It sounds like an odd proposition: banning exports from the United States of scrap generated by discarded electronic equipment. And yet, a bill now pending before Congress would do just that, and it enjoys the support of dozens of co-sponsors. The Responsible Electronics Recycling Act, which is being pushed by Coalition for American Electronics Recycling (CAER), would ban the export of most e-scrap for two purported reasons. First, the CAER claims that e-scrap contains hazardous materials and that exporters and buyers alike are not handling those properly. Second, CAER claims, an export ban would encourage qualified domestic recycling companies to invest in capacity to handle electronic waste, thereby creating many jobs for Americans. On the other side of the issue is the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries (ISRI). ISRI recently released a report from economic researchers John Dunham and Associates which concluded that a ban on the export of used electronics would harm the economy by reducing competition among responsible recyclers. CAER has a report of its own, undertaken by DSM Environmental Services, which it released last January. That report concluded that restrictions on e-waste exports could create 42,000 direct and indirect new jobs with a total payroll of more than $1 billion. The issue of how to dispose of electronic waste is no small matter and the recycling of e-waste is a growth industry. The key reason: people are replacing their electronics at accelerating rates resulting in a proliferation of electronic waste worldwide. Data from the United Nations Environment Program indicate that the volume of e-waste is increasing by 40 percent per year worldwide. A report issued by the U.S. International Trade Commission earlier this year estimated that over 750,000 tons of used electronic products were exported by the U.S. in 2011. That is actually a small sliver of the potential. According to Fonebank, an electronics recycling company, 17,000 tons of electronic waste are generated every day in the U.S., most of which is simply tossed. Americans throw away over 130 million cell phones every year. Besides the environmental implications of this behavior, recovered electronics can yield valuable recyclable materials. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that one million mobile phones can yield 20 pounds of of palladium, 50 pounds of gold, 550 pounds of silver, and 20,000 pounds of copper. Nokia says that up to 80 percent of the content of its cell phones are recyclable. The electronic scrap recycling industry currently employs over 30,000 workers in the U.S., a five-fold increase from the 6,000 in 2002. CAER says that the Responsible Electronics Recycling Act (RERA) supports free trade in value-added products, such as the commodities generated from the recycling process, while restricting export to developing countries of non-working e-scrap that contains hazardous material. “RERA will create American jobs, promote investment in our domestic recycling and increase trade in tested, working electronics,” said Steve Skurnac, president of Sims Recycling Solutions and a CAER steering committee member. “Our study documents how growing an industry with the capacity to manage the volume of e-waste generated within our borders could create tens of thousands of good-paying American jobs by promoting investment in our domestic infrastructure. Responsibly recycling electronics in America creates seven jobs for every one involved in exporting.” Keeping e-scrap at home will not negatively impact the costs of recycled electronics, according to Skurnac. “The cost to recycle electronics is based on many factors,” he said. “Logistics is one of the most significant costs. Processing electronics closer to home helps save money. There are plenty of successful and profitable electronics recycling operations in the United States. CAER members are businesses that are examples of how recycling can be done cost effectively in the U.S.” The DSM report estimated that CAER members currently employ 6,850 people in the U.S., with a payroll of $250 million, and recycled 1.2 billion pounds of electronics last year. Another 3.6 billion pounds was exported, sent to landfills, or otherwise processed. The study concluded that processing this e-waste in the U.S. would create 21,000 recycling jobs with a corresponding payroll of $772 million and the potential for 21,000 additional indirect jobs. “The study notes that jobs will further increase as e-waste volumes rise in the years ahead,” said Skurnac. “The EPA estimates that e-waste is growing two to three times faster than any other portion of the waste stream, fueled by the continued proliferation of electronic devices.” ISRI’s report, by contrast, highlights the relationship between economic growth and export activities of e-scrap and debunks the notion that a ban on e-scrap exports would result in more competition, increased jobs, and lower the costs for consumers. “The Dunham report reaffirms that a total ban on the export of used electronics only harms the economy by reducing competition among responsible recyclers in the e-recycling industry,” said Robin Wiener, president of ISRI. “Not only would workers in the export business and those supporting it lose their jobs, but as larger e-recyclers crowd out the market those working at small and mid-sized companies would be displaced.” The Dunham report predicts that many smaller firms would be forced out of business and workers let go as a result. “Rather than create opportunity for small domestic businesses,” says the report, “a ban will consolidate business to those firms that already have the necessary machinery and manpower. It will crowd out small existing businesses and inhibit the entry of newer businesses.” The Dunham report disputes the earlier CAER report claiming a ban on e-scrap exports would help the domestic economy. The Dunham paper criticizes the CAER report for using rudimentary survey methodology, relying on a small sampling of its own members, and failing to analyze the e-scrap market outside of its own membership, many of whom have a vested interest in implementing the ban proposed by RERA. “Adding jobs to CAER members while cutting deeply into the rest of the industry does not create jobs,” says the Dunham report, “it displaces jobs.” The Responsible Electronics Recycling Act of 2013, which was introduced in the House of Representatives in July by Rep. Gene Green (D-Texas) is currently being considered by two congressional committees.