E-Waste away, far away

I listened to an interesting symposium at the Academies today addressing the problem of E-Waste. For those not familiar with the term, E-Waste (EW) refers to the unused refuse that remains after electronics (computers, televisions, I-Pods, cellphones, etc.) fizzle out and meet their makers’ landfills. Among the surfeit of dangerous metals and hazardous materials contained in old electronics are the following: cadmium, lead, mercury, chromium IV (known to damage DNA, linked to asthmatic bronchitis), and brominated flame retardants (endocrine disrupters, increase cancer risks to digestive and lymph systems).

Two different speakers offered strikingly different input on the problem. In short, the first speaker, Ted Smith, spoke mainly about the Precautionary Principle which he thinks should drive the electronic industry’s mounting problem of waste disposal. In relation to this discussion, the theory says that when there’s not ample evidence to show that EW doesn’t harm those who participate in its disposal-or those located in close proximity to its disposal-then the burden falls upon the manufacturer of those supplies to ensure that all precautions are taken for safe disposal. This implies that the electronic companies of the world need to deal with their own waste using their own funds. Right now, with no regulation of the disposal whatsoever, the waste is either treated like any other type of regular waste and thrown in a landfill, or its shipped overseas. What’s shipped overseas ends up in huge piles of rubbish that are burned to melt away plastic and leave the underlying copper, etc. Imagine the toxicity of those fumes.

The second speaker, Gordon Davy, took the unpopular, and unconvincing (in my opinion) position that definitive proof of EW’s detrimental effects on human health have yet to surface. Therefore, considering EW accounts for only 1% of total US refuse each year, Davy argues perhaps our attentions should be focused elsewhere. His arguments largely rested upon claims that the dangerous chemicals contained in this waste don’t leach into the aquifers and water sources once they’re buried. He took the tack of insinuating-rather bluntly-that special interest groups have channeled their energies and pocketbooks into making EW more of an issue than it deserves.

To be frank, although I think his demand for better research is important, I found his overall tone of dismissal almost insulting. For one thing, even if we grant him his assumption that only 1% of the US’s total refuse can be attributed to EW, that totally ignores the 50-80% of our EW that’s shipped overseas to places like China, India, Pakistan, and Nigeria. We’re producing enormous amounts of EW, but most of it doesn’t end up buried in the US. Even more importantly, however, the amount of EW’s increasing ever year on an enormous scale (according to the other speaker, whose statement was not argued by Mr. Davy, EW is easily the fastest growing source of refuse in the US). The computer-age really only blossomed within the previous generation and many of those computers are becoming obsolete. Plus, technological development continues to race forward and there’s more and more techy stuff on the shelves-that’s not going to slow anytime soon. All of this is either dead or dying. Do we burn it, bury it, or donate the organs? Damn it feels good to be a gangsta…

Mr. Davy concludes that EW should be disposed of in landfills without pumping revenue into an EW recycling infrastructure. In his opinion, it’s a fairly simple cost-analysis equation: we’d have to pump millions or billions of dollars into a recycling program that simply wouldn’t pay for itself in the end. Furthermore, in his mind, the detrimental impacts have yet to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, so why spend so much money?

He’s right to say that recycling EW costs ridiculous amounts of money in the US right now (up to $25 per computer unit sometimes). However, the main reason for this is that freight ships roll in from China stacked with supplies and have tons of room in their holding containers for the return trip. We have no regulations in place dictating whether or not our EW remnants can be shipped overseas, so why not pay a few bucks and load up a crate? Your problem’s history! Therefore, it actually costs less to ship the waste overseas and have it disposed over there than it is to do the job in the US. Also, engineers and companies have no incentives awaiting them should they devise a more economical approach to recycling EW here in the states. Finally, maybe we don’t have definitive proof right now that EW causes serious health concerns, but guess what, these ills take decades sometimes to reveal themselves! The components are abnormally toxic and it’s only a matter of time before we see those effects.

Although I liked the essence of Ted Smith’s remarks infinitely more than those of Mr. Davy, I disagree with Mr. Smith to some extent regarding the burden of disposal. I think the federal government needs to acknowledge the grave dangers involved in leaving this industry unregulated and should offer its economic and managerial might in establishing the underpinnings of an EW recycling system. We can’t continue to ship this crap overseas to China, turn a blind eye on its disposal, then turn around and criticize them for their revolting treatment of the environment. Also, it’s not right to put ALL the burden of disposal on the companies because that doesn’t match up with practices in other industries and the cost of establishing a reasonable recycling (research, infrastructure, workforce) might even sink some companies who make these computers and cell phones were using (probably not, but repercussions would be felt, and they’d trickle down to you and me eventually).

Therefore, I’d hope we can achieve a joint program between the federal government (some states have already imposed their own restrictions) and electronic manufacturers that awards innovative treatment of EW, but doesn’t saddle the industry with all the responsibility. I think the responsibility should be shared between those who make and those who use. Guess what, you and I use and we should probably dedicate some of our taxes to preserving the environment were endangering.