Gotham Gazette

The Place for New York Policy and politics

Topics

Topics

Tackling E-Waste


This article discusses one aspect of garbage in New York City. To figure out what you would do about the piles of e-waste and other refuse New Yorkers generate every day, play Gotham Gazette's Garbage Game.

Got an old computer in your closet or a spare television you'd like to get rid of? Many of us do, but we also know that disposing of it poses real risks to the environment.

But we now have a chance to reduce that risk with a ground-breaking bill, Intro. 104, which would put the responsibility on product manufacturers.

New York City has historically been a pioneer when it comes to improving the health and well-being of its citizens. We were the first city in the world to ban smoking in indoor public places and recently passed a major bill to fight global warming.

We should continue our efforts to protect the environment by making sure toxic electronics are recycled instead of adding to the millions of tons of trash New Yorkers throw out every day.

A Growing Problem

The amount of electronic waste (e-waste) in New York City and around the country is skyrocketing. Every year New York City collects and must dispose of more than 25,000 tons of discarded televisions, computers and other electronic equipment, which together comprise the fastest growing part of the municipal waste stream. These items can contain mercury, lead, cadmium and other hazardous materials, which can release dangerous toxins into our air and water when burned or deposited in landfills improperly.

Once a computer has reached the end of its lifespan, it is not only expensive to truck away, but it takes up already dwindling space in landfills. This type of waste is highly toxic, contaminating and polluting the environment and putting sanitation workers at risk. That is why the City Council should pass legislation to reduce the amount of this highly toxic material in our landfills.

Intro 104, the Electronic Equipment Collection, Recycling and Reuse Act, which I am sponsoring in the City Council, would require manufacturers to collect, recycle or reuse e-waste generated in the city at no expense to the consumer. The bill, which the Natural Resources Defense Councilhelped craft, would give manufacturers the flexibility to develop a free take-back plan that is most efficient for them. Currently manufacturers bear none of the financial burden or responsibility for safely managing e-waste, which includes computers, televisions and portable digital music players.

The problem of e-waste management is growing rapidly. Between 1985 and 2001 the sales of electronics in the U.S. more than tripled. Over 30,000 tons of electronic waste and small appliances traveled through our city's waste stream in 2004. New York City pays $6.4 million a year to export these materials to neighboring states for disposal in landfills or incineration in Newark.

Toxic Trash

E-waste is different from other types of municipal waste because it often contains hazardous lead, mercury and cadmium. As anyone who has tried to move one can appreciate, an average television can contain up to seven pounds of lead.

Currently, e-waste left on the curb for garbage collection is picked up by sanitation workers and crushed in the city's packer trucks. This can expose workers to toxic lead dust, which is released when the glass of television and computer monitors shatters.

Many electronics disposed of in the household trash in Manhattan are burned at the Newark Incinerator only about 10 miles away -- a distance easily traveled by mercury, dioxin and other toxic emissions.

Burying the increasing amounts of waste does not offer a viable solution either. Despite being a relatively small part of the waste stream, the Environmental Protection Agencyestimates that electronics are the source of 40 percent of the lead found in landfills which, if improperly managed or maintained, could lead to groundwater contamination by mercury, lead, cadmium, and other toxic components in e-waste.

The Solution

Some critics will say Intro. 104 would place too many demands on manufacturers, yet many companies are already far along in implementing plans for taking back and recycling e-waste.

Dell, for example, has already developed its own recycling program, including a free mail-back program for all of its old computers. Tod Arbogast, Dell's director of sustainable business, summed up the company's new found green philosophy when he said: "We've taken responsibility for design, manufacturing and end of life disposal... We recognize our responsibility to recycle the products we make and sell."

Under Intro. 104, manufacturers are free to develop the e-waste management programs that work best for them, so long as they meet the bill's strong collection requirements. For example, some companies, such as Dell and Hewlett-Packard, would likely continue to make use of their existing mail-back programs. Other options that might be used -- either on their own or in combination with other programs -- include collection events, partnerships with retailers or scheduled curbside pickups.

This bill not only ensures that electronics are recycled, but also correctly begins to shift the cost of handling electronic waste from city taxpayers to the manufacturers of that waste. Making manufacturers accountable will give them an incentive to make more environmentally friendly products, decrease recycling costs and reduce the level of e-waste arriving at traditional waste sites, such as landfills.

Taking the Lead

I have sponsored several successful e-waste recycling events in Brooklyn with the Lower East Side Ecology Center.

Our last e-waste drive in Park Slope netted 22,000 pounds of e-waste over a single weekend. These sporadic activities are a start, but they are not enough. A more comprehensive plan is necessary for a city with a population over 8 million and growing and in an era when electronics play an ever-increasing role in our lives.

The New York City bill is the first e-waste bill introduced in the U.S. at the municipal level and would be one of the toughest such laws in the nation. The city can and should set the standard for national legislation on this issue, as the rest of the nation often follows our innovative lead.

Just as Mayor Michael Bloomberg offered an ambitious environmental agenda for the city through his plan for sustainability, New York City should also become a leader on e-waste by passing Intro 104.

Bill de Blasio is the councilmember for the 39th Council District in Brooklyn, which encompasses Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens, Columbia Street, Park Slope, Winsor Terrace, Kensington and Boro Park. De Blasio joined the City Council in 2002, and currently chairs its General Welfare Committee. He recently declared his candidacy for Brooklyn borough president in 2009.  

A Changing Climate on Global Warming: What the Election Means


Background image (cc) Laurence Dodd

With the election of Barack Obama for president, environmentalists are poised for action on global warming at the federal level for the first time in years. There are good reasons for environmentalists to be optimistic, despite the recent economic news. And, there is a New York angle to all of this.

First, Obama embraced internationally endorsed greenhouse gas emission cuts in a videotaped address on November 18 (to view the speech, go here). He gave the address at the Global Climate Summit, a two-day conference led by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to break gridlock on the issue before the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Poznan, Poland later this month.

In the speech (his first on an issue other than the economy since the election), Obama committed his administration to passing national cap-and-trade legislation to reduce national greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and toward an 80 percent cut in emissions by 2050. These reductions dovetail with the views of most climate experts. Most significantly, Obama's clear emissions-cutting goals are a sharp pivot from the climate approach of the Bush administration, which never moved beyond a 2002 policy that aimed merely to slow down the overall growth of greenhouse gases.

"Few challenges facing America -- and the world -- are more urgent than combating climate change," Obama said in the video. Referring to the ongoing UN negotiations for a new global climate change pact, Obama said, "Once I take office, you can be sure that the United States will once again engage vigorously in these negotiations and help lead the world toward a new era of global cooperation on climate change."

What's the New York angle here? Over the long run, these emission reductions will be necessary to slow down the rise in sea level rise that is expected to threaten low-lying shorelines in New York City, on Long Island and elsewhere in the state. In the short run, while establishing a national market-based trading system for greenhouse gases will not solve all of Wall Street's woes, it certainly couldn't hurt.

Advising Obama

Second, Obama's transition team includes several of the key players in recent litigation over the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. In March 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that EPA had the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases, and that the agency had to articulate a reasonable basis in order to avoid regulation. Justice John Paul Stevens' majority opinion topped off a multiyear legal strategy in a case brought by 12 states (including New York), several cities and many environmental organizations to force the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.

The lead author of the winning legal briefs, Georgetown law professor Lisa Heinzerling, is a member of the transition team, and so is University of Virginia professor Jonathan Cannon, who helped launch the debate about EPA's ability to regulate global warming pollution when he was EPA general counsel in the Clinton administration. And Carol Browner, former EPA administrator and head of the EPA Policy Working Group for the transition team, was Cannon's boss when he wrote a memo outlining the steps EPA could take to regulate the main greenhouse gases under the existing Clean Air Act.

What's the New York angle here? Lisa Jackson, former commissioner of New Jersey's Department of Environmental Protection, understands the environmental challenges of our region, and is a co-chair of the Obama transition team for EPA. Michelle DePass, a former head of the New York City Environmental Justice Alliance who now directs the Environmental Justice program at the Ford Foundation, is also on the team.

