Foreign E-Waste Problems and Policies
Ball State University E-Waste Page
Photo From (http://www.fiu.edu/~dosori01/)
The exportation of e-waste to other countries is a terrible way to get rid of it, but it is an all too real one. E-waste is effecting countries allover the world. Even young children, such as the one in the above photo, are being exposed to the harmful materials everyday. E-waste is not only harmful to people's health, but it also destroys the environment. It pollutes ground water, and when burned it pollutes the air we breathe. It is not something that will decompose in a matter of days. There is no time table for how long something like e-waste will take. It could take a million years, or it may never decompose. Something must be done to get rid of e-waste, not just in the U.S., but allover the world. Hopefully the following report can help further the process of eliminating e-waste.
Foreign E-Waste Background Information
Americans will throw out about 10 million old computers this year, and about two-thirds of these will be shipped to Asia for dismantling by rural villagers (E-Waste, http://www.fiu.edu/~dosori01/ online). These villagers do not having any special protection or any real knowledge about computers. They know how to dismantle the computers and where to put the discarded materials. The Lianjiang River are of Guiyu, China, is one of the most popular areas for e-waste. Guiyu is continuously receiving e-waste from other countries. This area is full of workers who spend each day stripping the computers by hand. The computers contain materials such as arsenic, mercury, lead, and cadmium. All of these materials pose health risks to not only humans, but also to wildlife. Mercury is known to cause brain damage; mercury and asenic are both known to cause cancer.
Chart is From (http://www.cawrecycles.org/Ewaste/Whats%20in%20PCs.doc)
The chart above shows most of the materials that make up a pc. Notice, that most of these materials are hazardous. Are these chemicals that we want children to be playing with, and to be drinking because their water source is contaminated? It's easy to say when it's not our children, but what if someday it is?
Table is from (http://www.crra.com/ewaste/ttrash2/ttrash2/index.html#whatwe)
*Hong Kong Standards and Testing Centre Ltd were responsible for taking the samples*
The workers inhale toxic chemicals such as the ones listed above in the tabel. This table shows the water quality of Guiyu ,and the ones set by the World Health Organization. This table proves just how toxic these chemicals are. Many of these toxins are dumped into canals that eventually flow into rivers. These rivers are a major source of drinking water for the villagers. Rivers close to recycling operations have been known to contain lead levels that are as much as 190 times higher than levels considered safe by the World Health Organization (E-Waste, http://www.fiu.edu/~dosori01/asia.html online). Most of the drinking water in Guiyu has to be imported now because of all the contamination in the rivers. The chemicals also stay in the air for everyone in the village to breathe. The e-waste is often burned to reduce the amount of it. When this happens, toxic chemicals are sent into the air, then it falls back to earth in the form of ash. This ash can cover the entire village, and most of the children go out and play in this ash. It would be like children going out and playing in the snow, but instead they are playing in toxic materials.
Foreign countries were either unaware of the danger that the materials have, or they are paid a high price to except e-waste anyway. Whatever the case may be, e-waste has consumed foreign landfills. To Americans, this is what we call recycling. American's continued thirst for more powerful computers has led to the e-waste troubles. Many countries all ready have policies in place for e-waste. The United States of America needs to look at these policies and find something that will work for this country also. If other countries can think of something, then this country should be able to also.
There are a two ways that foreign countries are trying to deal with e-waste. The first is the Basel Convention. All fifteen countries that belong to European Union, have already adopttedIt is a United Nations environmental treaty that prohibits the haves from dumping their hazardous waste on the have-nots (As I See It: Atop the Mountain to Obsolescence, http://www.midrangeserver.com/tfh/tfh050602-story08.html online). The United States, Afghanistan, and Haiti, were the only countries that did not sign this treaty. The United States is one of the largest producers of e-waste, but Afghanistan and Haiti produce none. Therefore, their unwillingness to sign the treaty does not have that great of an impact. The U.S. rejected the Basel convention because we already have many laws on the export of toxic materials. Although, most of these fail to keep e-waste in this country because the government allows electronic components to be exported. The government also states that the e-waste is being exported for recycling, but in all actuality it is being shipped for disposal.
Another way Europe is taking care of e-waste, is by the Extended Producer Responsibility. In May of 2001, the European Union (EU) Parliament approved a directive that requires producers of electronics to take responsibility--financially and otherwise--for the recovery and recycling of E-waste (Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment--WEEE) (Exporting Harm: Techno Trash to Asia, http://www.crra.com/ewaste/ttrash2/ttrash2/index.html#european online). The producer is the one who takes responsibility for the product when it is no longer wanted. The producer also is responsible for not putting the hazardous materials in the products in the first place. The Restriction on the Use of Certain Hazardous Materials, or as it also known, ROHS; they play an important role in e-waste cleanup. The ROHS takes prevention a step futher by phasing out the use of hazardous substances in production of electrical and elecronics equipment by 2008 (Exporting Harm: Techno Trash to Asia, http://www.crra.com/ewaste/ttrash2/ttrash2/index.html#european online).
