Raising global standards: Hazardous substances and e-waste management in the European Union

Environment

Volumn 48, Issue 10, 2006, Pages 6-18

  Selin, Henrik ^a   VanDeveer, Stacy D ^b  

^a BOSTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

FOSSIL FUEL; HEAVY METAL;

AIR CONDITIONING; BIOACCUMULATION; COMPUTER; CONSUMER; DECISION MAKING; ECONOMIC ASPECT; ELECTRONICS; ELECTRONICS INDUSTRY; ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; EUROPEAN UNION; HAZARDOUS WASTE; HEALTH HAZARD; HOUSEHOLD; ILLUMINATION; INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; LEISURE; MACHINE; MICROWAVE RADIATION; MOBILE PHONE; POLICY; POLITICS; RECREATION; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; SPORT; STANDARD; TECHNOLOGY; TELECOMMUNICATION; TELEVISION CAMERA; WASTE MANAGEMENT;

EID: 33845603434     PISSN: 00139157     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3200/ENVT.48.10.6-18     Document Type: Review

References (92)

1. European Environment Agency, The European Environment-State and Outlook 2005 (Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2005);
2. A. Iles. "Mapping Environmental Justice in Technology Flows: Computer Waste Impacts in Asia" Global Environmental Politics 4 no. 4 (2004): 76-107;
3. the Basel Action Network, http://www.ban.org;
4. and the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, http:/www.svtc.org.
5. C. Bretherton and J. Vogler, The European Union as a Global Actor, second edition (New York: Routledge, 2006);
6. N. J. Vig and M. G. Faure, eds., Green Giants? Environmental Policies of the United States and the European Union (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 2004);
7. J. Carmin and S. D. VanDeveer, EU Enlargement and the Environment: Institutional Change and Environmental Policy in Central and Eastern Europe (London: Routledge. 2005);
8. A. Weale et al., Environmental Governance in Europe: An Ever Closer Ecological Union? second edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003);
9. A. Jordan and D. Liefferink, eds., Environmental Policy in Europe: The Europeanization of National Environmental Policy (New York: Routledge, 2004).
10. A directive is binding with regard to the results it sets out to be achieved, but gives flexibility to national authorities to choose the specific forms and methods for implementation. A regulation sets out more specific rules and requirements for implementation that must be followed identically by all member states.
11. Council directive 2002/96/EC on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE);
12. Council directive 2003/108/EC amending Council directive 2002/96/EC on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE).
13. Council directive 2002/95/EC on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances (RoHS) in electrical and electronic equipment.
14. D. Vogel, Trading Up: Consumer and Environmental Regulation in a Global Economy (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997).
15. J. Carmin and S. D. VanDeveer, note 2 above.
16. Central Intelligence Agency, The World Factbook, 2006, available at https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html. Population figure's are from July, 2006.
17. A. Weale et al., note 2 above;
18. A. Jordan and D. Liefferink, eds., note 2 above.
19. European Commission, A European Union Strategy for Sustainable Development (Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2002): 35.
20. Governments at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg in 2002, agreed that by 2020 human-made chemicals should be "used and produced in ways that lead to the minimization of significant adverse effects on human health and the environment." United Nations, Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development (Johannesburg, South Africa, 2002): paragraph 23.
21. European Commission, note 10 above, page 15.
22. United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, "Declaration on Environment and Development" (Rio de Janeiro. 1992): principle 15.
23. European Commission, Communication from the Commission on the Precautionary Principle (Brussels: European Commission, 2000).
24. T. Petry and R. Meads, "An Analysis of the Proposed REACH Regulation," Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 44 no. 1 (2005): 24-32.
