The Environmental Impact of Electronic Waste 3

8/2/2019 The Environmental Impact of Electronic Waste 3

1/6

The Environmental Impact of Electronic Waste

In today's high paced modern world, technology is moving faster and faster and boosting the speed

of our everyday lives. Every eight months there is a new model of some type of technological device

reaching the market and the old is being discarded as it is unable to keep up with our fast paced

society. Where have the millions of old, unwanted computers and other electronics gone? Manyhave suspected, that relatively few old PC's are being recycled and that most are stored in

warehouses, basements, and closets or have met there end in municipal landfills or incinerators. In

recent years a great deal of attention has been devoted to the environmental impact of computers

and other electronic equipment as these items pose a massive problem for municipal landfills and

hazardous effects to human life.

Users' manuals can be a pain to read, nevertheless are pretty handy, they cover most of everything

we need to know about newly purchased equipment. What is not covered in the users' manual are

the toxic chemicals and heavy metals that go into computers and other electronic devices, nor the

waste computer-manufacturing generates. Of the approximately one thousand different substances

included in a typical PC, every computer contains five to eight pounds of lead. Exposure to lead and

other toxic ingredients, such as mercury, cadmium, brominated flame retardants, and some plastics,

may stun brain development, disrupt hormone functions, cause cancer, or affect reproduction

(Slone, 2000).

Manufacturers combine lead; the leading toxic material found in electronic equipment, with tin to

form solder, which is used in the production of circuit boards found inside electronic products. Lead

is highly toxic and can harm children and developing fetuses, even at low levels of exposure.

Brominated flame retardants, used in circuit boards and plastic casing, do not break down easily and

build up in the environment. Long term exposure can lead to impaired learning and memory

functions. They have also been known to interfere with thyroid and estrogen hormone systems and

exposure in the womb has been linked to behavioral problems. Rechargeable batteries, contacts

and switches found in computers and other electrical devices may contain lead, mercury and

cadmium. Consequently, these toxins can bioaccumulate in the environment, particularly within the

food chain, which is the major route of exposure. This route of exposure is known to be a possible

health risk, primarily affecting the kidneys and bones. A Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) is the main

component found in a television and computer monitors containing lead and exposure can cause

intellectual impairment in children and damage to the nervous, blood and reproductive system in

adults (SVCT, 1999).

The quantity of discarded electronic products around the world has sky rocketed of the past few

years. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), over twenty million computers

become obsolete in 1998, but only thirteen percent were reused or recycled. Silicon Valley Toxics

Coalition released a report last February predicting that five million computers will become obsolete

between 1997 and 2007, resulting in six billion pounds of plastic and one and a half billion pounds of

lead. The Worldwatch Institute reported in its annual "Vital Signs" report that nearly three million

tons of electronic waste was landfilled in 1997 (O'Connell, 2002). Electronic waste is now the fastest

growing element of solid waste, which makes up five percent of all municipal solid waste worldwide.

Due largely to the toxicity of electronic waste, there is a growing concern of what exactly is being


2/6

done to help deal with the municipal landfills that are being contaminated and potential health

related issues that could arise if not dealt with in a timely manner.

In the past, landfills were located in areas thought to have little value. These areas include gravel

pits, ravine, swamps or other lands. Residence and commerce waste was often dumped in these

areas. Unfortunately, these practices lead to health and environmental concerns. These landfillsleach toxins into groundwater used for drinking. Other sites have exposed waste; or fire hazards

from seeping landfill gases. Old landfills had no liners to prevent environmental contamination and

when it became full, they were typically covered with loose topsoil. Rain water and precipitation

would seep into the waste and carry chemicals to the groundwater below. The chemicals

contaminating groundwater vary among landfills. Common contaminates found in groundwater

near these sites are chlorinated solvents. Some of the solvents, such as tetrachlorethylene,

trichloroethylene, and vinyl chloride, can pose a cancer risk at high exposure levels. Likewise,

incinerators emit toxic air pollutants including dioxins (Landes, 1997). Today, modern landfills are

designed for safety, supposedly designed to prevent environmental contamination. They are

enclosed with special covers and liners o prevent rainwater from entering and exiting a landfill.

Modern landfills also use monitoring wells to detect any problems. These wells are located at the

outside edge of the landfill.

According to Dr. Fred Lee, "detection in new landfills can be difficult since the only way to know this

is detection in the monitoring wells. The likelihood of a monitoring well at a single or double lined

landfill detecting an initial leak is very small." Monitoring wells should be located in areas most likely

to detect contamination. Old and new landfills are typically located next to large bodies of water

(i.e., rivers, lakes, bays, ect.), making leakage detection and remediation extremely difficult.

Detection by monitoring wells can also be very difficult at lined landfills. Lee says, liners were found

to be unreliable, since relatively small holes in plastic sheeting lead to high leakage rates. Even the

best liner and leachate collection system will ultimately fail due to natural deterioration.

