Beverley Thorpe - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 23
About This Presentation
Title:

Beverley Thorpe

Description:

'We should recycle, but it is not the first thing we should do, it is the last. ... Uses materials designed for easy disassembly and recycling (closed loop design) ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:28
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 24
Provided by: amrcG
Category:
Tags: beverley | thorpe

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Beverley Thorpe


1
  • Beverley Thorpe
  • Bev_at_cleanproduction.org
  • 1514 933 4596
  • www.cleanproduction.org

2
  • We should recycle, but it is not the first thing
    we should do, it is the last. Redesign first,
    then reduce, reuse and finally recycle, if there
    is no other alternative.
  • Bill McDonough, Co-author of Cradle to Cradle

3
What is eco-design?
  • Products designed from a life cycle perspective
  • Designed with non toxic materials (green
    chemistry)
  • Has low energy consumption (ideally renewable)
  • Designed for durability, re-use and ability to
    be upgradable (lower consumption)
  • Uses materials designed for easy disassembly and
    recycling (closed loop design)
  • Where applicable, designed with sustainable
    renewable materials and safe composting at end of
    life

4
Eco-design included in original intent of
European EPR legislation
  • I am particularly pleased we could convince
    member states to strengthen the individual
    responsibility for waste from their products.
    This will be an important incentive for
    producers to take environmental consequences into
    account already when they stand around the design
    table.
  • European Environment Commissioner at launch of
    WEEE Directive

5
Does take-back catalyze eco-design?
  • Only if feedback loop from end of life materials
    management goes directly back to producer - the
    key decision maker on product design
  • Individual Producer Responsibility(IPR) achieves
    this collective producer responsibility with a
    flat fee on products, irrespective of brand, does
    not.
  • Collective responsibility,where all producers
    are jointly responsible for the recycling of all
    products, including the products sold in the
    future - does not provide an incentive to a
    producer to design products to be easier to
    recycle. joint industry statement
    www.iprworks.org

6
(No Transcript)
7
Other incentives for eco-design
  • Regulatory incentives necessary to promote
    eco-design and level the playing field
  • restrictions on hazardous substances (RoHS-2)
  • enforced recycling standards no export
  • occupational health and safety standards

8
Consortium of companies and groups promoting IPR
  • www.iprworks.org
  • AB Electrolux
  • Braun
  • European Environmental Bureau
  • Greenpeace International
  • Hewlett Packard
  • Länsförsäkringar Insurance
  • Sony Europe
  • Stena Technoworld AB
  • European Recycling Platform promoting IPR since
    2002

9
Companies who support IPR
  • HP, Dell, Apple, Sony, Samsung, Sony Ericsson,
    Lenovo, LG, Fujitsu-Siemens, Nokia, Acer,
    Electrolux, Braun, .all have statements on their
    website supporting IPR.
  • Visit www.greenpeace.org Guide to Greener
    Electronics (updated quarterly)

10
(No Transcript)
11
IPR can be achieved in collective systems
  • Collective systems are not the same as collective
    responsibility
  • Producers can achieve direct feedback loops in
    collective systems through
  • Brand sampling
  • Brand recognition
  • as well as own brand take-back and recycling
    systems

12
(No Transcript)
13
Brand sorting in collective systems can be done
  • ICT Milieu, N L
  • individual producers received a monthly invoice
    directly from the recycler based on the weight of
    the recycled products
  • Each brand was hand sorted, weighed on a scale
    and logged using a touch screen panel.
  • Any name which was not part of ICT Milieu would
    be registered as a "free rider"
  • The cost of manual sorting was a few cent/kg

14
Return Share in collective systems can be done
(ME and WA)
  • Return share manufacturers percentage, by
    weight, of identified brands of electronic
    products returned for recycling.
  • Maine and Washington States use return share to
    make computer and TV manufacturers individually
    responsible for collection and recycling
  • Maine Municipalities collect WEEE and pass it
    to a consolidator
  • Every product is counted and weighed
  • producers finance recycling of returned brands
  • Manufacturers can collect a representative pile
    of WEEE from consolidator and undertake recycling
  • OR, pay the consolidator to undertake recycling
    incl share of orphans
  • OR, have branded product separated orphans
  • Orphans currently estimated at less than 2 per
    cent
  • Orphans divided pro rata between those with over
    1 return share

15
Return Share Washington
  • Manufacturers may/must join Standard Plan to
    manage and finance recycling program OR may start
    an independent plan on own or with others (if
    combined return share above 5)
  • Dept of Ecology determines the return share for
    each manufacturer. Info calculated by the
  • Brand Data Management System developed by the
    National Center for Electronics Recycling
  • Orphan brands divided among all manufacturers
    according to their return share percentages.
  • Return share systems to be established in
    Connecticut and Oregon

16
Brand recognition can be done
  • Research in Nordic countries to separate and
    identify product and model specific info
  • Results (www.iprworks.org)
  • Possibility to establish dismantling service
    based on actual products and their specific
    design and component structure
  • IPR based on product sorting is achievable at a
    cost if more IPR, then more competition among
    recyclers would drive innovation and lower costs

17
RFID tags allow brand separation and will become
more common
18
(No Transcript)
19
(No Transcript)
20
Evidence of design change
  • Research on impact of impending EPR legislation
    on manufacturers of electronics and autos in
    Japan and Sweden revealed distinct proactive
    design change
  • Extended Producer Responsibility
  • An examination of its impact on innovation
  • and greening products. Chris van Rossem,
  • Naoko Tojo and Thomas Lindhqvist. 2006
  • Commissioned by Greenpeace, FoE, EEB.
  • Report also available at www.iprworks.org

21
(No Transcript)
22
IPR is evolving
  • Kieren Mayers, Sony Entertainment

23
Thank you
  • More information on EPR available at
    www.cleanproduction.org
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com