Not taking responsibility for mercury-bearing waste criticised

Toxics Links claims that many international lighting companies are opposed to Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) principle of E-waste Rules 2016

GN Bureau | September 19, 2016


#Mercury-bearing waste   #Toxics Links   #Extended Producer Responsibility  

Many international lighting companies have refused to accept any responsibility for the management of mercury-bearing waste mandated under the new E-waste Rules, 2016. However, the same companies for long have been fulfilling their commitments under the “Waste of Electrical and Electronic Equipment” (WEEE) directive of the European Union(EU), and are responsible for the end of life management of mercury bearing lamps in all the member states of the EU, says a press note issued on Monday by Toxics Links.

The note said: “It is ironical that they refuse to abide by similar rules in India.”

 “These companies are opposing the EPR principle in the new E-waste Rules in India by challenging it in the court, which is in stark contrast to their actions in Europe. This exposes their double standards and reflects that these international companies have very little consideration for the adverse impacts of mercury on health of Indian citizens,” says Satish Sinha, associate director, Toxics Link.

The new E-waste Rules were notified in 2016 after sustained efforts of organisation’s like Toxics Link and others to include fluorescent and other mercury bearing lamps in the Rules. Even the National Green Tribunal in its order dated July 7, 2015, has instructed for the adoption of EPR for management of mercury- bearing lights. This is a significant move towards meeting India’s global commitment to reduce adverse impacts of mercury emissions and protect human health and environment.

“It is unfortunate that these international companies are opposing EPR in India. India is one of the biggest lighting markets of the world, perhaps larger than Europe. These companies have the experience of collecting and recycling mercury-bearing lights in an environmentally sound manner, which they have been doing in Europe for a long time. Instead of opposing the rules, they should come forward and set an example by setting up systems in India. This will not only help protect the environment, but will also create green jobs in the country,” said Ravi Agarwal, director, Toxics Link.

 

Comments

 

Other News

The women India doesn`t count enough

She runs a tailoring shop from a single room in her house. Every morning she stitches school uniforms, answers queries on WhatsApp, collects payments through UPI and orders fabric online. Officially, she still belongs to India`s informal economy. Yet her enterprise is no longer disconnected from the formal

“Cancer is just a mind game”

Dr. Ananda Shankar Jayant, a Padma Shri awardee, inspired audiences for decades through her mastery of Bharatanatyam and Kuchipudi. But it was her journey through cancer that taught some of life`s most powerful lessons in courage and resilience.

Why Swami Vivekananda is the pathfinder for our times

Swami Vivekananda for Our Times  Edited and compiled by Rajiv Sikri, with Introduction by S. Gurumurthy Rupa Publications, 552 pages, Rs 695  

Five ways to realise the potential of India’s handicraft and handloom sector

India`s economic ambitions are increasingly defined by the industries of the future. Semiconductors, electronics, artificial intelligence and advanced manufacturing dominate policy conversations. Yet one of India`s largest employment-intensive sectors continues to occupy a surprisingly marginal place in ec

Beyond toilets: Why open defecation persists in rural India

Despite the awareness campaigns on sanitation across India, open defecation (OD) is practised openly and widely in both rural and urban areas. Research shows that rural respondents are well aware of the negative impacts of OD, yet this awareness does not lead to toilet construction or use. In rural North I

What unpaid nation builders want from policymakers

The Supreme Court recently described homemakers as “nation builders” and fixed a notional monthly income of Rs 30,000 for them in motor accident compensation cases. The judgment was not about wages. It was about compensation. Yet it inadvertently raised a larger economic question: If a homemake





Archives

Current Issue

Opinion

Facebook Twitter Google Plus Linkedin Subscribe Newsletter

Twitter