E-waste is not cheap nor easily disposed of. The vast majority of obsolete equipment either becomes

part of the scrap in landfills or is exported by recycling companies to other countries for disposal.

According to the report "Exporting Harm", by the Basel Action Network, consumers would be

surprised to know that "most companies that call themselves recyclers of computers and E-waste

often do more waste trading than actual waste recycling, either directly or indirectly. Informed

industry insiders have indicated that around 80% of what comes through their doors will be

exported to Asia and 90% of that has been destined for China." (Basel Action Network, 2002). In

essence, eighty percent of recycled computers are actually shipped to Asia for subsequent retrieval

of reusable materials. This process is conducted in a very primitive manner, resulting in human

implications in Asia. What remains unsold is dumped in their country to contaminate their

environment. This is the result of U.S. electronics industry's failure to address the issue and the

government's lack of regulations.

Globally, the United States lags far behind the rest of the industrialized nations when it

comes to establishing regulations for e-waste. In Europe, the European Union (EU) has adopted two

directives that "require the elimination of certain hazardous materials and set standards for

producer responsibility for recycling and take-back." (SVTC, 2003). Japan has already passed the

Appliance Recycling Law in 2001. This law requires take-back of certain electronic products and will


3/6

soon include computers. Switzerland was the first country to enact legislation specifically targeting

e-waste when it passed and ordinance for separate collection and recycling of electronic waste on

January 14, 1998. This ordinance requires consumers to "take used equipment back to a

manufacturer, an importer, or a retailer. Retailers are required to take back old equipment if they

offer the same sort of product for sale." (McCarthy, 2002) The Netherlands passed a similar decree

in April of 1998.

In the United States, the only regulations with regard to e-waste are the hazardous waste

provisions regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency. Under EPA regulations, most of the

materials in computers are considered hazardous, but these regulations apply only to large

companies and governmental institutions. Households and small quantity generators are exempt

from the strict hazardous waste management requirements. The inaction of the United States in

legislating solutions to the e-waste crisis "has allowed the computer industry to resist addressing

many criticisms, such as the amount of hazardous material used to make their products and the

growing pile of waste that results from the dynamic pace of innovation in the Information

Technology (IT) industry." (SVTC, 2003). The United States has also failed to ratify the Basel

Convention, which has been signed by all of the other developed nations. The Basel Convention

"prohibits the shipment of hazardous waste from rich countries to poor ones." (SVTC, 2003).

While there are no federal regulations on e-waste, some states have enacted legislation to

combat the problem and many others are in the process of doing so. Both California and

Massachusetts have banned the disposal of CRTs, while Nebraska has introduced legislation that

would impose an advance disposal fee on the sale of CRTs". (Dahl, 2002) Numerous other states

have legislation in different stages of development to combat the growing problem of e-waste.

There are basically two alternatives to establishing procedures for dealing with e-waste

voluntary programs and regulated programs. The voluntary initiatives are motivated by a number of

reasons, "including the desire to protect the environment from the effects of disposal, an interest in

demonstrating the feasibility of separate collection and recycling, a sense that it is good business

and good public relations to do so, the wish to provide a stimulus for companies pioneering

demanufacturing and recycling technologies, and in response to the increasing discussion of

regulatory approaches under development in Europe and Japan." (McCarthy, 2002).

Many local governments have held recycling collection events for computer equipment.

These events typically are one-day or a series of events at specific locations and allow the general

public to bring their obsolete computer equipment to a collection point to be separated by type for

recycling or hazardous waste disposal. The response to these types of events has shown that many

consumers will take part in programs of this type. In Ohio, two such voluntary events "collected 161

tons of old computers" (McCarthy, 2002). In Rhode Island, two back-to-back Saturday collection

events garnered "87 tons of unwanted computers" (McCarthy, 2002).

Another voluntary type of program is the manufacturers' take back program. Some

computer manufacturers have initiated programs by which they will take back old equipment for

recycling. IBM, Hewlett-Packard, and Sony have had such programs in place for a few years. All three

require the consumer to pay a fee when sending in computer equipment. The fees range from $13

to $34 dollars per item depending on the quantity and type of hardware that is returned. Recent

news articles show that Epson has developed a similar program at a cost of ten dollars.


4/6

Retailers have shown an interest in promoting electronic equipment recycling. In April 2001,

Best Buy announced the beginning of periodic collection efforts. Several two-day events were held

at 11 sites in 8 States across the country. Consumers were allowed to drop off "computers,

monitors, keyboards, printers, fax machines, TVs, stereos, camcorders, cell phones, rechargeable

batters, VCRs, and small household appliances of any brand to the designated location" (McCarthy,

2002). Fees were generally only charged for TVs and computer monitors and those fees were $10

and $15 dollars.

The EPA announced on January 10, 2003 a new campaign to encourage Americans to reuse

or recycle used electronics. The Plug-In To e-Cycling Campaign partners; retailers, electronic

manufacturers, and recycling companies in an effort to raise awareness among American consumers

of the value of reusing and recycling electronics and provide the opportunity to do so.

