E-waste

In our technologically dependent world it’s easy to get lost. We strive for the latest updates, the latest models, replacing and tossing the old obsolete machines. All in the name of progress, because each new thing is supposed to be better and faster than the last. However we rarely stop to think about what we are actually throwing away. Recycling is promoted everywhere these days, but few people connect their plastic bottles and cans with computers and other digital devices. An incredible number of computers and television end up as garbage. Most of this garbage is then shipped to some third world country where they leak toxic chemicals that damage the health of both people and the environment. Over the past few years this problem has become increasingly prominent and countries are hard pressed to find solutions. The issue is discussed in the article “U.S. Lags Behind World with Its Patchwork Approach to Curbing E-Waste,” by Larry Greenemeier released by Scientific American.

“Although the U.S. is one the world's largest producers of electronic waste (e-waste), it is hardly a leader in addressing this problem” (Greenemeier 2009) Without a nationwide enforced policy manufacturers of electronics cannot design their products to a specific design. Which allows them to create products that are supposedly “green” without having a definite guideline or enforcement. “They estimate that obsolete devices in U.S. households add up to 747 million pieces of potential e-waste—more than 1.36 million metric tons” (Greenemeier 2009) This issue clearly calls for some form of regulatory control. The most obvious method would be to create laws and policies to restrict the manufacturing of these products. In Europe there are several policies put in place that restrict what electronics can be sold, they have banned new electronics that contain above the stated levels of toxic chemicals like lead, cadmium and mercury as well as a number of others. The fact that, “Both the Senate and House are only now considering versions of a proposed federal law to fund electronic device recycling research, development and demonstration projects.” (Greenemeier 2009) shows how behind the United States are on this particular solution.

There is also the option of adding economic incentives to recycling, which is a more difficult solution because it depends more on the consumers than any government law. If an economic incentive were put into action it would most likely consist of consumers rebates for every piece of e-waste they recycle. The government could also offer manufacturers benefits to designing more environmentally friendly electronics, for example tax credits. The more difficult of the two options would be to get more consumers to recycle their e-waste. Many are simply too lazy or indifferent to the environmental impacts they can cause. A cash incentive could be effective however it would depend on how large an incentive. A direct cash incentive would limit the amount consumers would get for each e-waste, putting a strain on the amount of money the government could spend on other things. A tax rebate could also be established, but there are no immediate results for the consumer. Promoting e-waste recycling in educational forms would be beneficial as well however the government would have to spend a large sum of money for this too.

The problems of e-waste are pretty simple in they’re cause and effect. E-waste release toxic chemicals into the environment that hurt both people and nature. The solution to e-waste however is not that straightforward. There is always the simpler method of creating laws and policies that limit the amount of toxic chemicals that can be used in manufacturing electronics or restrict the forms of disposal. A more indirect method would be to create incentives in either cash or tax for consumers and manufacturers. However the later solution may not be as effective because it depends on consumers themselves to take action, and with many either laziness or indifference can stop the process. For this particular issue I believe that government intervention would be the most efficient method, in both result and amount of money spent. I believe that proper policies must be put in place first before and economic incentive can be placed, most likely in the form of a reward and penalty cycle. Reward for recycling the e-waste and penalties for not following policies put into place.

References:

Greenemeier, Larry. U.S. Lags Behind World with Its Patchwork Approach to Curbing E-Waste. Scientific American. October 29, 2009. Accessed November 5, 2009 from: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=electronic-waste-control