The Grouse: Assault on Batteries

There are still those who think that the environmental movement is something besides a socialist cult obsessed with controlling every tiny aspect of our lives.

Then there are the people who have read this article.

Seriously, please tell me this is some half-assed attempt at a modern day "A Modest Proposal" designed to emulate the worst aspects of George Monibot-level raving. A poor parody of the "we need ANOTHER government agency to pass intrusive laws and taxes that effect every damn trivial thing we do each day in order to combat some nebulous eco-threat" mindset.

Here's what I say if you're serious: NO. Piss off. Leave us alone. Stop wasting precious electricity writing screeds like this.

I like the proposal of placing deposits on alkalines. I use rechargeables for everything. Some of his other ideas seem drastic.

If manufacturers are hit with taxes or fines for producing alkalines that fail to meet specs., they would simply pass that burden on to customers in the form of higher prices.

Forcing producers and users of portable power to switch to rechargeable cells with the threat of fines, fees, and such would be a last ditch effort.

If there were better, cheaper, more eco-friendly ways to make battery cells; companies would be doing it. Improved technology and breakthroughs in science will improve upon portable power. It may be in the form of an improved lithium-ion battery, or a fuel cell, or something like that.

Our greatest threat to freedom is not Radical Islamic Fundamentalists it is environmentalists like Jon Chase. Just what would not be subject to control by environmentalists? California wanted to have control over your thermostat and now Jon wants to license my triple A’s. I bet he thinks the food Nazis are wonderful enlightened people.

If you make it a crime to throw your batteries in the trash, they'll just end up on the curb. I like the deposit idea, though... make collecting dead AAs a school fundraiser and the kids & parents will come to your house to collect them six times a year!

Incentive almost always is a better solution than punishment for this kind of problem.

While I think a lot of this is over-the-top in a Jonathon Swift sort of way (although the deposit thing isn't a horrible idea, coming from the bottle/can deposit State of Oregon, it just needs tweaking), one of his ideas has merit for two reasons: require battery driven devices to come with rechargeable batteries.

The two reasons are thus:
1. It would reduce the number of non-rechargable batteries purchased separately, many of which just end up being lost; and
2. It would forever end the three most dreaded words of parenthood: Batteries Not Included.

Thanks all for your comments. Allow me to respond to what's gone up so far, in order:

JeffR: At no point did I advocate creating a Ministry of Battery Reclamation and Social Control. Beyond that, why is my proposal so far-fetched? All kinds of materials have been banned from landfills for decades for good reason--they poison the water we drink and the soil we depend upon—and new ones continue to get added once their impact is understood. And it's far from trivial, despite your assertion. Do you dump oil in the gutter, or put it in a landfill?. Do you put Freon canisters in the dump? Do you toss Asbestos to the curb? Do you chuck used tires in landfills? No, all of those (and countless other materials) are commonly, and easily disposed of, or are recycled or reclaimed in a much smarter, and yes, more environmentally sound manner. My point is that heavy metals like those used in batteries are industrial strength contaminants, and should be treated as such. And, indeed, I think my proposals are rather modest and nothing along the lines of Dr. Swift's. Though I'm honored by the comparison.

Kornkob and Mr Michael: I agree that the best route for positive change is using incentives, always, however sometimes regulations have their place. For decades batteries were packed with mercury in very high levels. Following legislation in 1984, alkaline batteries now have 97% less mercury. And batteries last far longer now than then, so there was no real sacrifice, yet legislation spurred the necessary change. There are countless other examples like that. In an ideal world though, I'd hope that a deposit system would work on its own, as it does so well with plastic and glass bottles.

macqechou: Somehow you've managed to conflate Radical Islamic Fundamentalists, Nazi foodies, and Environmentalists. A forum first! I'm sorry to introduce the idea that in a society miserably absent of corporate responsibility to consumers, sometimes the big, bad old government has to step in and enforce measures to protect its citizenry. For the record, centralized control of thermostats, while a novel idea, is a bad one in my book. Forcing people who pollute the world for the rest of us to clean up after themselves, isn't.

While I agree with the idea of strongly encouraging use of rechargeables, Alkalines do have their uses, particularly in low-drain devices where long shelf life is important [such as remote controls].

However your objections show a basic unfamilarity with battery chemistry - e.g. "Each battery contains a smorgasbord of poisonous chemicals and heavy metals—mercury, cadmium, lead, lithium," None of these are present in alkaline batteries - in fact they contain zinc, manganese and potassium hydroxide.

Similarly "Following legislation in 1984, alkaline batteries now have 97% less mercury. " is hogwash. The mercury you refer to was present in mercury batteries, not alkalines as a little bit of research would have shown.

The other metals you refer to [cadmium, lead, lithium] are normally used in rechargeable batteries, the compulsory recycling of which would be a Good Thing.

I agree partially. We do use way too many batteries and there's no way in hell that it's helping us environmentally. Before batteries existed we were doing just fine too. But time has moved on to big and better things. Batteries is just a certain one of those things. There's upsides and downsides to batteries. In order to use them we have to accept all of what we get from it. If we made it illegal to buy batteries off the shelf not only would the people revolt because of our dependency on the batteries but it would be downright preposterous. No one would go for it. Just like we waste trees every day, and we have a recycling bin, yet alot of American's and so forth do not use it to their advantage. How would that be any different from recycling batteries if it weren't forced upon the people? And mind you: it never will be.

I agree with someone else's comments: If you make it a school fund raiser to recycle dead batteries, you might actually have a foothold. People would actually go for that, schools are always looking for more money, especially the schools in the South that are in need of it. (Note: The schools are getting better.))

You mentioned how batteries should be a dollar each, and in return if you bring your batteries to the store it'll be like rebate and get some of that money back... now honestly, do you see your mother or sister bringing batteries to the store with them just to buy new batteries? I can't imagine myself carrying a car battery to wal-mart. In fact I can't imagine that at all. I see where you coming from but it's not very likely.

One more thing: Instead of trying to lower the rate of which we use batteries or control how we use them, how about we create a different source of energy all together? That would be the key ingredient. You want people to be more efficient in the environment safety issues, then find something they'll all agree with.

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." - Albert Einstein - From the Poster on My Wall

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." - Albert Einstein - From the Poster on My Wall

And I do think it's completely immature to still be throwing our batteries out in the middle of a waste dump. This is the 21st century: brains and bronze. You would think we'd be smart enough to know how to dispose to them properly.

Jumping back in to address more comments--keep em coming!

To Augusta27: It seems my words were a little imprecise--I wasn't trying to imply that ALL batteries contain ALL those materials, but that all batteries contain one or more of them, among other nasties. Your assertion about alkaline batteries (and my ignorance of them) is inaccurate though. Mercury-ADDED alkaline batteries have been banned in the US since the mid 90s, however it turns out that trace amounts of mercury is contained in zinc and manganese ore, and thus is still found in alkaline batteries. It's no longer added, but small amounts are still there and in the aggregate it's still substantial--we toss 179,000 TONS of batteries per year. Beyond that, alkaline batteries often corrode or get punctured and then release highly caustic potassium hydroxide, and if burnt or leach into waterways are a health risk--they're banned from landfills (or incineration) in many places, including all of California and Europe for those reasons. I don't doubt alkalines are the lesser of all evils at this point, however due to the volume we throw away I'm comfortable with my assertion that they are a health risk, and should be regulated.

Sorry, my above reply should've been to Hiro Protagonist

"I racked up 36 battery-powered devices in my tiny apartment, and just eight have built-in rechargeables."

I have three in my apartment. Three.

Two have built-in rechargeables. Looks like the author is part of the problem. In a serious way.

And it's a hoot to see all the disposable battery ads, courtesy of Google, above the story. Lithium as a "heavy metal" was another howler. It would take me more time to point out all the goofs in this rant than it probably took the author to write it.

I agree that maybe perhaps a little bit of consideration of the idea that the Mother Earth is dying and that the Republicans are the ones to blame and that we should all share the wealth. (Now I'm finished with the sarcasm).

For those who have been living in a hole with their head up their behinds, the ecofriendly, the hippies, the savior of mother earth, whatever you like to call yourself, are believe it or not, socialists and/or communists who are looking for a way into a place in our (heaven forbid) democratic government. This is a major conflict we are facing in today's harsh world. Since they couldn't ban firearms (read second amendment) they decided to work from the ground up. Starting with batteries, they will work their way to weapons claiming that all gun owners are radical liberal-haters who want to kill the planet by injecting lead into Nature's heart.

I do agree that we should look into more efficient sources of energy. However finding more ways to take away money people earned to give it to the welfare line is pretty ridiculous.
If you don't believe me, just look at France. Do your research before writing ignorant junk such as this.

Right at the outset let me make it clear that I belong to the well known nation INDIA and not a citizen of the US. I had some great ideas about the US in general. I was under the impression that I will find people here really living in 21st century. I found that hardly about 50% of my ideas were true!
Any way I truely appreciate the views expressed in this article by Jon Chase. Why for such a matter people in the US need any law? As is rightly pointed in the article throwing away any non -rechargable batteries is very dangerous beyond doubt.Hence proper care must be taken while diposing them off.In fact people should have come forward volunterily and excercised the necessary action on their own even before any government agency comes in the picture and takes any action.
If you are demanding freedom, it should not be at the cost of freedom of others! And if anyone understands and agrees with statement, he/she will undersatand the meaning of my comments above.
A nation wherein if a baby-toy is found using color containing lead in it, the toy manufacturer has to pay a very heavy penalty. And if this is correct how people of the sme nation can tolerate poisonous material in their oil/water/air?

