Electronics are quickly becoming a significant portion of the materials sent lo local landfills.
Computers, radios, fax machines, cellular telephones and personal digital assistants are becoming items of concern in the waste stream. Advances in technology, as well as the decreasing price of most electronics, has led to an increase in the volume of outdated items that require proper disposal, typically called e-waste. Hazardous materials are used in the manufacture of these electronics.Televisions and computer monitors project images using a cathode ray tube (CRT), which contains an average of four pounds of lead, along with mercury and other heavy metals. These indispensable gadgets are an e-waste challenge. According to the International Association of Electronics Recyclers (IACR), 3 billion units will be scrapped during the rest of this decade.
Just how do you manage the sheer volume of material and the hazardous components these numbers represent? That is the very question policymakers at the federal, state and local level are grappling with.Something needs to be done, on a large scale to deal with the problem of electronic waste, which if not treated properly, can also be a major source of toxins and carcinogens. "There are 500 million obsolete computers in the U. S. , and even today, only 10% of unwanted and obsolete computers are recycled, according to the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, a San Jose-based advocacy group. Moreover, many companies don't realize how much material actually falls under the heading of "electronic waste" (Pratt, 2007).
The discussion that follows outlines the major problems caused by electronic waste and then outlines the possible solutions, some currently being implemented and some which should be implemented on a large scale. The purpose is to convey the urgency of the issue and present solutions to tackle this problem to convince an audience who at the moment does not understand the implications and dangers electronic waste poses to the environment (Spielvogel, 2005; Spielvogel, 2006). The Problem: As the digital future becomes more and more a reality, it leaves in its wake the old, the obsolete and the orphaned.An estimated 250 million PCs will become obsolete in the next five years. IACR estimates that mobile phones will be discarded at a rate of 130 million a year by 2005, resulting in 65,000 tons of waste, much of it toxic.
With each new generation of computers, phones, televisions and other electronic equipment, the question of what to do with the old models becomes more pressing. The rapid advancements in technology that lead to new and ever-changing electronic devices make the effective management of the quickly outdated products more critical.The amount of electronic or e-waste present in the national waste stream continues to grow rapidly. The reduce-reuse-recycle model that worked with solid waste—reducing the amount of waste generated and reusing or recycling the products created—is important to effective management of e-waste. However, in 2000, while 2,124,400 tons of electronic waste was generated in the United States only 193,700 tons, or about 9 percent, was recovered for reuse or recycling.
"Approximately 25 million TVs are sold in the U. S. each year. At the same time less than 20,000 TVs are recycled. (Schneiderman, 2004).One particular problem for states and localities in managing the flow of electronic waste is the huge amount that goes into landfills.
It results in two main problems: volume and toxicity. The sheer volume of e-waste threatens to overwhelm available landfill space. And the degradation of e-waste in landfills can release toxic materials into the environment. Computer monitors and other electronics contain such toxics as lead, mercury and fire retardants that may be released as the units are compacted and broken in the landfilling process.Although most landfills have liners, there is mounting concern that as the waste degrades, the toxins could pose a serious threat to air and groundwater and ultimately to human health (Pratt, 2007). Most computer monitors and televisions use CRTs, which contain several pounds of lead.
Other hazardous materials include halogenated compounds, antimony oxides, and other toxic materials found in most semiconductors; chemicals used in the manufacture of electronic products; and the hundreds of tons of plastics used to produce PCs, cell phones, PDAs, electronic games instruments and other electronic products.In garages these do not pose a threat because materials are safely stored in metal, glass and other casing. In a landfill, however, they can break during compaction. Solid waste experts are divided over whether the products can contaminate local water supplies or otherwise affect the environment, since landfill liners are designed to prevent metals and other substances from leaking out. There are however persistent concerns that the liners are not foolproof.
And even if the materials can safely be contained within a landfill, many believe that the products should be recycled instead of taking up landfill space.As North Carolina Representative Joe Hackney, sponsor of a bill that would provide funding for electronic recycling programs says, "How much junk do we put in the land that we could otherwise keep out? You've got to look at good stewardship" (Hosanky, 2004; Abu Bakar & Rahimifard, 2007). Minnesota and Virginia have banned electronics from landfills and similar "e-ban" legislation has been introduced in six other states. Minnesota's ban on cathode ray tubes goes into effect July 1.
Virginia law allows localities to ban e-waste from landfills if there is a recycling program in place. The pending legislation introduced this year ranges from general e-waste bans in Arkansas, Nevada, New York and North Carolina to specific bans of cathode ray tubes in Hawaii and Michigan. These bills are just one piece of the puzzle of how to manage the end-of-life of electronics. Ominously, much of U. S. e-waste is winding up in China or in other nations where impoverished residents disassemble them for parts – often without protecting themselves or the environment.
Wisconsin representative Mark Miller who has sponsored legislation to require manufacturers to oversee the recycling of their products, says he thinks a landfill ban can backfire. He states, "I specifically did not go with a landfill ban. You end up collecting all the junk, sending it to China and causing tremendous environmental harm where it is taken apart. " Economically speaking, exporting the waste to nations with lax regulations is dramatically cheaper than recycling the waste in the United States and this serves as a natural economic incentive to export these wastes.However, the exportation of e-waste from industrialized nations to underdeveloped nations where the waste poses serious health threats to men, women, and especially children.