Each of these voluntary efforts show one thing: the consumer must make the effort and pay

the price for recycling their electronic equipment. "Environmentally conscious owners who want to

do the right thing in disposing of their outdated electronics usually must reach into their own

pockets to make sure that these machines either find new homes or are recycled properly." (Dahl,

2002)

Despite the efforts of so many voluntary programs, "the availability and use of such

programs has only scratched the surface of what is available to be recycled, with little impact on

overall recycling rates." (McCarthy, 2002). Furthermore, the rate of recycling, estimated by the

National Safety Council at 14%, includes the return to manufacturers of leased equipment. While

leases were quite common when technology made computers more expensive, innovations in the

industry have reduced the cost of equipment and leases are no longer the norm. Thus,

"manufacturer responsibility for end-of-life products disappeared." (McCarthy, 2002)

We have to keep in mind what we are trying to avoid: the dumping of hazardous electronic

waste not only on our own shores, but across the seas as well. We know it is harmful to the

environment and to human kind to casually dispose of hazardous materials. It impacts not only the

individual actually making the disposal, but each member of the community in which it takes place.

The guiding principle of utilitarian ethical theory is to increase happiness or utility. Since this

is a consequentialist theory, one must weigh the benefits and damages to all affected people before

forming a conclusion about what is ethically right. I argue that each individual act must not be

weighed, but the rule must be what action results in the greatest good for the greatest number ofpeople. The rule, therefore, should be that improper disposal of e-waste is morally wrong and we

should find appropriate means to rectify the current state of affairs. Because existing recycling

options are strictly voluntary, regulations are necessary to benefit the global community.

Some of the options to consider include the following, which were identified by James E.

McCarthy in his Report for Congress:

1. Require labeling of computers to encourage recycling and provide information to consumers.

2. Impose bans on disposal and/or export of e-waste.

3. Regulate the use of hazardous substances in computers.


5/6

4. Require recycled content in new computer equipment.

5. Hold manufacturers and importers of electronic products for the management of those products

at the end of their useful life.

The United States is far behind other developed countries in addressing the issue of e-waste,but this fact does not have to be a negative one. We can look to the successes of other countries and

learn from them. Consumers must demand that our government take immediate action to ratify the

Basel Convention or adopt similar regulations.

Consumers must also demand that the computer industry not use double standards when

manufacturing their products. Many companies who now do business in Europe and Japan under

stricter regulation than in the United States have adopted manufacturing processes to adhere to the

stricter guidelines. Why do they not do the same in this country? Consumers must leverage their

buying power and only support companies who have the highest standards when it comes to dealing

with e-waste.

It is ethically wrong to continue on the path that requires the least amount of change. We

cannot ignore the horrible conditions that we have imposed on the communities of developing

nations by exporting our e-waste to them for processing and disposal. We also cannot continue to

allow hazardous materials in our own landfills. If we do not take action now, our children and our

children's children will pay the price.

References

Basel Action Network. (2002, February 25). Exporting harm. The high tech trashing of asia. Retrieved

February 12, 2006, from http://www.ban.org/E-waste/technotrashfinalcomp.pdf

Dahl, R. (2002, April). Who pays for e-junk. Environmental health perspectives. Retreived February 7,

2006, from http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CYP/is_4_110/ai_86169642#continue

Environmenal Protection Agency. (2003, January). Plug-in to e-cycling. Retrieved February 8, 2006,

from http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/conserve/plugin/index.htm

Landes, L. (1997). Zero waste america. Ecotalk. Retrieved February 12, 2006, from

http://www.zerowasteamerica.org/landfills.htm

Lee, F.G. (2005, September). Flawed technology of subtitle d landfilling of municipal solid waste.

Retrieved February 12, 2006, from

http://www.members.aol.com/apple27298/subtitleDFlawedTechnPap.pdf

McCarthy, J. (2002, July 19). Report of congress. Recycling computers and electronic equipment:

Legislative and regulatory approached to "e-waste". Retreived February

12, 2006, from http://www.grrn.orgle-scrap/congressioal_research_service_7-

02.pdf#search='james%20mccarthy%20and20ewaste


6/6

O'Connell, C. (2002, October 1). Computing the damage. Waste age magazine. Retrieved February 7,

2006, from http://wasteage.com/mag/waste_computing-damage/index.html

Silicon Valley Toxic Coalition. (2003, January 9). Clean Computer Campaign. Fourth annual computer

report card. Retrieved February 9, 2006, from

http://www.svtc.org/cleancc/pubs/2002report.htm#harm

Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition. (1999, May). Just say no to e-waste. Background documents on

hazards and waste from computers. Retrieved February 7, 2006, from

http://www.sut.org/cleancc/pubs/sayno.htm

Slone, A. (2000, December). Conscientious computing. The green guide. Retrieved February 7, 2006,

from http://www.checnet.org/HealthHouse/education/a

Documents

The Environmental Impact of Electronic Waste 3