The first thing this nation should do is to accept the Basil Convention. This would end the exporting of hazardous materials. The United States must understand that it is not fair to export toxic materials to other countries that do not even use these products. It is not up to someone else to take responsibility for the United State's e-waste problems. Seondly, manufactures who produce electronic products, must find a way to eliminate hazardous materials in their products. It may be extremely difficult to find substitutes for these materials, but it is something that must be done to make products much safer. The final thing the U.S. should do right now, is to use the take back method. This means that all manufactures take responsibility for taking back the product when its life is over. This would cost producers millions of dollars over the years. The downside of this would be that producers would have an excess of e-waste laying around, and that fact that it would cost millions of dollars to take the materials back. The upside would be that maybe having all this material laying around would push producers to find substitutes for the hazardous materials. The manufactures may also get tired of paying millions of dollars each year, therefore, they may try to find a solution that would fix the problems quickly. The sooner e-waste is eliminated, the better the lives of the workers will be in the foreign countries that are dealing with the U.S's e-waste.
Right now the U.S. goverment and American manufactures have claimed that the EU's environmental and health protections constitute "unnecessary barriers to trade, particularly due to the ban on certain materials, burdensome take-back requirements for end-of life equipment and mandated design standards" (Exporting Harm: Techno Trash to Asia, http://www.crra.com/ewaste/ttrash2/ttrash2/index.html#european online). This says it all, and it is time that the U.S. stop thinking this. It is crucial that the United States of America adopt the policies above, or any other policy or action that will get rid of e-waste. These policies may be very expensive at first, but in the long run they will pay off and make the world a much cleaner place to live.
E-waste is a problem that will continue to mount if it is not taken care of. The United States, or any other country for that matter, can not continue to ship e-waste to foreign countries. Sure it is an easy solution for the country exporting it, but what about the countries that are recieving it? It is not right that people in other countries should have to deal with waste that they did not create. If our appetites for better computers is going to continue to grow, the we need to think of something to eliminate e-waste. Otherwise, we may find that there is no longer anywhere to put it.
When foreign countries will no longer except our e-waste, The United States may be in trouble. We would have to find some way to discard of e-waste inside of this country. If we have put no thought into how we are going to do that, then something drastic may happen. It would not be just the idea of having e-waste laying around, but it would eventually start to effect the people and the environment. People would start to get sick and become contaminated. The air and groundwater would be to the point that no one would be able to breathe or get a fresh drink of water. The animals in our ecosystem would begin to die off, because unlike us, they can not run down to the nearest store and pick up a bottle of bottled water. The future is now, and the world must develope something that will rid all countries of the trials and dangers that come from e-waste.
Byster, L., Davis, S., Gutierrez, R., Hussain, A., Puckett, J., Westervelt, S., (2002). Exporting Harm: Techno Trash to Asia. http://www.crra.com/ewaste/ttrash2/ttrash2/index.html#european. Retrieved April 21, 2003, from the world wide web.
Electronic Waste Photos & Charts. http://www.cawrecycles.org/Ewaste/Whats%20in%20PCs.doc. Retrieved April 18, 2003, from the world wide web.
(2002). E-Waste. http://www.fiu.edu/~dosori01/. Retrieved March 24, 2003, from the world wide web.
(2002). E-Waste. http://www.fiu.edu/~dosori01/asia.html. Retrieved April 14, 2003, from the world wide web.
(2002). E-Waste. http://www.fiu.edu/~dosori01/laws.html. Retrieved April 14, 2003, from the world wide web.
(2002). Exporting Harm. http://www.crra.com/ewaste/ttrash2/ttrash2/index.html#whatwe. Retrieved April 19, 2003, from the world wide web.
Just Say No To E-Waste: Backround Document On Hazards And Waste From Computers. http://www.stvc.org/cleancc/pubs/sayno.htm. Retrieved March 24, 2003, from the world wide web.
Rozek, V. (2002). As I See It: Atop the Mountain to Obsolescence. http://www.midrangeserver.com/tfh/tfh050602-story08.htm. Retrieved April 14, 2003, from the world wide web.
Schenkman, L. (2002). EU Government To Enforce E-Waste Recycling. http://www.wasteage.com/ar/waste_eu_government_enforce/. Retrieved April 14, 2003, from the world wide web.