Last Friday I wrote the first of what has turned into a two-parter post on e-waste, Après Nous, La Déluge. That first part was mainly an exposition of the amount, toxicity and variety of this waste that is now inundating the planet. Whether your old laptop ends up in your city landfill or in a "recycling" facility in India, your e-waste has now joined the vast stream of hazardous materials penetrating the soil, water and air all over the world.
So, how and why is this happening? and what can be done to change it? These are the topics for this chapter. My own personal thoughts on why it is - and has been for some time - happening, have to do with our whole mindset vis-à-vis that which we throw out, and where it goes. I was in DC visiting my sister yesterday, and she was delighted to show me her new very high-tech stove. When I asked her where her old stove went, she looked at me as though I had asked her the world's strangest question. Her answer was: "I don't know. Wherever they take it after they take it away." And there you have it. That's what happens to the stuff we discard. It goes "away." We don't concern ourselves with its final disposition. This is true of even people like my sister, who will only buy organic food, recycles all her household recyclables, gardens organically as much as possible, etc.
With electronic equipment being turned over with ever-increasing rapidity, as newer and techier models of everything constantly emerge, the e-waste problem will grow accordingly. In this country we have no national policy for disposal of this material. Environmental and consumer groups have offered several solutions. This article from the SF Chronicle presents the current situation succinctly and clearly, Garbage In, Garbage Out.
A government watchdog group warned Tuesday that Congress must enact a national system for recycling used electronic devices such as computers, monitors and televisions or the problem of e-waste will pose serious environmental risks. [...] Proposals are circulating in Congress for a national recycling program, but so far disagreements among manufacturers, retailers, recyclers and consumer groups have stymied action. However, representatives of those groups have been meeting in search of a common approach.
Several states, most notably California, or groups of states, have begun their own recycling programs or, at the very least, searches for solutions to the refuse. A piece-by-piece approach to the situation, however, might present more problems than it could solve. From No Concensus on Recycling:
California, Maine and Maryland are taking diverse paths to dealing with the digital-age toxic waste posed by mountains of junked electronic equipment. But there is debate about whether a state-by-state approach is the best solution.
While legislatures in more than half the states have considered bills to deal with “e-waste”– from computer and television screens to video game systems and cell phones – the three states have stepped out with laws to encourage recycling of the devices.
But their laws give varying responsibilities to manufacturers, retailers and state and local government. For now, there is no consensus on the best approach, and both the consumer electronics industry and environmentalists worry that a costly or ineffective patchwork of regulations will emerge as more states tackle the deluge of obsolete digital gadgets.
Until such time as the various governmental bodies, EPA, GAO, Congressional E-Waste Working Group, etc, can get their act together, there are the electronics manufacturers to hold accountable for the disposition of their products. One of the Greenpeace international campaigns you can find on their site is High Tech: Highly Toxic. In the solutions section they make this statement:
We believe that manufacturers of electronic goods, who have benefited from sales of their products, should take responsibility for them from production through to the end of their lives. To prevent an e-waste crisis, manufacturers must design clean electronics with longer lifespan, that are safe and easy to recycle and will not expose workers and the environment to hazardous chemicals.
Clean up: Electronics manufacturers must stop using hazardous materials. In many cases, safer alternatives currently exist.
Take back: The taxpayer should not bear the cost of recycling old electrical goods. Manufacturers should take full life cycle responsibility for their products and, once they reach the end of their useful life, take their goods back for re-use, safe recycling or disposal.
The law passed in Maine in 2004 requires manufacturers to take back their own computer monitors and electronic components sold in the state. This is an appealing solution, as it makes manufacturers responsible for their own products, and at the same time, gives companies an incentive to make their devices with fewer toxic materials and design them to be easily recycled.
It should be evident from all this that we are still confused about, yet growing ever more aware of, our responsibility as manufacturers and consumers of electronic products. I am going to add a third post, which will be links to sites which will inform you further on this subject, as well as directing you to reputable and responsible methods for disposal of that pile of stuff in your basement, or attic, or corner of the computer room. I want to close with some beautiful paragraphs from a post in E-Waste Insights. This post and several on other blogs referring to the project known as The $100 Laptop, ( The $100 Laptop, or OLPC, One Laptop Per Child, is a topic unto itself.) are what originally interested me in learning more about the topc of e-waste. From The Race to Cheap, in E-Waste Insights:
For roughly 250 years, the power of machines to produce goods has grown by unimaginable leaps and bounds. Chemistry and materials science combined with ingenious invention has made the impossible, possible. No one from 300 years ago would recognize most of the ordinary items of today.
At the same time, the western world has changed in governance and market practices. After staggering world events over the last 100 years in war, inflation and politics, the western world has settled into a growth pattern never seen before in the history of the humanity.
Yet, something is terribly wrong. While indicators of wealth are up, up, up! we have set records in environmental degradation and, yes, species extinction. Why? Because our world is increasingly damaged by the success we have created. There are unintended or unimagined consequences to our material and industrial growth. All around us, the natural world is paved, pulverized and polluted in the name of economic growth. In economics, the measures of success do not take into account damage, and do not value fundemental acts of life in the formulas used to make financial decisions, and steer our enormous system forward.
