Panning E-Waste for Gold
Photo by Jim Wilson/The New York Times
The New York Times is running a special section on the business of green today. “Panning E-Waste for Gold” describes a behavioral shift in electronics manufacturers who are becoming more fiscally responsible for the end-of-life recovery and recycling of their products. “They are also creating products with fewer toxic materials, and in some cases with biomass-based materials, so that the equipment can be more easily reused, recycled or decomposed in landfills,” the story continues, noting that it’s mostly because of fears of regulatory fines and ruffling shareholders’ feathers, along with the increased customer demand for greener goods.
Some of the facts presented are rather disquieting, however:
Last year alone, more than 63 million computers in the United States were traded in for replacements or thrown out. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that more than two million tons of electronic waste ends up in landfills each year. TV’s and computers are not harmful, but when burned or dumped, toxins in the products—like lead, mercury and cadmium—endanger health as well as air and water quality.
While a combination of United States laws and regulations ban dumping electronic waste in domestic landfills, many recyclers and brokers export e-waste to mostly unregulated markets overseas. About 80 percent of computers and other electronics collected for recycling are dumped in landfills in developing countries, according to watchdog organizations and industry groups.
Electronics manufacturers are getting little prodding from the United States government; it is the only industrialized nation that did not ratify the Basel Convention, which prohibits richer nations from exporting hazardous waste to poorer countries.
Barbara Kyle, coordinator of the Silicon Valley Toxic Coalition’s computer take-back campaign, said that until the United States signs on to the Basel treaty, e-waste will continue polluting communities overseas.
“All these efforts to do more recycling, if not accompanied by closing the door to exporting e-waste to the third world, will mean we’re just adding to the problem of other countries that are in no position to deal with our waste,” Ms. Kyle said.
Meanwhile, the SVTC has compiled a list of responsible e-cyclers here.
Still, the squeaky wheel does get the grease (or the yowling, biting, bed-trampolining cat its morning kibble), even if it’s not apparent at first:
At Apple Computer, a shareholders’ group drafted a resolution before the company’s April 27 annual meeting demanding that the company extend its free iPod recycling program to all Apple products. The board, and ultimately the majority of shareholders, voted no. But a few days before the meeting, the company said in a press release that, starting in June, it would take back old computers, at no cost, when customers buy a new Apple computer online or at an Apple retailer.
Let’s chalk that up as another win for the home team.
It takes more energy to leave your PC running than it does to simply turn it off and then reboot later. (Anything you’ve heard to the contrary is just a myth.) You’ll also be doing your computer a favor by reducing mechanical wear and the possibility of overheating, and by generally prolonging its life. Monitors and displays, on average, draw twice as much power as your CPU does when left on (yes, even with that flashy screensaver you stitched together from your vacation pics), so configure your power-management options so your PC and monitor get some mandatory shut-eye after a certain period of inactivity. Still, hitting the off button is your best bet—a couple of taps is all it takes to do your part to save the world.
Vanessa said,
May 18, 2006 at 11:49 am
Something slightly related and maybe interesting: copper recovered from electronics recycling can be used to supplement the feed of factory-farmed animals for faster growth. It was true of a place I worked at for a summer in 1997 in Indiana. I can’t imagine other places don’t do it, too.
Jasmin said,
May 18, 2006 at 2:34 pm
Reposting Vanessa’s reply after I asked her if the copper was safe for animals:
—
I’m not sure, I was only filing in the office and read all the bills
of lading to and from major factory farmers in the state like Perdue
Chicken. I quit soon after that.
The copper in solution was only ever referred to as “cupric”, so I’m
not too sure what exact form of copper was used and apparently, it
does make a difference. I know it won’t kill poultry and swine, who
can become deficient in copper when fed a controlled diet in
confinement. (However, waste from “chicken production” can cause
copper toxicity when used as a supplement in ungulate feed–cows,
sheep, etc. can’t handle too much copper.)
Here’s the company website for the place I worked, if you’re
interested: http://www.micronutrients.net/
I can say that recovering the cupric from the circuitry was not safe
for humans to work around, at least as it was handled by that
company…the guys in the plant were always covered in green dust,
coughing, sick and self-medicating. I had headaches every day for the
3 months I was there.
For me, I don’t believe in inhumane animal husbandry or wreaking
ecological havoc for human greed. So neither do I believe this could
possibly be harmless from start to finish. What I’m most curious about
is whether metals as additives to controlled feed are safe for human
consumption and what health effects they might have.
Sorry to take up so much of your time with something so half-baked! I
enjoy reading your blog and am glad for the chance to share something
of mutual interest.
Thanks!