In response to my recent post about composting food waste I was sent a graphic about e-waste, outlining another major component of our urban waste that is literally spiraling out of control. I usually don’t post these kinds of marketing gimmicks to drive traffic to other sites, but since this is a topic that needs a lot more attention, I’m okay with the “click-bait” aspect of it. I’m not familiar with the company that created the illustration, but at least it’s not Samsung or Apple. Then again, maybe gadget manufacturers would be the perfect purveyors of electronic waste statistics.
A few more thoughts about this graphic and its implications below.projected to grow 33% by 2017 and the United States leading China as the world’s #1 producer of discarded electronics.
What’s a bit fuzzy about the numbers is where it states that 171 out of 258 million of units of computers, monitors, TVs, and cellphones discarded in the US in 2010 were collected for recycling. Two thirds sounds like a pretty impressive (though still inadequate) rate, but the question is how many of these units actually get recycled, and if so, how, into what, and at what cost to whom, after they’ve been collected. According to Responsible Recycling vs Global Dumping, industry experts estimate that of the e-waste that recyclers collect, roughly 50-80 % of that ends up getting exported to developing nations.
This is where the trail gets very fuzzy and often leads to secret toxic waste dumps in remote villages from China to India to Africa, as illustrated by this Greenpeace chart.
Just the fact that they’re using this 50-80% window should tell us how little anyone really knows about the exact fate and whereabouts of our previous phones and TVs. Sure, there’s the Basel Convention, a treaty to control international shipments of hazardous wastes worked out by the United Nations Environmental Program in 1989, but it still needs to be ratified by the United States and 15 more countries due to the complexity over what constitutes a nonhazardous unit.
This is where the whole recycling business gets really tricky. Just like plastics, a lot of it is recyclable and manufacturers are very quick to put the three arrows on their products, but doesn’t mean it will get recycled or how much energy it will consume, how much pollution it will cause, or how it will affect workers’ health. In the case of electronics, it’s so much more complicated as there are so many different materials that need to be taken apart, including heavy metals like lead, cadmium and mercury.
It seems that no matter how much better we get at recycling these products in a safe manner, we will continue to fall short as long as the consumption levels keep increasing so drastically. To me, a big part of the problem is the proliferation of gadgets and the marketing that drives it. While it’s great that Apple for example is taking more responsibility and amping up its return and recycling efforts, the problem is that they also make it so seductive and necessary to buy a new phone every other year, or even more often.
What if Apple made products that last longer and encouraged to hang on to our old ones for longer, the way Patagonia does for its jackets?
I feel like the pushers of new technology always tempt us with promises that their latest inventions are going to be more environmentally friendly. Remember how computers were supposed to save paper? Or reduce energy consumption?
In the end, all the increased efficiencies that technology promises and often even delivers are almost always offset by a flawed economic system based on consumerism and perpetual growth that has laid more waste to the planet’s natural system over the past 60 years with each advertised brilliant technological invention.
Or as Annie Leonard puts it, a system set up to externalize true costs and design for the dump…
As I am sitting here typing these words into my computer I understand the inherent difficulty in finding easy solutions to this problem. I think it has to be a combination of things, and not just of a physical nature. Yes, there has got to be a comprehensive international system of ensuring that these mountains of e-waste are being reused and recycled responsibly and equitably. But there also needs to be more accountability on the manufacturers’ end for the type of products they’re introducing to the market.
While these kinds of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) policies have gained ground in Canada and the EU in recent years, there is no federal law governing EPR or product stewardship in the United States, though individual states like California have made strides in some areas of manufacturing.
Beyond that, we have to change our thinking, both from a producer and consumer point of view. Companies who talk the green talk need to walk the green walk and take responsibility for the entire life cycle of their product, with or without regulation. Becoming registered Benefit Corporations will enable them to eschew the profit-above-all-else modus operandi their traditional corporate bylaws dictate, forcing them to do the wrong thing for people and planet. It’s possible, just ask Patagonia.
On the other side of the equation, we as conscious humans who understand how overstretched this planet is and how our own choices set the tone for how we tread on it have to learn how to say no and go slow. We need to resist the temptation to acquire the latest shiny object, stretch the lifetime of our possessions, find opportunities for creative reuse, and support the companies that are committed to manufacturing the cleanest, most energy-efficient, repairable, and highest quality products.
Above all, we need to help each other rediscover the part of ourselves that values experience, friendship, passion, creativity, and all the other non-material treasures of life we won’t be able to take to our graves.