Bill Overview
Title: Secure E-Waste Export and Recycling Act
Description: This bill prohibits the export or reexport of electronic waste, such as computers, televisions, and consumer electronics, subject to certain exemptions (e.g., items that meet specific criteria designed to ensure they do not become the source of counterfeit products).
Sponsors: Sen. Whitehouse, Sheldon [D-RI]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals impacted by electronic waste policies
Estimated Size: 330000000
- The global population is impacted because electronic waste is a worldwide issue affecting environmental and public health.
- Improper disposal of e-waste can lead to soil, air, and water pollution, impacting large communities.
- Export bans could influence global recycling markets and practices, affecting those employed in the sector internationally.
- The communities that currently rely on the informal sector of e-waste management, often located in developing countries, will be directly affected by such regulations.
- Worldwide consumers and businesses, particularly those in industries dealing with electronics and e-waste, will be directly impacted.
Reasoning
- The policy is mainly environmentally beneficial, aimed at reducing the environmental and health impacts of improper e-waste disposal.
- The US generates a significant amount of e-waste; thus, it's relevant to citizens involved in electronics purchasing, recycling, and disposal.
- Implementing the policy could lead to cost changes or different product availability.
- The long-term impact on wellbeing might vary slightly since it's more economic and environmental than directly individual.
- The policy's constraints ensure that the most impacted (e.g., e-waste workers, electronics consumers) are considered within budgetary limits and realistic target population scope.
Simulated Interviews
E-waste recycler (California)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this policy could be both a challenge and an opportunity for us.
- In the short term, we may face difficulties adjusting to no longer exporting e-waste, but it could lead to more domestic recycling jobs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Consumer electronics retailer (New York)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry about how banning exports might affect our supply of affordable refurbished electronics.
- We might need to re-evaluate our sourcing strategies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Retired (Texas)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is crucial for ensuring we handle e-waste responsibly in the US.
- I think it supports our environment, leading to better community health in the long run.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
IT professional (Illinois)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The restriction might mean we have to invest in better e-waste disposal strategies.
- But it could help our company understand sustainability more.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Municipal waste manager (Florida)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I expect the policy will make my job more challenging in the management of e-waste volume.
- The quality of disposal should improve, however.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
High school teacher (Michigan)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad this policy is in place as it will create important lessons for my students.
- Understanding and dealing with e-waste is crucial for their future.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Electronics manufacturer executive (Arizona)
Age: 53 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might increase operational costs as we turn inward for e-waste recycling.
- We need to strategize better resource management.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
College student (Ohio)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a student, I'm pleased with the focus on responsible management of e-waste this policy introduces.
- Hope it encourages innovation in sustainable technologies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Freelance writer (Colorado)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy aligns with my beliefs on how critical e-waste management is for sustainability.
- I expect it to shed more light on domestic recycling processes, which is positive.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Director at a tech start-up (Washington)
Age: 46 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We are keen on seeing how this policy will push for better sustainable practices in tech.
- It may be a challenge short-term but an opportunity long-term.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1500000000 (Low: $1000000000, High: $2000000000)
Year 2: $1500000000 (Low: $1000000000, High: $2000000000)
Year 3: $1000000000 (Low: $800000000, High: $1200000000)
Year 5: $800000000 (Low: $600000000, High: $1000000000)
Year 10: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $700000000)
Year 100: $250000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $350000000)
Key Considerations
- The policy could strain current e-waste management and recycling infrastructure initially.
- Coordination with industry stakeholders will be essential for successful implementation.
- Monitoring and enforcement mechanisms must be robust to prevent non-compliance.
- Potential international trade disputes could arise from the perceived protectionism of export bans.