Three policy levers to stop lead exposure from used car batteries

The Flint, Michigan, water crisis highlighted how lead exposure can silently upend a generation of children. Today, health researchers warn that lead poisoning is not confined to one city or country: an estimated one in three children worldwide—about 800 million kids—have blood lead levels at or above the highs once seen in Flint. Lead is a potent neurotoxin with no known safe level of exposure, linked to impaired cognitive development, higher mortality in older age, and lifelong health consequences. The crisis also underscores a grim economic reality: the costs of lead exposure extend far beyond health care, touching education, productivity, and social well-being. The World Bank estimated in 2023 that lead exposure drains nearly $6 trillion from the global economy each year, roughly 7 percent of global GDP, with millions of premature deaths attributed to chronic exposure.

The core of the problem, however, lies not in the batteries themselves but in how they are recycled after they die. Lead-acid batteries are used in nearly every gas-powered vehicle and in many generators that power hospitals and data centers. Each battery typically holds about 15–20 pounds of lead, a valuable material that fuels a vast informal recycling economy across the Global South. In many low- and middle-income countries, tens of thousands of small, unregulated workshops extract lead through cheap, high-risk practices. Workers crack open old batteries, drain the acid onto the ground, and smelt lead plates in makeshift furnaces. The resulting lead dust contaminates nearby homes, soil, and waterways, while slag—leftover processing residue—often ends up dumped in fields and streams. Even in formal settings, inadequate dust controls and poor waste handling can keep environmental and health risks stubbornly high. A New York Times investigation in 2023 highlighted that even formal recycling facilities in Mexico have caused harm to nearby communities, underscoring that the problem crosses income lines and borders.

But there is a path forward. Three policy levers—when used together—can shift incentives from informal, hazardous recycling to safer, licensed facilities without requiring new technology. The levers hinge on who pays for pollution, who is responsible for returning old batteries, and how international buyers enforce responsible recycling in the global supply chain.

First, stop accidentally subsidizing pollution. In many middle-income countries, revenue from old batteries is concentrated among informal operators who pay the most for scrap, because the taxes and trade rules create price advantages for the unregulated sector. Brazil offers a stark example of how policy can flip the economics. In 2005 Brazil exempted old batteries from value-added tax (VAT) when sold to recyclers, giving licensed plants a price edge that made formal recycling more economically attractive. The result: by 2022, more than 75 percent of lead-acid batteries were recycled in licensed facilities. The policy tweak did not require new technical breakthroughs; it changed the financial incentives so that regulated plants could compete on price. India piloted a Brazil-style buyback rule, requiring manufacturers to take back used batteries, but it kept scrap taxes in place, leaving informal recyclers with a price advantage that limited reform’s reach. Experts caution that tax policy alone works best where markets are relatively stable, borders are controlled, and domestic battery manufacturing is robust. In weaker markets with porous borders, a tax break can be insufficient to shift the balance away from informal operators.

Second, make the manufacturer responsible for take-back through extended producer responsibility, or EPR. Brazil moved beyond VAT changes in 2008 by requiring manufacturers and importers to buy back roughly the same amount of used batteries as they sold new ones. The system, rebuilt around a single ledger operated by a industry-established nonprofit, the Instituto Brasileiro de Energia Reciclável (IBER), created a practical pathway for tracking returns and ensuring that the batteries recycled were sent to licensed facilities. Regulators and industry observers credit the ledger with reducing cheating and enabling auditable flow from sale to disposal. In 2023, IBER reported that its members—covering about three-quarters of the national market—collected as many batteries as they sold, with returns exceeding 100 percent. The model does not eliminate all challenges—IBER is industry-run and depends on honest reporting—but it demonstrates a scalable, enforceable approach that aligns producer incentives with safe recycling.

Third, apply pressure from outside the country by enlisting buyers to enforce responsible recycling along global supply chains. In fragmented markets like Nigeria, where many recycled outputs pass through regional traders and international buyers, the leverage shifts to the point of purchase. If buyers can access rich markets—such as the United States, the European Union, or East Asian economies—only from facilities that meet basic safety standards, then traders have a strong incentive to source only from compliant plants. International buyers can require due diligence, traceability, and independent audits to ensure that lead is recycled safely and that scrap is not diverted to informal or unsafe operations. The Basel technical guidelines for used lead-acid batteries—and the broader idea of due diligence for responsible sourcing—offer a framework for such enforcement, though lead is not yet explicitly included in all current regulations. The EU’s due-diligence and sustainability programs already require traceability for several minerals; expanding similar expectations to lead could help close gaps in regions where enforcement is weak. In Nigeria, for example, shipments of refined lead to the United States have totaled tens of millions of dollars in recent years, illustrating how international markets could influence practice. The goal is not to reinvent recycling but to shift the economics so that legitimate, compliant facilities become the default choice for buyers and traders around the world.

None of these levers requires breakthrough technology. They are about changing incentives, expanding accountability, and tightening the links in the supply chain so that safe recycling becomes the financially rational option. When implemented together, they can move a large share of used batteries away from backyard smelters and toward licensed facilities that meet safety and environmental standards. The result could be a meaningful decline in childhood lead exposure, improved soil and water quality, and lower health care costs over the long term. As Hugo Smith, a researcher who writes the Substack Lead Battery Notes, has said, the problem is a classic externality: private gains from cutting corners come at a public health cost. Policy—and not technology—is the tool to invert that equation.

The health stakes are high. Lead exposure remains a defining public health challenge, but history shows that eliminating lead from consumer products is achievable with the right mix of policy signals and accountability. From paint to gasoline to batteries, the path toward safer, cleaner recycling is a matter of political will and practical design. If governments, manufacturers, and international buyers align to flip the incentives—so that the most valuable batteries are recycled in the safest, most controlled settings—the health benefits could be profound and enduring. It would be one of the quietest, biggest public health victories of our time.