Author Archive
Flow of Knowledge
Posted by: | Comments
Every year incredible amounts of electronic waste are disposed of improperly, contaminating the world in which we live. Many corporations believe that they are recycling computers and other electronic hardware properly, when in fact, they are not. The third-party organizations hired to dispose of e-waste are nothing more than smoke-and-mirror organizations that use big words and questionable disposal methods, leaving corporations liable for improper disposal practices, should an investigation occur. Even within the United States, electronic waste grows exponentially within landfills, permeating the soil with toxins that eventually seep into underground water sources. Although some states have made excellent advances in the proper recycling of technology, there is not enough education to encourage further growth and change in how we dispose of electronics.
It is not that the message about the hazards of electronic waste is not reaching the public. It is more that the public does not understand the extent to which e-recycling has an impact. Green Peace is an environmental agency successful in what they do, yet the public is not aware of the scope of their efforts. In order for proper legislation to be introduced into law, inspiration has to come from the people. The public awakens the need for improvement, because inspiration is not going to come from the government, nor from the corporations who do not want to spend the money necessary to properly dispose of electronic waste. Education is the catalyst for change.
California has been a leader in the responsible recycling of electronics. For years they have enacted stringent legislation, obtaining recycling funds from consumers when they purchase electronics. Although their processes have not been overly successful, they were the first to initiate such innovative ideas. Minnesota is a frontrunner in electronic recycling as well, holding corporations solely responsible for the proper recycling of the products they sell.
One major electronics retailer provided an estimate of their inventory to give an idea of how much electronic waste is introduced into our environment every year. A single company can take in anywhere from four to eight million used phones in one year. That’s just cell phones. This does not even take into consideration other electronics that are returned for recycling.
If the public had any idea how many harmful chemicals were being absorbed into the environment in the form of electronic waste, we may not be as inclined to purchase the items at the alarming rate which currently plagues our society. By educating the public and encouraging the flow of knowledge, we can reduce the amount of electronic waste, dispose of electronics in a safe manner and protect our environment from further damage. What can you do to help share this message?
massive toxic ewaste bust in indonesia
Posted by: | CommentsIndonesia officials sieze over 100 containers of toxic and contaminated materials labeled as dry metals. This is an ongoing trend. The magnatide of which is only now being piblocally exposed. http://resource-recycling.com/node/2499
>
The Monitor Challenge
Posted by: | Comments
There are many challenges we face when it comes to recycling electronics: accountability, security, enforcement are but a few. One of the most pressing issues is the monitor recycling challenge. When I say monitors, I mean old CRT’s such as computer monitors and TV’s – the big boxy tubes that are very quickly disappearing. It’s been a problem for years because there are millions and millions of them buried in landfills.
What happens to the environment (and by the environment, I mean the groundwater, food systems, and ecological systems that keep human beings alive, not just some esoteric idea of “green”) when technological equipment like monitors are not properly recycled? Every old monitor contains 10 or so highly carcinogenic chemicals like mercury, cadmium, chromium, barium, and bromide along with 10-15 pounds of lead. The lead in the monitors is what makes them so heavy, but lead is also a neurotoxin. The chemicals from old monitors seep into the groundwater, affecting the food we eat and the water we drink. These chemicals cause birth defects, brain damage, and other neurological problems.
There is no industry-accepted recycling solution, but states are passing laws to prevent more monitors from ending up in landfills. Sure, newer technology means monitors are safer and somewhat easier to recycle, but that doesn’t address the millions of existing monitors. Solutions that some companies are trying, such as shredding old monitors and mixing them with asphalt, aren’t really solutions. All that does is make the asphalt sparkle with crushed glass. It doesn’t take care of the carcinogen or lead problem.
The only acceptable solution is one that makes manufacturers responsible from cradle to grave, requiring retailers such as Best Buy to recycle hazardous material they’ve sold. That’s what states like Wisconsin and California are trying to do. It forces retailers into the take-back and recycle business. It forces them to take responsibility for the entire manufacturing process both domestically and with imports because they don’t want to build something they’re legally required to later recycle. And it’s forced them to develop national programs. They have volume of product at the national level, and volume of product has value. It becomes a revenue stream. If they do it at a regional level where there’s limited volume, it becomes a cost center.
What do you think? Will solutions that force cradle to grave accountability transform the business model? Are there other solutions that could keep monitors out of landfills?
The Dark Side of Recycling
Posted by: | Comments
On a community level, there has been a major push to increase recycling and participate in green living, but the people doing the greatest offending are unscrupulous recycling companies. It’s truly the dark side of recycling.
We’ve all heard stories – someone turns in their hard drive to a retailer participating in a third-party recycling program and all of their personal information ends up on a computer in China. Or a government official disposes of a flash drive that has 200,000 social security numbers on it.Or, because it’s no longer permitted in most states to put hazardous e-waste in landfills, it’s illegally dumped in your back yard and you don’t find out until your child’s blood test reveals high levels of lead.
This lack of oversight is not only leading to environmental concerns, but also information theft because of improper disposal techniques. When you take a computer to a disposal company or a big box store, you assume that all your information is being erased before parts are sent to other machines or recycled. Unfortunately, that’s not always the truth. It takes time and money to properly erase a hard drive, but too many companies don’t take the time to do it. They simply sell the hard drives to another company. It’s not until months later, when you check your credit card statement and there’s a trip to Barbados on it and you’re $10,000 in debt, that you realize what might have happened. Criminals were able to get your credit card or Social Security number from that hard drive you recycled.
Is it an environmental issue? A security issue? Actually, from our perspective, it’s an enforcement issue. There are no consequences or accountability in the industry, making it easy for less than ethical organizations to skirt the rules. The fact is, both on a state and federal level, there is hardly any oversight for electronics recyclers and accountability for bad business practices. The legislation is there, but agencies are so understaffed and underfunded that they can’t keep up with enforcement. We like to think that things are getting better, but unscrupulous companies are just becoming more secretive. Although legislation has been implemented to protect the environment from hazardous goods, it has not been adequately enforced. Whether or not it can be enforced through traditional means is a question that spurred, in part, the creation of IERC.
The important question then becomes: How can we place accountability, both for the environment and for data security, back on the docket of the e-waste industry? Furthermore, can this even be done? We believe that it can, but such an overhaul must involve federal rather than state legislation. And ultimately it involves all of us taking responsibility for finding and insisting on solutions to a problem that cannot be shipped away. What can you do?