IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rff/dpaper/dp-01-27.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Modeling the Costs and Environmental Benefits of Disposal Options for End-of-Life Electronic Equipment: The Case of Used Computer Monitors

Author

Listed:
  • Palmer, Karen

    (Resources for the Future)

  • Macauley, Molly

    (Resources for the Future)

  • Shih, Jhih-Shyang

    (Resources for the Future)

  • Cline, Sarah
  • Holsinger, Heather

Abstract

Managing the growing quantity of used electronic equipment poses challenges for waste management officials. In this paper, we focus on a large component of the electronic waste stream—computer monitors—and the disposal concerns associated with the lead embodied in cathode ray tubes (CRTs) used in most monitors. We develop a policy simulation model of consumers’ disposal options based on the costs of these options and their associated environmental impacts. For the stock of monitors disposed of in the United States in 1998, our preliminary findings suggest that bans on some disposal options would increase disposal costs from about $1 per monitor to between $3 and $20 per monitor. Policies to promote a modest amount of recycling of monitor parts, including lead, can be less expensive. In both cases, the costs of the policies exceed the value of the avoided health effects of CRT disposal.

Suggested Citation

  • Palmer, Karen & Macauley, Molly & Shih, Jhih-Shyang & Cline, Sarah & Holsinger, Heather, 2001. "Modeling the Costs and Environmental Benefits of Disposal Options for End-of-Life Electronic Equipment: The Case of Used Computer Monitors," RFF Working Paper Series dp-01-27, Resources for the Future.
    • Handle: RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-01-27
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.rff.org/RFF/documents/RFF-DP-01-27.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:bla:jindec:v:47:y:1999:i:3:p:251-61 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Karl Whelan, 2002. "Computers, Obsolescence, And Productivity," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 84(3), pages 445-461, August.
    3. Palmer, Karen & Sigman, Hilary & Walls, Margaret, 1997. "The Cost of Reducing Municipal Solid Waste," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 128-150, June.
    4. Alberini, Anna & Harrington, Winston & McConnell, Virginia D., 1998. "Fleet Turnover and Old Car Scrap Policies," Discussion Papers 10897, Resources for the Future.
    5. Martin Feldstein, 1999. "Tax Avoidance And The Deadweight Loss Of The Income Tax," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 81(4), pages 674-680, November.
    6. Pizer, William, 1997. "Prices vs. Quantities Revisited: The Case of Climate Change," RFF Working Paper Series dp-98-02, Resources for the Future.
    7. Charles L. Ballard & Don Fullerton, 1992. "Distortionary Taxes and the Provision of Public Goods," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 6(3), pages 117-131, Summer.
    8. Parks, Richard W, 1977. "Determinants of Scrapping Rates for Postwar Vintage Automobiles," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 45(5), pages 1099-1115, July.
    9. Bruce W. Hamilton & Molly K. Macauley, 1999. "Heredity or Environment: Why is Automobile Longevity Increasing?," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(3), pages 251-261, September.
    10. Hilary A. Sigman, 1995. "A Comparison of Public Policies for Lead Recycling," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 26(3), pages 452-478, Autumn.
    11. Ley, Eduardo & Macauley, Molly K. & Salant, Stephen W., 2002. "Spatially and Intertemporally Efficient Waste Management: The Costs of Interstate Trade Restrictions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 188-218, March.
    12. Jenkins, Robin R. & Martinez, Salvador A. & Palmer, Karen & Podolsky, Michael J., 2003. "The determinants of household recycling: a material-specific analysis of recycling program features and unit pricing," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 294-318, March.
    13. Palmer, Karen & Walls, Margaret, 1997. "Optimal policies for solid waste disposal Taxes, subsidies, and standards," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 193-205, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hilary Sigman, 2003. "Targeting Lead in Solid Waste," Departmental Working Papers 200308, Rutgers University, Department of Economics.
    2. Williams, J.A.S., 2006. "A review of electronics demanufacturing processes," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 195-208.
    3. Nnorom, I.C. & Osibanjo, O. & Ogwuegbu, M.O.C., 2011. "Global disposal strategies for waste cathode ray tubes," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 55(3), pages 275-290.
    4. Nnorom, I.C. & Osibanjo, O., 2008. "Overview of electronic waste (e-waste) management practices and legislations, and their poor applications in the developing countries," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 52(6), pages 843-858.
