In the past, I have blogged about extended-producer responsibility (EPR). In short, EPR is an environmental policy approach in which a producer’s responsibility including physical and/or financial for a product is extended to the post-consumer stage of a product’s life cycle. Because producers, importers and/or sellers have to internalize waste management costs in their product prices, they would have to be more efficient and less profligate when designing their products.
Some critics of the EPR model have discussed its futility in an economic downturn. I think the implicit assumption here is that manufacturers are already struggling to produce and sell their products because demand for goods has plummeted amid the recession. Therefore, they would be unwilling to invest in an EPR model because of their ostensible limitations and constraints. This however is absolute bogus and is delaying the indispensable legislative requirements that are badly needed to advance sustainability in waste management. Some of the cynics found within these manufacturing companies are completely overlooking the benefits that one can obtain from making simple switches through EPR.
Over the long-term, producers can profit by taking materials back and reusing them. By re-using products producers are effectively becoming less reliant on aggregate resources from the environment and therefore extraction costs go down and it makes the manufacturing process more efficient for them. Like many topics within the environment, an EPR model is highly interconnected. When manufacturers and producers jump on board, citizens begin to recognize their good habits and the government becomes more generous in terms of creating waste management funds and incentive programs to reduce total waste.
Though I am not always an advocate for regulatory measures, having legislation on EPR is absolutely critical. This is important because by transferring the costs from taxpayer funded municipal waste management systems to manufacturers and citizens, it can enforce the polluters pay principle where level of effort to conserve or pollute is reflected in the cost.
Fortunately, the recession has provided us with realization that rampant consumerism and neglecting the environment can be costly both economically and environmentally. There have been some minor funding cuts in renewable technology, environmentally friendly products, and highly innovative waste management models like EPR. However, I vehemently believe that the recession has not stifled but stimulated innovation for green design and development. And now we are going to see an upward trend in more funding allocation to the environment for research and development purposes (of course I am an optimist). Whether my hypothesis is accurate or not, the bottomline is that we will have to be cautious in our ambitious pursuits and start to better understand why environmental education is important for this era. Being educated on things like EPR or recycling programs for instance can take us along way and broaden our knowledge on sustainable development.
This is no time to gamble with risks for things like EPR, the advantages and cost-savings associated with EPR are extensive and wide-ranging. This is the time to bring about EPR legislation as British Columbia has so adequately done. We are going to have to be more forward thinking in this era of sustainable development. A recession should teach us about how to become smarter with green innovation and certainly a degree of collective accountability.
Key message: EPR is an effective method because it can stimulate innovation in manufacturing companies through reducing materials, resources and energy usage. All of which are important for optimal waste minimization.
No comments:
Post a Comment