I think everyone should be informed about electronic waste (e-waste) and how we treat it in this world. E-waste is perhaps one of the biggest waste problems due to its toxic ingredients that many people in South-East Asia get exposed to. Because I know more about E-waste in the US, I will briefly touch upon some facts and opinions that surround the E-waste debate. Firstly, E-waste in the US is disguised as recycling. All electronic products in the US after they have been used are ostensibly recycled within the country itself. But really, they have found an escape valve through exporting a lot of their E-waste to developing countries in South-East Asia. E-waste can be desirable for these countries because many of the locals can extract minerals and resources that lie within these electronic products and sell them in the informal economy.
Of course the problem with this is that the waste accumulates into a vast toxic dump possessing all of our favourite ingredients including mercury, cadmium, lead and beryllium. All of which pose numerous occupational and environmental health threats. This causes pollution into the land, water, air and exposes these vulnerable people to pernicious chemicals that they're probably not even aware of. Turning back to the US, 50 to 80% of the E-waste collected in the western United States alone is not recycled domestically, but is placed on ships destined for China. There is an international watch dog network called the Basel Action Network which calls on all countries to reduce their exports of hazardous waste to a minimum and deal with their waste problems within national borders. Like many international treaties including Kyoto, the US failed to sign the Basel Convention in 1989.
The US has been using domestic legislation to escape this international treaty. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act gives the US authority and control over hazardous and toxic wastes. Furthermore, E-waste is simply a part of the US's waste disposal strategy. These policies surreptitiously cover up their inherent problems, because they appear to be designed to promote E-waste but in actuality, they are sending the problem to countries in Asia.
Many of the EU countries have signed the Basel Convention and certain states have passed legislation that stipulates that all manufacturers are responsible for the entire life cycle of computers, and are legislatively required to take electronic parts back with the costs being born by the producers and must also agree to specific phase-out dates for toxic inputs. Such an initiative is known as Extended Producer Responsibility, which I have blogged about in the past.
Again, E-waste in the US runs contrary to all of the principles of environmental justice that they condone. They are not banning the exports to Asia because it is based on economics. That whole idea where if market forces are left unregulated, toxic waste will always run downhill on an economic path of least resistance i.e. poor countries with lax labour standards, and non-existent environmental laws.
Key message: Exporting E-waste stifles the innovation needed to actually solve this problem. Manufactures and producers within the US must be subject to EPR legislation that puts the economic and environmental onus on them. The EU model of strict legislation and the banning of toxic exports is an international example of sound environmental leadership. By failing to sign the Basel Convention, the US continues to undermine its legitimacy to the environment. Sure one can argue that the eletronic waste has some value in these developing countries because the people can re-use them and extract the valuable parts. However, this comes at the expense of their health and local ecosystems and groundwater in which these people depend on. It's a zero-sum game and international regulation needs to come to the forefront.
No comments:
Post a Comment