Minnesota burns electronics. Better e-waste policies can change that.

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes a mix of guest commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

Electronic waste, or e-waste, is an untapped gold mine. One ton of e-waste can yield more than 10 times the concentration of gold in actual gold ore. About 20% of e-waste in all circuit boards is copper, one of the most in-demand metals for clean energy. In total, just one year’s output of global e-waste contains tens of billions of dollars worth of valuable materials.

Despite this untapped value, Minnesotans send a significant amount of our e-waste to a large trash incinerator called the Hennepin Energy Recovery Center (HERC).

That’s a bad deal for residents. When we burn e-waste, heavy metals like copper, zinc and lead from our waste stream are vaporized. This leads to one of two results. Some metals are released to local air. Studies estimate the health and environmental impacts of burning electronic waste are 37 to 51 times higher than sending the waste to a landfill, and EPA models suggest that the HERC’s air pollution is responsible for tens of millions of dollars in health damages.

Metals not emitted are caught by pollution control equipment and mixed in with the HERC’s incinerator ash. That may be a lesser evil, but mixing heavy metals with incinerator ash results in a toxic waste that is uniquely difficult to contain. For decades, a well-known loophole in federal law has allowed incinerator ash to dodge the rules for hazardous waste, despite risks of groundwater contamination.

E-waste incineration is also a missed opportunity. When burned at the HERC, precious metals in e-waste can be vaporized, oxidized into less valuable forms or become enmeshed in ash particles. At best, recovering e-waste metals from incineration is “inefficient and difficult to carry out,” according to an article in the journal Nature. In practice, only ferrous scrap is pulled from the HERC’s remains, meaning all precious metals and critical minerals from e-waste components such as circuit boards and batteries are lost.

Why the poor showing in Minnesota? The most obvious factor is cost. Right now, we have a waste system that asks residents to choose between paying hundreds of dollars for the privilege of recycling a few electronics, vs. throwing away their TV for free.

A new bill at the State Capitol aims to fix that. SF 1690 would increase the number of e-waste drop off sites in Minnesota, ensuring most residents have a recycling option within 10 miles. The new process would be simple, providing one spot to drop off all kinds of e-waste. It would create up to 1,700 jobs. Critically, Minnesotans would not need to pay to participate.

Even with nifty policy ideas, people can be skeptical that waste legislation will result in real-world impacts. Minnesotans are busy, change is hard and we live in consumerist times.

And yet there are reasons for optimism. Just look to Iowa. In the 1970s, Minnesota’s southern neighbor joined a wave of states passing “bottle bills” that funded recycling programs with a five-cent fee on beer, soda and other beverages. The catch was that people could get their five cents back when they returned their containers for recycling. Decades later, we know two things. States with bottle bills collect over 80% of their aluminum cans for recycling, more than twice the rate of states without such laws. And Iowa’s star pollster reports an 84% approval rate for the bottle bill system.

In other words, smart waste policies can be durably popular, even in a polarized world. And they work. The free, accessible e-waste collection offered by SF 1690 would reduce risks to public health and the environment. It would contribute to Minnesota’s clean energy goals. And by converting toxic waste into valuable materials, it makes plain economic sense.