Tackling the problem of high-tech trash
Published: 07 Jul 2006 12:35 BST
Six years ago, Elizabeth Grossman had an unsettling revelation about the high-tech industry: it's anything but green.
As an environmental journalist, Grossman was conducting research on the Willamette River, near her home of Portland, Oregon, where many chip manufacturers such as LSI Logic house their plants. She was evaluating progress of the river's cleanup after years of contamination from pulp and paper plants in the area when she realised its water quality was getting worse, not better. Data from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) showed that river pollutants were on the rise, thanks to tons of chemicals flowing into the basin from roughly a dozen silicon wafer manufacturers, according to Grossman.
"I was just astonished because I had believed that high tech was this clean industry and it was going to be a transition away from the battle days of smoke stacks and nasty things coming out of drainpipes," Grossman said.
She turned to the so-called toxics release inventory — a report on the toxic chemicals that the EPA requires companies to provide when they release over a certain volume of toxins in the form of smoke or liquid. That prompted further investigation into the high-tech industry's practices, and the result is Grossman's recently published book, High Tech Trash: Digital Devices, Hidden Toxics, and Human Health.
Q: Which consumer electronics have the most the deleterious effects on human health and the environment?
A: If you're talking about the most hazardous component when high-tech electronics are disposed of, I would easily pick the cathode-ray tube (CRT) — bulky screens that are our traditional desktops and televisions — because that glass in the screen contains barium (and) titanium and... the back components contain quite a lot of lead. If they break or crack, the heavy metal stuff can be released.
There are different legacy issues in terms of manufacturing, too, such as looking back to the 1970s and 1980s, when a lot of semiconductor manufacturers started in a big way. It turns out that an awful lot of the chemicals that are used in that process were stored in underground tanks that leaked. Now Silicon Valley has more superfund sites — sites that are so severely polluted that they qualify for a special cleanup program under the EPA — than any other similar-sized regions of the country. There's an enormous amount of groundwater contaminated with things like trichloroethylene and some related chemicals.
Many companies, including CNET, publisher of ZDNet UK, have switched to LCDs (liquid crystal displays) from the CRTs, which can produce between three to four pounds of lead. Does that mean things that are looking up?
Well, what the changeover to the flat screens means is that pretty soon nobody is going to be making those big, heavy-leaded CRTs anymore. So in a lot of ways, that's good in terms of reducing environmental impact. But that also means we're going to have a pretty big waste challenge, because when all those CRTs get disposed of, they really need to be disposed of properly, so they don't end up in landfills and they don't end up being taken apart under poor conditions, (in which) the people who are dismantling them get exposed to the heavy metals.
Most people don't spend much time thinking about the ins and outs of manufacturing, recycling or even getting rid of consumer electronics until it's time to take out the trash or buy something new. So in your research, what have you found that would shock most people?
The most shocking fact, aside from the raw numbers, is the enormous volume of the stuff that we're getting rid of. In the United States, we seem to be disposing of about 250 million computers every year, and currently we are recycling only about 10 percent of that. The rest of these things are either being thrown away — the EPA estimates that about two million tons of electronics are going to landfills in the United States each year — (or) being sent to developing countries such as China, India, Southeast Asia... even Africa, where some of them are simply dumped. Of the stuff that's being sent to India and China, it's being dismantled and materials are being recovered under really appallingly primitive and hazardous conditions.
Could you put more of a face on that and describe the effect on those countries?
It's happened because there are a lot of valuable metals in electronics and the scrap metal market right now is booming as never before. This kind of primitive recycling has been going on for at least 10 years now. (Much) of the stuff gets shipped over from the United States (and) from Europe, Japan and other places. (Here) we don't have any laws that specifically prohibit the export of electronics for recycling. Europe does, but the stuff gets out anyway.
What it's meant for the communities over there is that because so much of the leaded glass and plastics have simply been thrown in piles by rivers, there has been a lot of open burning of plastics. The water supply in some communities in Southern China is completely undrinkable. There are levels of heavy metals and some synthetic chemicals that are tens and hundreds of tons higher than (acceptable) international safety standards.
What are these governments doing about this?
The Chinese Government has been officially trying to crack down on it, but the problem is that something will get stopped, and then it sort of pops up somewhere else.
Part of the reason it's happening is because of the way computers have been designed, particularly the older ones that are entering the waste stream now. They're really hard to take apart, and it's an expensive, labour-intensive process. Like so many industries, people will send something where labour is cheap, environmental regulations are lax and oversight is sporadic or nonexistent.
That leads to my next question. Who do you think is responsible for taking care of these problems?
A lot of people are responsible.
The really tricky thing is that, as an individual consumer, if you take some equipment to a recycler, it's actually rather hard to know without asking a lot of questions exactly what that recycler is doing with it. So there's a whole chain of responsibility.
Right now, virtually all the major electronic manufacturers have some kind of take-back and recycling program — whether it's HP or Dell or Apple or Sony. I really like the idea of returning used equipment or obsolete equipment to the manufacturer. That presumably will give an incentive to design things that are easier to recycle and contain less toxic materials.
I do. It seems pretty clear that without some kind of regulation or some kind of penalty or incentive, the voluntary program is just not good enough. There is just too much stuff that could slip through the cracks.
More than a year ago, a California Democrat, Representative Mike Thompson, among others, proposed the National Computer Recycling Act to levy a national sales tax of $10 on computer monitors and devices for recycling. What's your take on a tax like that?
When it was introduced, the bill didn't actually set up any kind of comprehensive system nationwide for dealing with used and obsolete electronics; it was just trying to set up a funding mechanism (for recycling). Nobody likes the idea of just sticking an extra tax on something…
Previous
Did you find this article useful?
178 out of 337 people found this useful
- Share this article:
