Student Project: E-Waste in the United States: Minnesota

Crafting a Response to the Weaknesses in Minnesota's E-Waste Recycling Legislation is the aim of this article. While many viewers will utilize converter boxes or subscribe to cable in order to continue watching their old, analog televisions, there will also be consumers who purchase new, digital television sets and consequently seek to dispose of the old.3 Every time new electronic products are introduced other products are left outdated or undesirable.

This Article argues that the Fourth Amendment makes a distinctive contribution to a broader
constitutional framework aimed at protecting political liberty. Moreover, the article explores the proper
analytical structure by which to measure the meaning of the right to be ‘secure.’ Only by understanding the meaning of the term ‘secure’ is it possible to determine the scope of the Fourth Amendment’s protections for individuals and, correlatively, the amount of unregulated governmental power the amendment allows.

In this article, Writers analyze the Minnesota Electronics Recycling Act to explore the benefits and potential drawbacks of a market-based extended producer responsibility (EPR) legislation implementation with operational flexibility for manufacturers. Based on publicly available reports and stakeholder interviews, we find that the Minnesota Act attains two key goals of market-based EPR (i.e., higher cost efficiencies and substantial landfill diversion); however, this may come at the expense of selective collection and recycling, an increased burden on local governments, and a loss of balance in contractual power between stakeholders. They observe that these concerns arise because of specific flexibility provisions afforded to manufacturers that allow them to operationalize their EPR compliance with a cost-efficiency focus. Thus, They conclude that EPR goals must be carefully translated.