    5. Walls, Margaret, 2003. "The Role of Economics in Extended Producer Responsibility: Making Policy Choices and Setting Policy Goals," RFF Working Paper Series dp-03-11, Resources for the Future.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Acuff, Kaylee & Kaffine, Daniel T., 2013. "Greenhouse gas emissions, waste and recycling policy," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 74-86.
    2. Richard Benjamin & Jeffrey Wagner, 2006. "Reconsidering the law and economics of low-level radioactive waste management," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 8(1), pages 33-53, December.
    3. Walls, Margaret, 2011. "Deposit-Refund Systems in Practice and Theory," RFF Working Paper Series dp-11-47, Resources for the Future.
    4. Walls, Margaret & Calcott, Paul, 2000. "Policies to Encourage Recycling and "Design for Environment": What to Do When Markets are Missing," RFF Working Paper Series dp-00-30, Resources for the Future.
    5. Richard Benjamin & Jeffrey Wagner, 2006. "Reconsidering the law and economics of low-level radioactive waste management," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 8(1), pages 33-53, December.
    6. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:11:y:2005:i:1:p:1-11 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Francisco J. André & Emilio Cerdá, 2005. "Gestión de residuos sólidos urbanos: Análisis económico y políticas públicas," Economic Working Papers at Centro de Estudios Andaluces E2005/23, Centro de Estudios Andaluces.
    8. Numata, Daisuke, 2009. "Economic analysis of deposit–refund systems with measures for mitigating negative impacts on suppliers," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 53(4), pages 199-207.
    9. Lafforgue, Gilles & Lorang, Etienne, 2022. "Recycling under environmental, climate and resource constraints," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    10. Don Fullerton & Wenbo Wu, 2002. "Policies for Green Design," Chapters, in: Don Fullerton & Thomas C. Kinnaman (ed.), The Economics of Household Garbage and Recycling Behavior, chapter 5, pages 102-119, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    11. Calcott, Paul & Walls, Margaret, 2005. "Waste, recycling, and "Design for Environment": Roles for markets and policy instruments," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 287-305, November.
    12. Lehmann, Paul, 2008. "Using a policy mix for pollution control: A review of economic literature," UFZ Discussion Papers 4/2008, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    13. Choe, Chongwoo & Fraser, Iain, 1998. "The economics of household waste management: a review," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 42(3), pages 1-34.
    14. Eichner, Thomas & Pethig, Rudiger, 2001. "Product Design and Efficient Management of Recycling and Waste Treatment," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 109-134, January.
    15. Saphores, Jean-Daniel M. & Ogunseitan, Oladele A. & Shapiro, Andrew A., 2012. "Willingness to engage in a pro-environmental behavior: An analysis of e-waste recycling based on a national survey of U.S. households," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 49-63.
    16. Jeffrey Wagner & Gregory DeAngelo, 2005. "Characterizing regulation and negligence rule uncertainty in solid waste management," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 11(1), pages 1-11.
    17. Don Fullerton & Andrew Leicester & Stephen Smith, 2008. "Environmental Taxes," NBER Working Papers 14197, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Asuncion Arner Guerre, 2022. "The Extended Producer Responsibility for Waste Oils," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 12(2), pages 210-217, March.
    19. Asunci n Arner G erre, 2018. "Oil Tax, Subsidies and Extended Producer Responsibility in the Used Oil Market," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 8(2), pages 47-58.
    20. Ian W.H. Parry & Antonio M. Bento, 2002. "Tax Deductions, Environmental Policy, and the "Double Dividend" Hypothesis," Chapters, in: Lawrence H. Goulder (ed.), Environmental Policy Making in Economies with Prior Tax Distortions, chapter 22, pages 397-426, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    21. Thomas C. Kinnaman & Don Fullerton, 2002. "The Economics of Residential Solid Waste Management," Chapters, in: Don Fullerton & Thomas C. Kinnaman (ed.), The Economics of Household Garbage and Recycling Behavior, chapter 1, pages 1-48, Edward Elgar Publishing.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    end-of-life electronics; waste stream; cost-benefit analysis;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q2 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation
    • Q0 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - General
    • H8 - Public Economics - - Miscellaneous Issues

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-01-27. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Resources for the Future (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rffffus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.