-12 dollars for every display device over four (4) inches in diagonal measurement. This applies to notebooks, computer monitors, televisions, etc. A 17-inch computer monitor weighs on average 40lbs and would generate $10 dollars towards the SB 20/50 payment system. Of this the retailer takes a 2% fee. So we now have $9.80. I do not know how the various state agencies involved are funding the responsibilities incurred under SB 20/50 but I suspect that at least some of them are supposedly funded by this income stream.
At any rate, under SB-20/50 the state has committed to pay the recycler $.48 per pound to recycle (destroy) this 40-pound monitor. This means that the state pays out $19.20 (40 lbs times $.48 per pound) on a monitor that only brought $9.80 into the fund when it was purchased. So on a new monitor purchase the state loses $9.40. When we add in the fact that all pre-SB 20/50 displays in California are also covered and are estimated to be 3 devices per citizen, the problem becomes insurmountable. If all three devices are based on the example above, then the state is out $57.60 (3 times $19.20) per citizen.
I cannot see how this system can be considered viable.
SB-20 encourages planned obsolescence
By funding only destruction, SB-20/50 promotes a "design to grind" school of false environmentalism that seems to conveniently forget the first two major parts of the recycling triangle.
For those needing a refresher: reduce/reuse/recycle.
- Reduce: Destruction of working hardware forces the purchase of more. Therefore there is no reduction in consumption. In fact the opposite occurs.
- Re-use: You cannot re-use a ground up machine.
- Recycle: Unnecessary recycling and the consequential re-manufacturing are also wasteful from a resource, energy and transportation standpoint. We have yet to discover an energy or transport system that is non-polluting.
SB-20/50 as currently implemented is self defeating and far overdue in regards to disbursement of funds
As of mid February 2006 we have been informed that our claims for December 2005 have yet to be examined and it is doubtful that they will even be considered until sometime in April. As we currently have approximately $50,000 in outstanding bills this is at best irritating and at worst disastrous.
We have also been informed by others in the industry that this is not a unique occurrence and that late payment is the rule not the exception. No business owner or operator wants to get into a situation where they cannot predict payment and I suspect that many who have, now regret their decision to participate in the SB-20/50 program.
SB-20/50 requires a level of paperwork that neither the recycler nor the state can handle in a timely or efficient manner
This one is easy. If this was not the case why my is recently doubled bookkeeping staff working 18 hr days and why is the state running 4 months behind?
Solution
Brief
- For CRT based displays: charge more.
- For non-crt based displays: Insist on easy replacement for common points of failure.
Details
Example
There is no reason that a $1000 dollar flat panel should become scrap due to a failed $20 fluorescent lamp nor is there any reason (other than bad design) that a consumer could not replace this item. This also applies to power supplies and the LCD itself
For other computer equipment charge more and/or force manufacturers to build for lifespan and upgradabilty through an adherence to a true ATX or ETX standard. (ATX is a recognized industry standard for computer manufacturers to insure parts compatibility, ETX is a newer attempt to do the same)
We do not have to be rigid in this approach and can combine the two answers.
Example
If manufacturer A builds a machine that is a true ATX, then charge a minimal fee to cover recycling or disposal as this machine is capable of being upgraded and kept in service indefinitely.
Conversely, if manufacturer A builds a machine that does not comply with environmental standards for re-use, then charge more. If the manufacturer claims that this stifles innovation I submit that if it is a true innovation the market should be able to bear the burden.
While this would only apply to computer equipment to start, the philosophy eventually could and should be extended to all other electronics. There is no reason in this age of component electronics that any household electronic device should be disposable.
As for the administrative issues that are currently plaguing SB 20/50. Charging more would allow for the hiring of more staff and promoting re-use could limit the workload. As these seem to be the largest administrative problems at hand I submit that in comparison to the current fiasco this is a reasonable and viable solution.
James Burgett