Update

I reached out to the city of Toronto to understand and learn from the city’s efforts in this regard (e-waste reduction). I am very grateful that they kindly took time to go over all the current city initiatives, and I was happy to hear that this is one area where a lot of efforts are in place. I am hopeful that some of the initiatives continue to gain traction! (I am leaving their name off this post for privacy)

At the end of this post (scroll to the bottom) I am sharing a summary of some of the information from the city in the hope that it will be useful to others. (I kept the narrative order of the original post in place to be able to provide some context for the follow-up information)

Background:

Electronics tend to be some of the most polluting waste we have (except perhaps for plastics although electronics make use of lots of plastic too). Given electronic waste is highly integrated this makes getting at the raw materials very difficult, and hence recycling tends to be very costly. Notwithstanding what corporations may tell you, (almost always) raw materials are cheaper than re-cycled materials. For some context, refer to the success of plastics recycling, possible yet not economical.

First and foremost, the best that can be done for this kind of end-of-life e-waste is categorization to keep it off from landfills where it may contaminate soil or underground waters, furthermore in some cases recycling can be viable if a technical flow and recycling market exists.

I really think in the electronics sector is where re-use and repair can really hold the most value in the reduction of waste that ends up in landfills.

The issue is, nowadays devices are designed for timed obsolescence as this generates a recurrent income stream for the manufacturers of those devices. Timed obsolescence also establishes predictable product life-cycles and hence business time-lines for design, development, production and marketing of new devices to be launched to market at well-defined dates.

Unfortunately, this model is extremely wasteful, in economic terms it incurs a large negative externality which then needs to be shouldered by public entities burdened with the handling of ever larger toxic electronic waste and the (taxpayer) cost this entails.

The failure of this timed-obsolescence model (from the perspective of the public) resides in the fact that the waste management cost remains unaccounted for during the production, marketing and life-cycle of the product. In other words, manufacturers are off-the-hook for the cost of generating large amounts of waste. However, if instead the waste management cost was passed on to manufacturers, then the economic incentive for companies to engage in this type of model would be reduced as it would likely not be profitable.

If such was the case, in the long term, durable and repairable – long-life – products would carry the lowest waste-added cost and as such would come to be more cost-effective for manufacturers to produce. But alas, in the short term such added cost would be reflected in the price of consumer goods, and such a policy would be highly unpopular for consumers (aided by publicity and lobbying from manufacturers resisting such policy change). As an example of such a push to resist change, one can refer to right-to-repair legislation in different countries.

A better alternative is one creative enough to quickly gain traction at the consumer level: i.e. when the purchase decision is being made.

Re-use and Repair for Electronics:

One option to accomplish this would be to tap into the consumer selection of products at the time of purchase.

Normally a consumer’s selection bias is guided by the perceived value of a product (the value of a product in the consumer’s mind).

In an open economy where consumers have honest and accurate information about a product which is further standardized for comparison. The perceived value of a product matches the value of a product as would be determined by an efficient competitive market.

Unfortunately, often the perceived value of a product, and the real supplier’s cost of a product can differ wildly. In fact from a supplier perspective the higher the perceived value of a product vs the real cost of production: the largest the margin.

Nowadays, it is much easier and cheaper for a supplier to change the perceived value of a product via personalized advertising, and use branding to discourage value-based comparison, than it is to invest in technical improvements which lead to new competition.

Interestingly enough, given the large number of product choices available to consumers, and the difficulty in estimating a fair value, let alone comparing products. Increasingly consumers have turned to online reviews/rankings from reputable/trusted sources to shortlist products for purchase.

1. Durability Reviews/Ranking (From Trusted Sources)

I believe this tool (trusted reviews/rankings) can be used to incentivize consumers towards the purchase of products which are most durable and repairable. Or seen a different way, lowering the consumer’s perceived value for non-reusable products can over time make them unprofitable to produce.

Government agencies, having most to benefit from waste reduction as well as holding a trusted impartial position can be the most powerful agents in promoting this change.

Especially effective would be the distribution of a list review/ranking the most durable and repairable products to aid city efforts in waste reduction. Such list could be initially aggregated from reputable well-known online sources currently available (as an example ifixit repairability scores), or through a responsible third-party on a contract basis. The list could be then distributed alongside quarterly or monthly compost/recycling/garbage waste guidance newsletters already in place (standard in many places in the world).

Such a program as described above promoted by a public agency is likely to lead to a shift in consumer choices and in-turn will have a large effect in reducing the amount of e-waste sent to landfills.

2. Durability Accreditation

Alongside or after the introduction of the durability rankings above, another step which could be introduced is the creation of a durability accreditation program.

An example of such a program is described below: Manufacturers can opt to participate in the durability accreditation program by filing and paying application fees after which a product would be reviewed by an expert panel to meet such specs (additional qualitative stress tests and durability analysis could be done by a firm under contract for this work). The benefit of having the durability seal displayed on their products pertains a substantial increase in perceived value by consumers and hence a higher market price. (one can even envision gold/silver/bronze seals for different durability and repairability specs).

Initially participation in such a program can be made free-of-charge as an incentive to manufacturers, with time as the program is streamlined and the reputation of the program grows, application fees will be put in place to shoulder the cost of the program away from taxpayers pockets.

Most exciting is the synergy of both the durability and rankings accreditation programs. Accreditation can provide additional expert reviews and evidence to support durability rankings, hence further helping consumer’s purchase selections.

The end result: consumer choices based on trusted research which prioritize the purchase of quality, durable, re-pairable and further re-usable products. This in turn will keep e-waste away from landfills and reduce both the waste management cost to governments and the burden on the environment.

Information from the City

Helpful information shared from the City of Toronto, this is just a small summary of links with key areas to highlight.

1. E-waste collection guidelines

As part of the city of Toronto Long term Waste Management Strategy, some of the following programs and initiatives are in place. Indeed, prioritizing the prevention of waste (i.e. reduction, re-use, repair) over recycling is a key goal of the LTWMS.

2. Donation and Re-use

Donation and re-use are encouraged first, whenever possible.

Specifically, re-use, sharing and repair are encouraged as a way to help mitigate our throw-away culture and prolong the life of a myriad products, including electronics.

  • E-waste can be dropped-off at one of the Share & Re-use Spaces (see tab in above link), where it can be repaired, shared or re-purposed.

Extended Producer Responsibility.

Another very interesting new regulation in Ontario I was made aware of is the EPR. Via this regulation, the stewardship and costs associated with e-waste management are covered by the producers. This is very powerful as it forces the price of goods (up-front) to reflect the added cost on the environment.

Repair Cafe Toronto

For those that would like to give new life to electronics through repair. Toronto has Repair Cafe Toronto with several locations in the city. Whether you are someone who wants to both learn and repair an item you have, or you are someone technically inclined with hands-on repair experience that would like to volunteer to repair items from the community and share your know how: Repair Cafe is a great community organization promoting re-pair and re-use.



Leave your comments below (or comment directly here).

Thank you for your feedback.