Viewpoint

The e-waste mess

It's been awhile. In 1970, there was the first regular environmental column in the state of Georgia (probably in the South). In 1973, several years after the first Earth Day, there was the first and only environmental column in New Hampshire (probably in New England). There was the foray into helping protect the nation's air quality as one of the founders of the New Hampshire Clean Air Alliance, after the enactment of the federal Clean Air Act. There was the national recognition from the Atomic Industrial Forum for a series of articles on nuclear power and the soon-to-be-operative Seabrook (N.H.) nuclear power plant.

Those were heady days for environmental journalism, a subject with plenty of controversy and disagreement. The business community, in particular, railed against the environmental movement, saying costs for basics like electricity would skyrocket, cleaning our rivers and air would be too costly and the effort lacked sufficient benefits. Of course, those dire predictions never came true, and, in fact, whole new industries were born to address the nation's environmental directives.

Like I said, it's been awhile since this writer took fingers to keyboard to rant about the pollution of our environment. Career changes, mostly, meant scant opportunity to cover the subject. Life changes meant scant time to indulge in private-sector initiatives. Maybe it was the institutionalization of the environmental movement that caused disinterest, or maybe it was burnout.

Perhaps it's time to reinvigorate the environmental message, to use my stage as the editor of an important technology trade magazine to address environmental issues, at least as they relate to our audience and the vendors who sell products to IT organizations worldwide.

People, we do have a problem.

The technology sector has become a huge contributor to environmental (and human health) degradation in the United States and developing countries around the world. According to National Geographic (NG) in an eye-opening article in its January issue, 70 percent of computers and monitors and 80 percent of TVs end up in landfills, despite a growing number of state laws that prohibit the dumping of e-waste, which may leak lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium, beryllium and other toxics into the ground.

And not just in U.S. landfills. Most of the high-tech garbage ends up overseas, where it is sometimes repurposed but more often processed for precious metals and recyclable materials. Those processes, often done with the most primitive methods, are endangering human health and the environments in those countries.

In Africa and Asia, for example, computer wiring is burned to salvage the copper. Smoke from those fires contains toxic dioxins and heavy metals. While a four-foot square box of circuit boards could be worth $10,000 in recycled precious metals (gold, silver, palladium), shipping e-waste abroad is still more profitable than recycling. But recycling will be necessary as these overseas dumping grounds dry up due to new laws and improved enforcement, and as landfill space dwindles.

The U.S. Environmental Agency estimates that 30 million to 40 million PCs will be ready for end-of-life management per year over the next few years. It predicts that 25 million TVs will be taken out of service yearly, and that 98 million cell phones were discarded in the United States in 2005. That same year, EPA says, 1.5 million to 1.9 million tons of computers, TVs, VCRs, monitors, cell phones and other equipment was discarded.

That's just the tip of this growing problem. According to the United Nations' Environment Programme, 50 million tons of electronic waste is discarded worldwide annually. Less than 20 percent of that e-waste is channeled through recyclers, says NG, as much of the waste is sent to developing countries, where environmental enforcement usually is weak.

U.S.-based companies are starting to get onboard of what is euphemistically being called the "green" movement. Much of that impetus, however, may be a result of the European Union (EU) enacting strong pro-environmental laws.

The EU has already instituted measures, through its RoHS directive, restricting the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment. This directive bans the placing on the EU market of new electrical and electronic equipment containing more than agreed levels of lead, cadmium, mercury and other toxic materials.

The EU also forbids hazardous waste shipments to developing countries; requires manufacturers to shoulder the burden of safe disposal; encourages green design of electronics; and requires manufacturers to set up infrastructure to collect e-waste and ensure responsible recycling.

As a result, most U.S. cabling manufacturers who also sell in the EU have altered their manufacturing processes to comply with RoHS. If a U.S. company wants to sell its products in the EU, these proposed regulations will require them to document everything from the energy used in the mining of raw materials to the recycling or disposal of their products.

In our just-completed readership study, we asked subscribers, "How important is it to you that a vendor's products be manufactured or developed with the environment in mind?" Nine out of 10 respondents say it is at least somewhat important. Seventy-one percent said they would be more likely to recommend or purchase an enterprise network IT product from an environmentally friendly manufacturer or developer.

U.S. tech manufacturers are taking notice, whether because of the EU strong-arming or customer requests. HP is putting recycled plastic into its printer ink cartridges and expects to use 10 million pounds of recycled plastic this year. Intel plans to purchase more than 1.3 million kilowatt hours in wind, solar and other types of green power, enough to power about 133,000 households. Dell, Apple, Panasonic, Sun Microsystems, IBM, Xerox and Motorola all have launched green initiatives.

U.S. companies, however, are way behind the EU in terms of recycling of e-waste. There are currently only four e-waste recycling plants in the United States, capable of safely and cleanly separating the good from the bad in motherboards, cell phones and the like. Europe has many more such facilities.

"Right now, we're just trimming around the edges," says Sheila Davis, head of the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition. "Companies really need to look at their entire footprint."

kanderberg@comnews.com