Urban Environmental Problems: E-Waste

This is a summary on the growing issue of e-waste in developing and developed nations. The complexity of this topic is related to the increasing demand for electronic devices, their short life span, and the public health risks imposed by these appliances on local communities living along highly toxic material. Another difficulty in dealing with this issue is the challenge to enforce policies in a worldwide interconnected market. Identifying who is liable to the takeback, recycling or end-of-life processing of e-waste has generated some innovative ideas from private companies but also controversies over the costs and capacity to implement shifts in e-waste management. Heart warns that “e-waste is one of the fastest growing areas of the international waste stream and is increasing at a much higher rate than all other waste streams.” Along these lines, Kahhat affirms that “tons of e-waste were discarded, mainly in landfills, in the U.S. in 2005, and e-waste is projected to grow in the next few years.” Knudson points out that a large part of California’s e-waste is “flowing to developing nations, where it is picked apart by workers exposed to a high-tech cocktail of contamination.” The destination and management of e-waste become more complex in developing areas. Ray states that “the problems relating to mounting solid waste are fast acquiring gigantic proportions in the developing countries of Asia.” Nnorom explains that e-waste in developing countries “are either internally generated or imported illegally as ‘used’ goods in an attempt to bridge the so-called ‘digital divide’.” The possible solutions to e-waste range from transnational regulations to innovative financial mechanisms. Kahhat proposes a deposit paid by consumers at the time of purchase -- which would return to the consumer at the end-of-life product processing. Ray suggests international cooperation rather than trade in wastes. Heart looks at the input aspect of e-waste and pinpoints the need for designing a cleaner production, extending producer responsibility, and establishing standards and labeling. Nnorom also advocates the principle of extended producer responsibility. Saphores remembers that public education programs should target teenagers and younger adults to increase the number of people adhering to recycling programs. In Hawaii, government agencies and businesses have to dispose e-waste adequately; however, home electronics are exempted from this regulation. The solutions to e-waste should take into account the entire life cycle of the product: input, manufacturing, and output. In the input phase, the first great obstacle is to mandate electronic producers to incorporate recycled materials in the composition of its products. The second challenge is ensuring that toxic materials meet the safety standards of public health regulations. The third difficulty is fostering research and development of alternative materials so that electronics are safer, hold more value over time, and last longer. The feasibility of addressing these challenges must be analyzed in the context of a greater dependency of developing governments over multinational corporate capital. As for the production stage, it is necessary to comply with market-driven solutions based on competition, which means not increasing production costs. Thus, the production of electronics should be less focused on its economic aspect and more on the political issues of protecting the sanitary conditions of people working in assembly lines as well as the wellness of local communities. In addition, public authorities are responsible to assess whether the import of e-waste threatens local public health or help bridge the digital gap between rich and poor nations. Regarding output, financial mechanisms have become an incentive for companies to take back e-waste. It also indirectly reduces the amount of electronic waste in landfills. However, this output system heavily relies on management capacity, educational systems, and financial resources. As developed nations present enough capabilities, they can deal with the transactional costs of these innovative mechanisms; however, developing nations must find out alternative ways to address e-waste since they lack management and financial resources and their juridical systems are no able to effectively shift values from consumer to producer liability over e-waste. References eWaste. “What to do with your old electronics”, Department of Environmental Services, City & County of Honolulu, 2005. http://www.opala.org/solid_waste/eWaste.html Heart, S. “Sustainable Management of Electronic Waste (e-Waste)”, Clean, v. 35, i. 4, pp. 305-310, 2007. Kahhat, R. et al. “Exploring E-Waste Management Systems in the United States”, Resources, Conservation & Recycling, v. 52, pp. 955-964, 2008. Knudson, T. “E-waste goes overseas as recyclers comply with California ban”, Los Angeles Times, December, 2010. Nnorom, I.; Osibanjo, O. “Overview of electronic waste (e-waste) management practices and legislations, and their poor applications in the developing countries”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, v. 52, pp. 843-858, 2008. Ray, A. “Waste Management in Developing Asia: Can Trade and Cooperation Help?”, The Journal of Environment & Development, v. 7, n. 1, pp. 3-25, 2008. Saphores, J. et al. “Household Willingness to Recycle Electronic Waste: An Application to California”, Environment and Behavior, v. 38, n. 2, pp. 183-208, 2008.