Reversing the Bush Climate Policy

Third, the Obama team seems poised to undo and reverse some of the Bush administration's climate-related actions as soon as Obama moves into the White House. At the top of the list: Obama has already said that he will reverse the Bush administration's decision to deny California its right to regulate automobile emissions.

In 2002, California adopted legislation that required its air agency to implement regulations that would phase in greenhouse gas emission standards for cars and light trucks from 2009 to 2016. This regulation was projected to cut greenhouse gases from California vehicles by about 22 percent in 2012 and 30 percent by 2016, compared to vehicles sold in 2004. Because the Bush EPA rejected California's request for a waiver from the EPA standards, the program has been in limbo.

What's the New York angle? How President Obama acts on this issue will directly affect New Yorkers who buy cars. That's because New York (along with more than a dozen other states) had already opted out of the federal emissions system and adopted the California standards before President Bush stopped the program in its tracks. With a new decision on California's waiver request, New Yorkers will get the cleaner vehicles.

Connecting the Dots

Last, the Obama energy and climate plan links directly to the economic stimulus and other economic items that are top priorities for both the incoming administration and the new Congress. In a strong rebuke to those who claim that economic strength and environmental progress are not related, Obama places his energy priorities at the heart of his economic plan. A few examples:

* Passing national cap-and-trade legislation, covering all sectors of the economy, is designed to meet the administration's global warming goals, as well as modernize the energy industry for a more competitive future.

* Investing $150 billion over the next 10 years to spur private efforts to build a clean energy future is designed to create 5 million new "green jobs" as well as prepare for a lower-carbon economy.

* Increasing vehicle fuel economy and putting more than a million "plug-in" hybrid vehicles on our roads will reduce greenhouse gases, increase our energy security and could help restore the viability of America's automakers.

Ensuring that 10 percent of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025 will help modernize our outdated energy grid.

What's the New York angle here? A cleaner environment now and action on global warming for our future, all tied in with our critical economy recovery.

In sum, environmentalists can find much to be enthusiastic about in President-elect Obama's first climate steps, including his Nov. 18 speech, his transition team, his statements on the California vehicle emissions waiver, and his longer-term climate agenda. And, through a local lens, many direct benefits to New York can be found in each of these steps.

 

Candidates Offer Different Plans to Cool Climate Change


Not so long ago, global warming was on every candidate's mind. Al Gore had won a Nobel Peace Prize and an Oscar, Hurricane Katrina was a potent reminder of the increased severity of our hurricanes, and cities around the country (including ours) were adopting sustainability plans left and right.

According to Dr. James Hansen, the NASA scientist who sounded the alarm on climate change more than two decades ago, we have only a few years to change the trajectory of the pollution that causes global warming if we hope to avoid serious and irreversible damage (including, of course, a rise in sea levels that would threaten significant areas in all five boroughs of New York City).

Today, though, the economic picture dominates the news, and national security fills whatever little space isn't covered by the financial crisis gripping New York's -- and the nation's -- voters.

But, from an environmental perspective, nothing has actually changed: No matter what happens on Wall Street or Main Street, the next president needs to take strong action to reduce the threat of climate change. Both Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama support federal legislation to stabilize and then reduce global warming pollution through the use of a market-based, "cap-and-trade" system - in fact, McCain brought the first significant climate change bill to the floor of the Senate, back in 2003.

It's reasonable to assume, therefore, that Congress will be urged to tackle climate change legislation next year, no matter who wins on Nov. 4. However, a quick review of their statements and Websites (you can jump to Barack Obama's energy plan here and John McCain's energy plan here) show a dramatic difference on some key components of the climate change puzzle.

Long-Term Goals

Most environmental organizations and scientists concur on the long-term goal: By 2050, we need to cut global warming pollution by 80 percent from its 1990 levels. Obama agrees with that target. McCain's plan would cut emissions by 60 percent from the 1990 levels.

