Texas moves to require R2, e-Stewards certification - Page 2

One day I think we will just 'rent' stuff.



Like I want a washing machine, so I go to the store & see what I want & 'buy' it. Its got a 5 year guarantee & if it works for longer than that, Good.
If it breaks within the 5 years, I call them up & they come & fix it, or replace it.

If it breaks after the 5 years, I call them & they come & pick it up & I go & buy a brand new one again.

The point is, is that 'They own it' as a physical object & during the time I use it, they still own it. I have just been paying for the use of it.

How they make it work for 5 years & what they do with it afterwards is their problem.

Auminer, you are on the right track. This is one reason you see big price differences across buyers. Ewasted, for example buys silver RAM at a slightly lower price than gold RAM. Most other buyers pay 4 or 5.00 per pound. I think there is a bit of price fixing going on with some R2 certified companies(obviously not Ewasted). Example: Company A is R2 certified and can only sell to selected prefered downstream recyclers to maintain certification. Company B knows this, so they pay less. Company A can't sell to Company C because they are not a prefered downstream recycler.

This is all speculation of course, and I might not have any idea of what I am talking about.

It's my understanding that this law has been voted on and it has unanimously been passed. I work for one of the third party registrars that can certify organizations to R2 and eStewards and we've already seen a large increase in registration requests here in Texas. Auminer, to a degree, you're correct that there are politics involved in some of the decision making, but let's hope that this particular mandate is for the best for our communities (and economy). You may work in a great organization that is doing all the right things, but you would be shocked by how many companies there are that operate with no regard for the environment or their stake holders. This mandate is intended to make life much more difficult for these types of organizations. Companies that are being responsible will also be effected by having to pay for a certification without making any major changes to their business, but it's a similar situation to healthcare coverage (the masses paying for the few). All companies have room to improve operations and their environmental footprint, regardless of how well they operate presently.

These types of federal or state mandates occur across lots of industries more often than one might think. Their intent is to improve the standard of living for the individuals effected by it.

I've read through all of the posts on this particular topic and there seems to be some confusion around the R2 and eStewards standards. These standards are a set of requirements that can be met in various ways (there's no cut and dry right, or wrong). Please feel free to contact me to discuss the standards and I also have access to various free tools to help you to implement a system that conforms to the requirements of eStewards and/or R2 to keep you in compliance. It doesn't have to be a painful experience and from the feedback I've received from my R2 clients, they've found they're able to win new business more easily with the certification and it's actually helped them to cut their operating costs by examining their procedures, and improving them.

Originally Posted by GlenBroomfield

It's my understanding that this law has been voted on and it has unanimously been passed. I work for one of the third party registrars that can certify organizations to R2 and eStewards and we've already seen a large increase in registration requests here in Texas. Auminer, to a degree, you're correct that there are politics involved in some of the decision making, but let's hope that this particular mandate is for the best for our communities (and economy). You may work in a great organization that is doing all the right things, but you would be shocked by how many companies there are that operate with no regard for the environment or their stake holders. This mandate is intended to make life much more difficult for these types of organizations. Companies that are being responsible will also be effected by having to pay for a certification without making any major changes to their business, but it's a similar situation to healthcare coverage (the masses paying for the few). All companies have room to improve operations and their environmental footprint, regardless of how well they operate presently.

These types of federal or state mandates occur across lots of industries more often than one might think. Their intent is to improve the standard of living for the individuals effected by it.

I've read through all of the posts on this particular topic and there seems to be some confusion around the R2 and eStewards standards. These standards are a set of requirements that can be met in various ways (there's no cut and dry right, or wrong). Please feel free to contact me to discuss the standards and I also have access to various free tools to help you to implement a system that conforms to the requirements of eStewards and/or R2 to keep you in compliance. It doesn't have to be a painful experience and from the feedback I've received from my R2 clients, they've found they're able to win new business more easily with the certification and it's actually helped them to cut their operating costs by examining their procedures, and improving them.

Not to use this as an excuse to do the wrong thing, but wouldn't it be great if our government held our foreign trade partners to the same standards they hold our citizens? We send millions/billions/trillions of $$ of aid to countries that contribute more harm to the ecology than we do here at home. If it is so important for us here, why not make it as painless as possible? Why not do free training, free licensing, and free continuing education for corporations who get the certification? If the rewards are greater than the cost, shouldn't our government fund it? Make it mandatory with regular inspections to catch the "evildoers" who don't comply and fine them for not passing, but stop putting an undue financial burden on those in compliance.

Ontario is in some hot water bunch of our e waste got sent to China, gotta love these green peace or e stewards for putting gps transmitters in Scrap and following it over seas.

I have an idea, stop sending precious metals to Asia and process it here and create some jobs, its cheaper to Scrap then it is to mine, only 40% of e waste is recovered here. I'm looking for the rest!!!!

Unless they have created a different bill or repackaged this one into other bills, HB 3465 hasn't seen any movement since May when it came out of the committee and was placed on the general calender.

As posted earlier:
Texas Legislature Online
Legiscan.com

Like another dude said, the particular bill didn't make it very far in the legislative process. I'm sure someone has more on it than me, though.

Also, how would it really affect you average e-scrapper? As for me, I'd still get it and ship it to a buyer on this site, since they pay much, much better than my local yards. Or is this law just going to make it harder to find e-scrap in the first place?

Originally Posted by Phantoms001

The law isn't really that complicated, what happens is what happened here...Someone takes only a "part" of a law and then applies a meaning to it. If you looked at the whole chapter and started at the beginning you would find most of your answers in "definitions"

Texas Health And Safety Code 361.952 - Definitions :: Lawserver

This chapter is TOTALLY geared to business that refurbish or bid on and sell used equipment. It's doesn't affect an individual using a computer for scrap.

Disclaimer: It’s a lil’ late, and my brain is fried from the weekend; I’ve not put too much thought into the question, so please be merciful 🤣🤣.

Q: if this only applies to businesses then what’s to stop a business owner from refurbishing, selling, bidding under their name rather than under their business title so as to avoid this regulation? To me, that seems like the loophole, if you will. (Not to get into politics, but I don’t have anything against that at all: too many entities don’t support regular joes trying to earn a living or make extra money that they don’t know about or can’t profit from themselves) [if this is wrong, any part of it, I’m open for correction on it. The more I learn, the more I realize how much I didn’t know.]