American E-waste in Peru

It is hard to deny that western society’s dependence on new and improved personal computers (PCs) is significantly high, but when considering this statement, one simple question comes to mind. Where do all the old computers go? As time and technology evolves, computer lifespan is actually decreasing, creating more electronic waste (e-waste) than there is room for. The United States have come up with their own solution on how to manage this “junk”; Peru. By exporting their e-waste to the developing South American country, the states easily resolve environmental issues concerned with recycling these unwanted PCs, the majority of these issues being the release of toxic emissions.

Although the problem does not technically belong to the US anymore, researchers continue to question exactly how many of these exported PCs are reused in Peru. They also show concern as to whether the Peruvian government keeps track of the number of computers imported, and where these imports actually end up. In June 2009, Ramzy Kahhat and Eric Williams published a study entitled “Product or Waste? Importation and End-of-Life Processing of Computers in Peru”, which gave answers, including evidence, to these mentioned questions.

The study, which was published in the Environmental Science and Technology journal, is considered the most comprehensive inquiry of computer reuse in a developing country (Betts, 2009). It determined from Peruvian records that 57-76% of the computers imported during the years 2003 to 2007 were directly from the United States (Betts, 2009). It also revealed that at least 85% of unwanted PCs imported to Peru are reused, instead of being directly recycled (Betts 2009). This evidence, along with other, ultimately suggested that the idea that e-waste is exported to Peru mainly to dump unusable junk is inaccurate (Betts, 2009).

In contrast to this inquiry, where researchers provide an in depth look at imports of American PCs in Peru, there is also an article entitled “E-waste reuse may be more persuasive than previously thought” which refers to and summarizes the key objectives, ideas, and conclusions behind the study. The article, which was written by Kellyn Betts in 2009, contains several of the same pieces of information as the original study does, but in a varying manner. The main differences noted between the two sources are the amount of detail given about how the study was conducted, the tables, graphs, and diagrams used to solidify the claim, and the magnitude at which the limitations were discussed.

First of all, the differences with regards to the details of the study can be seen in the introductions. Kahhat and Williams initially begin their paper with a paragraph on what their study entails and describe how they analysed government data to eventually reach their conclusion. They also give mention to background information that was taken into consideration. They then proceed with an elaborate introduction which firstly explains definitions and continues on to identify the three main questions behind the study. Whereas on the other hand, Betts begins her article with a concise description of the study, an outline of the results that were determined, and a brief biography of the lead author and his associate. As well as having a more detailed introduction, the original study also includes materials and methods that were used as well as relevant information such as the computer recycling system in Lima (the capital of Peru). Betts’ article lacks in this area because the primary purpose of her piece is to inform the general public of the study that was made. This alludes to the idea that for the readers to understand the basic logistics of the experiment, only a summary of the observations and findings are necessary.

Not only does Kahhat and William’s work have more detail in their words, but they also give figures that visually demonstrate the data they observed and analysed throughout the study. For example, they include a graph depicting the importation of used and new non-mobile and mobile personal computers to Peru, as well as a table projecting the main paths followed by computer parts and materials. In Betts’ article, there are no examples of concrete data that are used as evidence. This leads to the idea that the primary source has a stronger claim since the authors gave actual proof, which in return creates more solid arguments to back up their conclusion. When reading the secondary source, the audience must trust that the information they are given is credible and that it is indeed coming from a reliable primary source.

Lastly, in the original article, there is an entire section devoted to a discussion of the limitations that were involved. In this fragment, the author states:

“There could be illegal trade, however, the extent and character of which are as yet unknown. The nature of the used computer trade in other countries such as China and India is also still uncertain. We have shown how to use official trade statistics, when available, to characterize if trade is reuse versus recycling oriented. More work is needed both to learn from official statistics from other countries as well as find new ways to characterize legal trade.” (Kahhat, Williams, 2009)

This quote implies that the researchers have acknowledged the limits of their conclusion, while stating an improvement that is necessary to guarantee their findings. This limit is also mentioned in the secondary source when Betts quotes that the researchers feel that their paper provides “compelling evidence that much of the used computer exports to Peru is driven by reuse, we don’t know if this is the case for other countries – the situation could be different” (Kahhat, Williams, 2009). Although Betts recognizes this limit, she only briefly summarizes it, as oppose to explaining it to the same extent as it was originally in the primary source.

Both sources are relevant to the needs and interests of their target audiences. The study conducted by Kahhat and Williams provides an in depth explanation and analysis of how and why they concluded that the assumed image of the United State’s exportation of unwanted PCs is incorrect. The researchers used detailed descriptions, concrete data to strengthen their claim, and a discussion of limitations to educate their specific readers on their study, where as Betts used informative summarizing techniques to give an overview of the study to her intended readers.

References
Betts, K. (2009) E-waste reuse may be more pervasive than previously thought. Environmental Science & Technology, volume 43, No. 18, 29 July 2009. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1021/es902021q. Accessed 4 Sunday Sept 2009.

Kahhat R., Williams, K. (2009) Product or Waste? Importation and End-of-Life Processing of Computers in Peru. Environmental Science & Technology, volume 43, No. 15, 2 June 2009. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es8035835. Accessed 4 Sunday Sept 2009.