25. N. Eckley and H. Selin, "All Talk, Little Action: Precaution and its Effects on European Chemicals Regulation" Journal of European Public Policy 11 no. 1 (2004): 78-105.
26. D. Wilson, "EU Members Dragging their Heels on WEEE," Electronics Supply & Manufacturing, April 2005, http://www.my-esm.com/print/ showArticle.jhtml? articleID=159908581 (accessed 15 November).
27. European Commission, Implementation of the Waste Electric and Electronic Equipment Directive in the EU (Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2006): iii;
28. and D. Wilson, Implementation of the Waste Electric and Electronic Equipment Directive in the EU ibid.
29. European Commission, "Electronic and Electrical Waste: Commission Takes Legal Action Against Eight Member States," press release, 11 July 2005;
30. Perchards, Transposition of WEEE & RoHS Directives into National Law of EU Member States and Corresponding Industry Activities, 7 April 2005.
31. European Commission press release, Perchards, Transposition of WEEE & RoHS Directives into National Law of EU Member States and Corresponding Industry Activities, 2005. ibid.;
32. The Financial Times editorial, Wasting Time on Waste: The UK Trails in Carrying out EU Law on Electrical Recycling, 7 June 2006;
33. Environmental Data Services (ENDS), "WEEE Regime Promised for April 2007," ENDS Report 379, (August 2006), 36-37.
34. A. Weiner, "Sparks Flying," Evening Gazette (UK), 4 July 2006.
35. European Environmental Bureau, New EU Chemicals Policy, Key Elements of the New Legislation, The View of Environmental NGOs (Brussels, 2002);
36. World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). A New Regulatory System for Chemicals in Europe: A Step Towards a Cleaner, Safer World? (Brussels, 2002);
37. D. Pesendorfer, "EU Environmental Policy Under Pressure: Chemicals Policy Change Between Antagonistic Goals?" Environmental Politics 15 no. 1: 95-114;
38. WWF and European Environmental Bureau staff members in discussion with the authors, November, 2003.
39. D. Vogel, note 6 above.
40. ENDS, "Early Disputes over New Review of EC Chemicals Policy," ENDS Report 279, (April 1998), 39-40.
41. European Commission, White Paper on a Strategy for a Future Chemicals Policy (Brussels: European Commission, 2001);
42. R. Nordbeck and M. Faust, "European Chemicals Regulation and Us Effect on Innovation: An Assessment of the EU's White Paper on the Strategy for a Future Chemicals Policy," European Environment 13 no. 1 (2003): 79-99;
43. K. Geiser and J. Tickner, New Directions in European Chemicals Policies: Drivers, Scope and Status (Lowell, MA: Lowell Center for Sustainable Production 2003);
44. DG Environment officials in discussion with the authors, November, 2003.
45. N. E. Selin and H. Selin, "Global Polities of Mercury Pollution: The Need for Multi-Scale Governance," Review of European Community & International Environmental Law 15, no. 3 (2006): 258-269.
46. C. Burns, "The European Parliament: The European Union's Environmental Champion?" in A. Jordan, ed., Environmental Policy in the European Union: Actors, Institutions and Processes second edition (London: Earthscan, 2005): 87-105. The formal name of the Parliament's Environment Committee is the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy.
47. I. Schörling, "The Greens Perspective on EU Chemicals Regulation and the White Paper," Risk Analysis 3, no. 2 (2003): 405-409;
48. I. Schörling and G. Lund, REACH-The Only Planet Guide to the Secrets of Chemicals Policy in the EU. What Happened and Why? (Brussels: I. Schörling, 2004);
49. Green MEP and representatives of the European and American chemicals industry in discussion with the authors, November, 2003;
50. Representative of the European Commission in discussion with the authors, April 2004 and October 2006.
51. European Commission, note 25 above;
52. Representatives of the European and American chemicals industry, DG Environment officials, and DG Enterprise officials in discussion with the authors, November, 2003;
53. A representative of the European Commission, in discussion with the authors, April 2004 and November 2005.
54. ENDS, "REACH Caught up in EU's Competitiveness Agenda," ENDS Report 346, November 2003: 51-53.
