Laserfiche WebLink
Rep. Lowen said that the idea behind EPR is that when a large multi-national producer makes a <br />product, the producer makes a profit and externalizes the cost to the environment on to <br />taxpayers at the end of the waste stream. The idea of EPR is to internalize those costs to <br />producers, and if the programs are structured right, to have a system where it’s less costly to <br />them not to create so many harmful environmental impacts. You also have look at how policies <br />play out in the real world. As far as EPR goes, it’s a different thing than what Commissioner <br />Olson was talking about. But they are both, certainly, types of things that can be considered. <br />Chair Adams said she had put together a couple of slides from the Plastic Source Reduction <br />Working Group, and started a presentation. <br /> <br />The study, which is basically the same kind of information that was in the House Draft 1 version <br />of HB 1316, pointed out these kinds of things to look for study. Both were looking at: can <br />Hawai‘i do EPR as a state, or in conjunction with other states, and/or federal packaging of EPR, <br />what kinds of science is available, the costs and benefits to everybody (the environment, <br />consumers, taxpayers, government, and businesses), looking at the pros and cons, and the <br />technical and economic feasibility. So the idea is really trying to pace through the logistics and <br />the ability to have influence on international companies. It’s just too easy to say, “Let’s not ship <br />to Hawai‘i” to solve those problems. She likes the idea of knowing up front what the issues are <br />that are different for our situation. The same thing is being looked at for the PaintCare <br />program. They have models, they have it in different states, but we still need to look at what is <br />going to be different in this state and in our County to be able to implement that, just the scale <br />of what we have got. She would also like to comment that yes, on e-waste, going back and <br />figuring how to make that work. We definitely have issues with that. It’s something that is in a <br />way already in place, so expanding it and further strengthening that program rather than diving <br />in on all packaging. It’s something that needs to be thought through well and watch other <br />people fail and learn, rather than us doing all the failing. <br /> <br />Commissioner Cardwell said the idea of EPR is pretty brilliant. As she sees it, it’s a way to turn <br />off the tap of the waste stream because as it is right now we are just dealing with the end <br />packaging. If we are holding companies responsible for the end of life product, it might change <br />the way they create packaging and the way they create their product. But it is going to require a <br />massive collective effort if every state required companies to do that. Then they couldn’t refuse <br />to ship to Hawai‘i because every state would be requiring it. Hopefully we are moving in that <br />direction. The fact that a lot of legislators got together and have made this an issue, that is <br />where the work needs to be done. Her question was about the study that the Department of <br />Health had asked for. She was wondering that that study would cost and how long it would <br />take, and what the process is of getting that study done. That might be the first step. <br /> <br />8 <br /> <br /> <br />