Pros And Cons Of Resources Recovery Act

Social, Political, Economic, and Environmental Pros/ Cons of Resources Conservation Recovery Act One social con of the RCRA program is the lack of attempt to address landfills being in low-income communities. Even though the RCRA give a critical municipal service, they have failed to combat the issue of the placement of landfills near low-income homes. The problem is continuing to grow. These issues focused upon the fact that the waste mostly comes from outside the community, which eventually causes impacts to residents and degraded the environmental conditions. This issue also causes a decrease in property value because people do not want to live near landfills. A political con associated with the policy is the fact that the law encourages states to add but not take away rules outlined in this legislation. As stated by Dale, "the act encourages states to create their own regulatory programs to manage waste so long as those programs utilize standards consistent with—or in excess of—federal limits." (Dale, 2015). This leave states with little room to make improvements to cater to their states specifically. The tension between state and federal waste management agencies are typical today. This is not beneficial for development of waste management.

Even though electronic waste contributes one percent of waste as discussed earlier, it poses a significant threat to the environment. “RCRA does not, however, cover electronic waste except CRTs, nor does it regulate electronic devices donated for educational or charitable reuse.” The RCRA should implement rules to govern e-waste because e-waste not only affects lives in the United States, It affects everyone globally. E-waste typically finds its ways out of the United States and ends up in developing countries like