And in the absence of regulation to the contrary, this practice will undoubtedly continue (Hosanky, 2004). Recent action in the Maryland General Assembly puts the state on par with California and Maine in passing comprehensive e-waste legislation. The legislature passed a law that establishes a statewide computer recycling program structured to encourage manufacturers to design for easy disassembly and recycling.According to Delegate Dan Morhaim, who sponsored the bill "What we're doing is asking computer designers to use their brilliance up front to plan for the full life cycle of their products" (Spielvogel, 2005). However, this alternative also has various shortcomings.
For example, California's Act requires manufacturers to submit an annual report estimating the amounts of toxic materials used in their products and any efforts to reduce the use of those materials. Similarly, manufacturers must include in such reports any efforts made to increase the use of recyclable materials and design electronic devices for recycling.Unfortunately, because reporting requirements impose no financial responsibility on manufacturers, such reporting requirements essentially do nothing to encourage end-of-life responsibility (Bergner, 2004). Possible Sustainable Solutions: Perhaps the most obvious solution would be a federal mandate on the disposal and handling of e-waste.
Although the issue has received little attention at the federal level, there are several initiatives that deserve some attention. The National Electronics Product Stewardship Initiative ("NEPSI") is comprised of representatives of electronics manufacturers, government agencies, and environmental groups.The NEPSI's goal is “the development of a system, which includes a viable financing mechanism, to maximize the collection, reuse, and recycling of used electronics, while considering appropriate incentives to design products that facilitate source reduction, reuse and recycling; reduce toxicity; and increase recycled content. " NEPSI essentially promotes the product stewardship approach to e-waste, which distributes the responsibility for recycling e-waste among government, manufacturers, consumers, and retailers.
If successful, NEPSI would create a nationwide program covering the collection and recycling of used electronic equipment. As far as organizations are concerned, many companies have started ensuring that the materials they use in their products as well as the design and packaging of their product is environment-friendly and is recyclable. Nokia, for example, has developed a substance list that it uses to inform its suppliers about prohibited or harmful materials or materials it wants to avoid using in its products. It managed to reduce the weight of its cell phones overall and, in the process, the weight of recyclable materials.The primary materials used in Nokia's new generation of cell phones are metals (40% of weight), plastics (39%) and ceramics (19%) (Schneiderman, 2004). On another front, manufacturers are increasingly working with companies to take back equipment for refurbishing or recycling.
"We'd rather be in charge of it, because we know the product; we know we can do a good job with it," says David Douglas, vice president of eco-responsibility at Sun Microsystems Inc. "And we can get money back through the process, and we're able to pour the money back into engineering and make it better," he adds.Sun recycles about 45% of the material it takes back, and it reuses about 50%, Douglas says. And many manufacturers are thinking about all these issues before their equipment even hits the market.
They're designing with disassembly and environmental impact in mind, Douglas says, which makes recycling easier and removes hazardous materials from the products altogether (Pratt, 2007). Another important initiative is The Basel Ban of 1995, which amended the Basel Convention of 1989. The Basel Ban is a global agreement whereby ratifying countries have agreed that hazardous wastes will not be exported from OECD to non-OECD countries.The primary concern of this activist group, Basel Action Network, is the promotion and encouragement of global environmental justice described as "where no peoples or environments are disproportionately [sic] poisoned and polluted due to the dictates on unbridled market forces and trade. " The United States is not currently among the nearly fifty countries that have ratified the agreement.
Perhaps, in part, this is because the EPA concluded in 2002 that the United States possesses sufficient resources to recycle e-waste, albeit at a much higher cost than exporting the waste (Bergner, 2004).Another initiative is the European Union’s Directive on Wastes from Electrical and Electronic Equipment ("WEEE"). Enacted in February 2003, WEEE is an excellent example of an extended producer responsibility program because it places almost 100% of the responsibility for the financing, collection, and recycling of e-waste on producers of electronics. Extended Producer Responsibility ("EPR") ensures that those creating the problems pay for the problems (Bergner, 2004). Conclusion: A 2001 study conducted by the environmental research group INFORM projected that 500 million wireless phones would enter the waste stream by 2005.This could be further complicated as analog phones are phased out of service, which should be completed by 2008.
What should an industry do? There are lots of ideas and solutions, some costly and impractical and some needing a major paradigm shift. Designing products for the environment seems like a start in the right direction, and it's already working for a number of major EOMs. But consumers still find it easier and cheaper to simply trash their electronic products than repair or recycle them.This is where a change in mindsets and attitudes is needed. Tackling the problem of e-waste will not be possible simply by passing policies at the federal level or by changing practices at the corporate level. Some of the burden should also be placed on consumers to become aware of and access recycling opportunities for e-waste even if it means going the extra mile.
All members of society should join hands and eliminate the menace of electronic waste to ensure a safe and healthy environment for the years to come.