Ok, for the people talking about goverment freedom and stuff, your talking about BATTERIES. Keep it in context. As for the problem of the batteries themselves, it would be a great idea to have collections, or local recyling areas for them so that more are recycled. Most people don't want to throw them in the trash, they simply don't have anywhere else to put them. I would go so far as to outlaw them completley, but mabye companys would be required to make more rechargable as opposed to chargable, just like that new HD broadcasting law. Overall, rechargable batteries would be better for people to use.

Society cannot continue in its current direction -- i.e. growing and using more resource & energy per person. We have already destroyed most of the natural form of the earth and many of its species. The only answer is complete recycling and cessation of using fossil fuels. It is true that batteries are a small portion of our impact upon the earth but they are an impact and should be recycled.

Australia took a lead in banning edison-style light bulbs. If everyone on planet replaced their edison bulbs with CFL (Compact Flourescent Light) bulbs, we would have a massive reduction in electricity needs.

Using the same idea to move from "disposable" batteries to rechargables is also the right idea.

Remember that when we throw things away, there is no "away." We have to learn to recycle and reuse *everything.*

Mr. Chase’s article is a clear and regrettable example of how a little knowledge becomes a very dangerous thing in the wrong hands. While some of his statements contain a grain of truth, they are virtually all presented out of context and his principle assertion that primary batteries pose a threat to public health and the environment is utterly without foundation. As a result his policy prescriptions (e.g., “Disposable batteries, no matter how efficient, should be considered a controlled substance and, as such, should be sold under the same restrictions as, say, prescription drugs or guns”) are reckless and border on satire.

Few industry sectors have been as successful as battery manufacturers in reducing hazardous substances in their products and funding stewardship programs (e.g. RBRC) where elimination was not yet possible. I encourage readers seeking a more fact-based, less activist view on the issue to visit www.nema.org and search for the pamphlet entitled “Household Batteries and the Environment.”

Meanwhile, Mr. Chase is free to imagine all the frightening scenarios he wants, but readers need to know that his musings are not consistent with the facts concerning batteries.

Mark Kohorst
Senior Manager, Environment, Health $ Safety
National Electrical Manufacturers Association

for me it is real simple....Disposable batteries have a voltage output of 1.5 volts per battery....rechargeable batteries have a voltage output of 1.2 volts per battery....the 0.3 volts per battery can affect the electronics of computer based products like smartphones pdas and gps based products....for this reason i only use disposable battery....just my point of view

In response to Mark Kohorst's rebuttal:
I would like to point out that Mr Kohorst's employer, NEMA, is a trade association whose stated goal is to " [be] the voice of the electroindustry on Capitol Hill, create the standards that help to make our products safe and our member companies successful, and provide our members with “a seat in the room” as the direction of our industry is determined."

That is, NEMA does many things, one of which is to act as a Congressional lobbyist or PAC (they formed their own NEMA PAC in 1998), which by no means is a sin, but nonetheless means he comes into this argument with a particular bias. Part of his job, in short, is to cater government regulations and public opinion to suit his industry's desires.

So, by all means I encourage readers to search for the pamphlet he suggests. I find it's an interesting and informative read. I also find it completely self-serving in favor of industry interests.
Then click here
http://www.nema.org/gov/ehs/committees/drybat/
to read about NEMA's work with batteries. It's interesting that they outright oppose recycling of alkaline and even mercury containing button cell batteries because they claim it costs too much, could be dangerous (one example they site is the danger of children and old people ingesting the batteries--no joke!), and according to them of negligible environmental benefit.

Then google his name and NEMA and see what sort of other work he does on behalf of NEMA.
At this link:
http://www.nema.org/gov/ehs/briefs/20050530EHS.html
you can read far down the page how Mr Kohorst testifies in various US states in opposition to legislation that restricts the disposal of mercury and/or its use in products.
Elsewhere he opposes California's regulation of mercury containing products, as well as the far-reaching legislation in the EU called REACH, which dealt with a host of environmental regulations regarding the manufacture and sale of electronics.

While I thank Mr Kohorst and his, um, cohorts at NEMA for his opinion, I'm inclined to take them with a few grains of salt—or grams of mercury, for that matter.

Jon Chase

what if we used subsides (spell check) for rechargeable batteries, make a rechargeable battery cost as much as a non-rechargeable and let free market economics take over.
All ideas have value... Thomas Edison said that invention is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration. Every failed light bulb was one step closer to making a good one, if there are 1,000 possibilities and he goes through 999 then he has come to the answer by reasoning.