The article “High-Tech Trash” was
written by Steve Carroll, staff member at National Geographic, the magazine in
which the article was originally published. The article discusses the facts and
implications surrounding the problem of “e-waste,” which involves the disposal
of computers and other electronics and is often handled extremely poorly. Given
that National Geographic is concerned with environmental issues and
human-interest stories, it is clear why this topic would appeal to both the
authors and the intended audience, as it covers both areas.
Carroll’s
overall argument is that the mishandling of e-waste has economic,
environmental, and medical implications. Electronics in the developed world
become obsolete extremely quickly, rendering certain devices relatively useless
after just a few years, thus creating tons – 1.5 to 1.9 million tons in 2005, to be exact – of e-waste. Most of this waste
ends up in landfills, which is bad enough due to all the toxic chemicals
contained in electronics, such as lead, mercury, and arsenics. However, less
than 20% of this waste is sent to “recyclers,” which may sound positive, but
actually has some horrific implications. While the recyclers advertise the
re-use of the electronics, many of them instead sell them to brokers overseas,
leading tons of electronic junk to be shipped to developing countries. This
practice has been restricted in many countries under the Basel Convention of
1989, and even banned in the EU, but in America it is simply discouraged.
The
net result of this for other countries, especially in East Asia, Africa, and
the Middle East, is an influx of hazardous waste. This waste is not always
dealt with by actual businesses, but rather by electronics “salvagers”. The hub
for e-waste used to be Guiyu, China, where families looking to make ends meet
would engage in extremely dangerous practices in order to expose the valuable
materials in the discarded electronics, namely copper, lead, and gold. The
burning and breaking down of these electronics has led to pollution of the
ground, air, and even the bodies of the Chinese. For example, high levels of
PBDEs, flame retardants that can cause damage to fetal development, have been
found in electronics workers. Today, regulations have limited the influx of
this hazardous waste to China, but these dangerous practices have continued in
secret at lower levels.
Even
if e-waste isn’t going to China as much
as it once was, it’s still going somewhere
in the developing world. Carroll reported from Accra, Ghana, where he found a
man selling junk computers for around $150 shipped to him by his brother in
Virginia, where they were bought for about $10. So how can we fix this flow?
Carroll argues that we must redirect it to a more responsible and safe route,
such as to recyclers like Creative Recycling Systems in Tampa, FL, where a
giant machine called David extracts valuable parts of old computers in a
completely clean way. These machines are common in Europe, but only a few are
found in the U.S. This has implications for us too – with the proliferation of
hazardous materials in other countries, the goods we get from them tend to be
infused with lead, copper, and tin, bringing the hazard right back to us.
Unless we create a better route for these materials, they might not be “out of
sight, out of mind” for long.
To me, it is ridiculous that we continue to allow this process in the U.S. With funding or regulation from the government, we could redirect this waste to safer routes and save both developing countries and our own. I realize that regulation of business is extremely unpopular amongst some segments of the U.S. political spectrum, but when it comes to the environment and the lives of non-Americans, I feel that there is a sort of moral obligation to do something. The EU is far ahead of us on this issue, which to me makes us look horrible in comparison. We are one of three countries worldwide that have not ratified the Basel Convention, which is embarassing. I'm not much of an environmental person, but this is a tad sad, and I can't see why we haven't addressed this yet.
Further reading:
No comments:
Post a Comment