This article (see below) came through one of my "good news" sources. But I'm not so sure it is good news, although there is some benefit in electronics making their way to recycling centres, especially since our collective addiction to shiny new toys has created an "e-waste" problem of epidemic proportions.
According to the US Environmental Protection Agency, more than 4.6 million tonnes of e-waste ended up in US landfills in 2000. (In Canada, about 140 000 tonnes of computer equipment, phones, televisions, stereos, and small home appliances make their way into landfills each year.) And that figure doesn't take into consideration the waste that is incinerated, releasing toxic heavy metals and dioxins into the air.
Recycling electronics is far from an ideal solution, though. I mean, there's the pollution and waste generated in the production of these gadgets in the first place. But also, recycling electronics exposes workers and the environment to hazardous chemicals unless stringent regulations are imposed--and relatively few countries have those measures in place. (In the US, Dell used federal prison inmates for its recycling program, without the same health and safety protections it provides to workers at other facilities. In 2003, it promised to stop using UNICOR, the federal corporation that manages the prison recycling program, although I couldn't find any confirmation that it followed through on that promise. UNICOR continues to operate seven Electronics Recycling Facilities in the US.)
Instead, somewhere between 50 and 80% of US e-waste is exported for dumping or cheap recycling to developing nations... where the electronics recycling industry lacks controls to prevent workers--often children--being exposed to hazardous materials. Yikes. Is it just me, or is there a statement here about which lives are considered more or less valuable? Prisoners and workers in developing nations, even if they are children, don't deserve the same protections? The unspoken implications take my breath away.
Nearly as disturbing to me is that the goal of the program is to encourage an increasing rate of consumption. There's planned obsolescence and perceived obsolescence, but this is perceived obsolescence on steroids! Consumers get a better reward for using their stuff for less time. It's right there in the article: "encouraging people to live that lifestyle of temporary ownership." A lifestyle of temporary ownership....
I hope you've already had a chance to watch The Story of Stuff... if you haven't, it is well worth twenty minutes of your time. The short film follows the story of our stuff from the beginning (where stuff comes from) to the end (where it goes). And as Annie Leonard explains, "It's a system in crisis. The reason it's a system in crisis is that it is a linear system and we live on a finite planet. And you cannot run a linear system on a finite planet indefinitely."
I found one quote from the film particularly shocking—and particularly relevant to this gadget buyback program.
According to the US Environmental Protection Agency, more than 4.6 million tonnes of e-waste ended up in US landfills in 2000. (In Canada, about 140 000 tonnes of computer equipment, phones, televisions, stereos, and small home appliances make their way into landfills each year.) And that figure doesn't take into consideration the waste that is incinerated, releasing toxic heavy metals and dioxins into the air.
Recycling electronics is far from an ideal solution, though. I mean, there's the pollution and waste generated in the production of these gadgets in the first place. But also, recycling electronics exposes workers and the environment to hazardous chemicals unless stringent regulations are imposed--and relatively few countries have those measures in place. (In the US, Dell used federal prison inmates for its recycling program, without the same health and safety protections it provides to workers at other facilities. In 2003, it promised to stop using UNICOR, the federal corporation that manages the prison recycling program, although I couldn't find any confirmation that it followed through on that promise. UNICOR continues to operate seven Electronics Recycling Facilities in the US.)
Instead, somewhere between 50 and 80% of US e-waste is exported for dumping or cheap recycling to developing nations... where the electronics recycling industry lacks controls to prevent workers--often children--being exposed to hazardous materials. Yikes. Is it just me, or is there a statement here about which lives are considered more or less valuable? Prisoners and workers in developing nations, even if they are children, don't deserve the same protections? The unspoken implications take my breath away.
Nearly as disturbing to me is that the goal of the program is to encourage an increasing rate of consumption. There's planned obsolescence and perceived obsolescence, but this is perceived obsolescence on steroids! Consumers get a better reward for using their stuff for less time. It's right there in the article: "encouraging people to live that lifestyle of temporary ownership." A lifestyle of temporary ownership....
I hope you've already had a chance to watch The Story of Stuff... if you haven't, it is well worth twenty minutes of your time. The short film follows the story of our stuff from the beginning (where stuff comes from) to the end (where it goes). And as Annie Leonard explains, "It's a system in crisis. The reason it's a system in crisis is that it is a linear system and we live on a finite planet. And you cannot run a linear system on a finite planet indefinitely."
I found one quote from the film particularly shocking—and particularly relevant to this gadget buyback program.
Post-WWII economist Victor LeBow (1955)
Wow. Looks pretty crass written down in black and white, doesn't it? And yet this is, indisputably, the engine that drives consumer culture.
So... what do we do about it?
(Stats come from these Wired and Greenpeace articles)
So... what do we do about it?
(Stats come from these Wired and Greenpeace articles)
2 comments:
wow, I'm still processing and will probably respond with more later. However initially the thing that struck me was your Dell quote. How frustrating!!!! We purchase all our comps at work from Dell. That will be changing now. Thanks for the eye opener! I love sharing this type of info and adding more companies to my naughty list (just wish things would turn around so that my list would shrink instead of always getting bigger). Thanks for the info Mel!
Hey, Erin... there's a lot to think about in there, eh?
You'll have to dig deep to find out what the current situation is with Dell. It seems that in 2003, they promised to stop hiring prisoners (through UNICOR, which is a federal corporation that provides prison labour) for their recycling program. I couldn't find any news stories that confirmed they followed through on that.
I found two separate reports published within the last 18 months which indicate that the UNICOR continues to operate hazardous prison electronics recycling programs. (http://www.computertakeback.com/docUploads/ToxicSweatshops.pdf and http://www.etoxics.org/site/DocServer/PLN_March_2007Prison_Industry_article.pdf?docID=541_).
I would definitely be interested in anything you find out! I will edit the post to reflect that it's unclear whether Dell still uses the program.
Of course, one has to wonder who IS using the prison recycling program....
Post a Comment