55. European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC), Strategy for a Future Chemicals Policy-Expectations for the European Chemical Industry: Workability and Competitiveness (Brussels: CEFIC, 2003);
56. J.-P. Montfort, "The Commission White Paper on a Strategy for a Future EU Chemicals Policy: The View of European Companies of American Parentage," Risk Analysis 23 no. 2 (2003): 399-404.
57. T. Petry, R. Knowles and R. Meads, "An Analysis of the Proposed REACH Regulation," Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 44 no. 1 (2006): 24-32.
58. European Commission, White Paper on a Strategy for a Future Chemicals Policy (Brussels: European Commission: 2001).
59. R. Nordbeck, and M. Faust, note 25 above.
60. A. D. Little, Economic Effects of the EU Substances Policy: Summary of the Research Project (Wiesbaden: Arthur D. Little GmbH, 2003);
61. Mercer Management Consulting, The Likely Impact of the Future European Legislation in the Area of Chemical Substances (2003).
62. International Chemical Secretariat, Cry Wolf: Predicted Cost by Industry hi the Face of New Regulations (Göteborg: International Chemical Secretariat, 2004);
63. I. Schörling, G. Lund, note 28 above;
64. F. Ackerman and R. Massey, The True Costs of REACH (Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers, 2004).
65. D. Pearce and P. Koundouri, "Regulatory Assessment for Chemicals: A Rapid Appraisal Cost-Benefit Approach," Environmental Science & Policy 7, no. 6 (2004): 435-449.
66. One assessment estimates that European costs of PCB decontamination alone could be as high as €15 to €75 billion. Sec Kemikalieinspektionen, REACH-En Ny Kemikalielag för en Giftfri Miljö (Stockholm, 2004).
67. IDG Environment officials, DG Enterprise officials, and Green MEP in discussion with the authors, November, 2003;
68. Representative of the European Commission in discussion with the authors, November 2005 and October 2006.
69. European Commission, note 18 above.
70. R. Garcia-Johnson, Exporting Environmentalism: U.S. Multinational Chemical Corporations in Brazil and Mexico (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2000).
71. D. Vogel, "The Hare and the Tortoise Revisited: The New Politics of Risk Regulation in Europe," British Journal of Political Science 33, no. 4 (2003): 557-580:
72. R. Brickman, S. Jasanoff and T. Ilgen, Controlling Chemicals: The Politics of Regulation in Europe and the United States (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1985).
73. D. Vogel, Controlling Chemicals: The Politics of Regulation in Europe and the United States ibid.:
74. O. Pohl, "European Environmental Rules Propel Change in U.S.," New York Times, 6 July 2004.
75. H. Bray, "Tech Firms Face EU Toxics Test: Limits on the Use of Hazardous Materials Pushes U.S. Electronics Makers to Innovate," Boston Globe, 1 June 2006.
76. F. Ackerman, E. Stanton, and R. Massey, European Chemical Policy and the United States: The Impacts of REACH (Medford, MA: Global Development and Environment Institute, Tufts University, 2006).
77. European Commission, note 18 above, page 16.
78. K. Betts, "China Tackles Toxic Electronics" Environmental Science & Technology, 1 October 2003, 351A.
79. Sec http://www.ides.com/articles/rohs_directive. asp (accessed 21 October 2006).
80. D. Vogel, note 6 above.
81. A. Weale et al., note 2 above, page 57.
82. European Commission, note 18 above, page 21-22.
83. S. Chan, "Manhattan: Electronics-Recycling Bill," New York Times, 31 October 2006.
84. European Commission, note 18 above, page 21.
85. European Commission, White Paper on a Strategy for a Future Chemicals Policy (Brussels: European Commission, 2001);
86. American Chemistry Council, The Business of Chemistry: Essential to Our Quality of Life and the U.S. Economy, http://www.americanchemistry. com/s_acc/bin.asp?CID=288&DID=731&DOC=FILE. PDF (accessed 29 November).
87. American Chamber of Commerce to the European Union, 2003;
88. United States Council for International Business, 2003;
89. United States House of Representatives, 2004:
90. Interviews with representatives of the American chemicals industry, November 2003 and April 2004.
91. National Foreign Trade Council, Looking Behind the Curtain: The Growth of Trade Barriers that Ignore Sound Science (Washington, DC: The World Trade Organization, 2003): 118-119.
92. D. Pesendorfer, note 22 above.