Still, the market isn't going to solve this on it's own. Other peoples children are going to be cheaper than robots for the foreseeable future. In fact, poisoning the local population could be considered a minor issue compared to contaminating the water tables. Sick people die, but a contaminated water table keeps killing people for generations.

I think strong local regulations, as well as an emphasis of recycling locally is the best short-term solution. It does expose the actual cost of recycling (safely) -- but also cuts energy to shipping, and can be used as a stimuli for a more re-cycle friendly value chain (eg: make sellers of electronics take the bill for recycling, and demand local, safe recycling) -- which in turn puts pressure on suppliers to deliver items that are cheaper to recycle safely.

We may have sufficient regulations that the market can push it over the top. After all if you can create a facility that converts ewaste into resalable raw materials you can both sell the service to municipalities who are required by law to dispose of their ewaste safely, and the raw materials to manufacturers as a recycled product. That combination might get you into an internal rate of return to make it worth while.

The real challenge is the globalization (and accompanying fragmentation of regulation) of electronics production. One might recycle heavy metals locally, but you'd have to get it back into the production pipe-line -- which generally means shipping it to China. And being able to compete on price with heavy metals from various more-or less horribly run mines around the world. One obvious alternative is to produce electronic components locally (again). But realistically, doing that cheaply enough (and well enough) is going to be a challenge.

In this sense I think Tesla is a very interesting company (even if I don't think much of the cars themselves, from an eco-perspective -- cars is a horrible means of transportation, even electric ones).