California stands on the verge of ushering in an environmental program which aims to change the face of waste production standards. Several bills currently in the California Legislature propose to codify the European concept of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) , which has so far been a voluntary practice. It is a strategy which promotes the integration of environmental costs associated with a product throughout its lifecycle into the market price of the product. In other words, b efore the manufacturing of a product begins, EPR suggests that the manufacturer should know how the waste created by the production process should be treated, as well as how the product should be taken care of once discarded. In this way, state regulators would create a system that would burden businesses with “cradle to cradle” recycling systems designed, financed, and managed by the producers themselves.
First conceived in Sweden, then used in Germany, EPR has spread across Europe and is slowly entering the American consciousness. Environmental activists hope that new California mandates will be established for the rest of the country to follow. EPR has the potential to combine environmental efforts such as greenhouse gas emissions implementation, landfill diversion quotas, the green chemistry initiative, to name just a few, that will hurt the state’s economy and result in higher prices, fewer choices, and increased unemployment.
Proponents of EPR believe that zero waste is possible, and that producers, rather than consumers, should be responsible for that waste. But instituting an EPR program is problematic for three reasons:
-
EPR makes companies responsible for a product forever—even after the customer has thrown it away.
-
EPR requires manufacturers to take responsibility for every method or component that may have or will be a part of the production process.
-
The costs of implementing EPR policies make these companies unprofitable.
America was built on innovation aided by its plentiful resources. Each generation has improved on the generation before it by creating a more productive, efficient, and cleaner society. Along the way, policy makers have adopted policies to deal with unavoidable negative environmental effects such as pollution and hazardous materials in order to protect public health. Scientific discoveries and advanced technology allow us to continually encourage better stewardship of our environment.
Government provides the necessary framework for dealing with harmful waste. While it is sometimes necessary for government to regulate specific harmful material, any mandate that gives government more control over our lives limits our freedom to be innovative when making production choices.
Additionally, the adoption of EPR standards would allow legislators to write laws requiring the use of science and technology that does not yet exist. Mandated EPR regulations would also complicate the issues of product ownership, expose business to lawsuits, increase production costs, complicate waste disposal, and bring uncertainty to the manufacturing process. These regulations would make doing business in California far too expensive, which means that fewer producers will operate in California. Few businesses, mean fewer jobs—something that our state can ill afford given the current 11.5% unemployment rate.
Not surprisingly, Extended Producer Responsibility is the absolute last thing California should adopt in the midst of severe recession!