Renewable Energy

Obama has consistently shown a strong commitment to renewable energy like wind and solar. He has pledged to get 10 percent of our electricity from these clean energy sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025. He believes that this shift, in conjunction with improved fuel economy standards for vehicles and greater investments in energy efficiency, would generate 5 million new "green collar" jobs.

These campaign pledges are consistent with his performance on renewable energy issues on the Senate floor - for example, from 2005 to 2007, he voted pro-environment on every one of the 12 Senate votes on renewable energy. In contrast, McCain voted against the 2005 bill that would require 10 percent of electricity to be renewable energy in 2012, and he opposes subsidies for wind and solar energy.

Nuclear Power

McCain's primary focus for change in the electric power sector is nuclear power, in large part due to its low carbon footprint. (Nuclear power plants produce no greenhouse gas emissions when operating, although there can be significant emissions linked to the mining of the uranium used at these plants, as well as emissions linked to decommissioning old plants and transporting and storing nuclear waste). McCain promotes a plan to build 45 new nuclear power plants by 2030. He plans to use more than $200 billion dollars in federal subsidies to help pay for these plants. And, in order to move this plan forward, he favors storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.

Although Obama favors "keeping nuclear power on the table," he would not allocate new or additional subsidies to the development of new nuclear power plants, and he opposes storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain.

Powering Our Cars

Transportation is a key piece of the climate change/energy independence puzzle, and it has three key components: the fuels we use, the vehicles we drive and the amount we drive.

Over the summer, the candidates diverged sharply on fuel issues: McCain proposed a gas tax holiday to reduce fuel prices, while Obama labeled that move a gimmick that wouldn't actually solve anybody's problems, since the spike in prices was due to rising oil prices and other industry factors, rather than gas taxes.

McCain's current fuel strategy has been made famous by the oft-heard chant at his rallies: "Drill, baby, drill." Drilling offshore is the centerpiece of his energy strategy for transportation fuels.

In contrast, Obama proposes a National Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) to reduce the carbon content in all transportation fuels by 10 percent by 2020 and to ensure that we move to advanced, sustainable biofuels during this period - 60 billion gallons of them annually by 2030 (e.g. cellulosic ethanol fuels that are not derived from food products).

With respect to vehicle fuel economy, Obama has voted consistently to raise fuel economy standards and has promised to double the fuel economy of our vehicles. Achieving these goals would reduce oil consumption by more than one third by 2020. Plus, he aims to put 1 million plug-in hybrid vehicles on American roads by 2015 - cars that could be capable of going up to 150 miles on a gallon of gasoline.

On the other hand, McCain has a long history of opposing higher fuel efficiency standards for vehicles-and still has not set a target for future fuel economy, despite consumer fears of higher gas prices and the collapse of the SUV market.

(For more on how much we drive cars -- and the candidates' stands on mass transit -- see Federal Transportation Spending: Priority or Pork?)

There are many important issues to consider this Election Day. While most media coverage has focused on the economy, Iraq, and the ups and downs of the race itself, the next president will have to focus also on climate and energy issues. With Election Day just around the corner, the details of the candidates' climate and energy proposals are worth considering.

Rich Kassel is a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council, where he focuses on urban air pollution and transportation issues. He also chairs the Tri-State Transportation Campaign, a regional transportation advocacy organization and blogs on a variety of environmental issues on the NRDC Switchboard. Any opinions expressed in this article are his personal views, and do not represent the views of NRDC or the Tri-State Transportation Campaign.

 



Print Friendly and PDF

Editor's Choice


Gotham Gazette: New York Voters Approve $4.2 Billion Environmental Bond Act
New York Voters Approve $4.2 Billion Environmental Bond Act
Gotham Gazette: 
New York City Voters Approve Racial Justice Ballot Measures
New York City Voters Approve Racial Justice Ballot Measures
Gotham Gazette: 
Housing Development in New York City Slows to a Crawl as Officials Debate Tax Incentives
Housing Development in New York City Slows to a Crawl as Officials Debate Tax Incentives
Gotham Gazette: 
City Council Examines Low Voter Turnout, Moving Local Elections to Even Years City Council Examines Low Voter Turnout, Moving Local Elections to Even Years