March 13, 2013. The International Trade Commission (ITC) has released a new report, “Used Electronic Products: An Examination of U.S. Exports.” It attempts to quantify the exports of used electronics from the U.S. to other countries, both developed countries (members of the OECD) and developing nations (non-OECD).  While it fails to do this adequately for reasons discussed below, the report does contain important acknowledgments supporting the need for federal legislation, like the Responsible Electronics Recycling Act introduced in the 112^th Congress. These are:

1. Report says RERA would increase exports of commodity grade materials and result in an increase of U.S. based recycling and refurbishment activity.   Any increase in U.S. based recycling or refurbishment work would certainly increase U.S. jobs.“However, (if RERA were enacted into law) the product mix (of exports) would likely change to reflect more tested and refurbished products and fewer end-of-life products (exported). Conversely, exports of commodity-grade material would likely increase, as more recycling activity would take place in the United States and UEP-derived commodities would be exported to manufacturing centers in non-OECD countries.”  Page 6-8“UEP” refers to used electronic products and “commodity-grade material” is the separated material from electronics (metals, plastics, glass, etc.) that recyclers sell to the manufacturing supply chain.
2.  Report confirms that many recyclers don’t know what’s ultimately exported.The report appears to acknowledge the need for RERA by noting that as much as 41% of the respondents were “reasonably certain some portion of their UEP [used electronic products] output was later exported by another organization.” (Page xiii)
   Both the fact that recyclers and other e-waste handlers are uncertain of the exact figure of exports and the exact destination of their exports confirms what proponents of RERA claim, that there is a strong likelihood that a significant portion of recycling in the US results in the export of unprocessed (and likely toxic) e-waste that is dumped abroad.
3. More than half the export volumes reported goes to end uses that are often problematic.The ITC figures on page 5-2 show that more than half of the 1.5 billion pounds of exported e-waste goes to the kinds of end uses that can be quite problematic in developing nations. This includes exports of untested or nonworking products, products for disposal, recycling and disassembly, and an incredible 18% of the volume going to unknown purposes.)   See our analysis of this information at the end of this document.

 Why survey methodology doesn’t, and can’t answer key questions

Unfortunately, the report doesn’t provide the kind of clear data that we need about e-waste exports.  It completely fails to answer these key questions:

•  How much of our total e-waste gets exported to developing countries?
• Does this report support or discredit the notion that much of the used electronics that get to recyclers actually gets exported to developing countries?

Here’s why:

1.   Most data are presented as dollar value of used products sold, not numbers of units or weight of products. 

Presenting data in terms of dollar values sold doesn’t really shed much light on issues of actual volumes sold, and what types of equipment is sold, or its toxicity and subsequent environmental harm.  For example, circuit boards (whole and shredded) represent 38% of the exports by value, but only 17% of the volume (by weight, which is how most reporting on e-waste collection is done).   The reporting on sales volumes simple does not help answer any of the key questions. While the report does give the weight of the equipment exported, it doesn’t report the weight of the total amount of e-waste generated.

2.   The report’s data shows double and triple counting of the same equipment.  (Page 2-3)

This survey asks companies to report on sales of used electronics.  The respondents include U.S. companies from all parts of the supply chain – collectors, disassemblers, processors, reuse firms, brokers, asset recovery firms, etc.  So the report is capturing sales by the collectors as well as sales by their downstream vendors, even though some of these sales were for the same volumes. The report’s construction makes it is impossible to tell which specific volumes referred to in the report, were reported multiple times. Clearly, some were.

For example, a collector sells a specific quantity of laptops, say a truckload, to a reuse firm. The reuse company then resells the same laptops to a broker. The broker then sells the same laptops (in a consolidated shipment along with other laptops) to a purchaser in another country. Clearly, the sales numbers in the report may represent that same truckload of laptops at least three times.  This double counting results in a very serious skewing of results.

The report even acknowledges this double counting on page 2-3, using the seemingly innocuous term “cumulative sales:”

 “…The sales value presented here is likely greater than the value of UEP material collected within the United States, since it reflects the cumulative sales for organizations throughout the UEP supply chain.”

3.       Overstated domestic sales, understated export sales.

Because of the double (triple) counting problem stated above, the total figures on domestic sales (as opposed to exported sales) will be overstated.  The report respondents acknowledge this, explaining that as many as 41% of the respondents saying that they were “reasonably certain some portion of their UEP output was later exported by another organization.” (Page xiii)  But that’s not even mentioned in the “Key Findings” section, which shows that domestic sales represent 93% of sales (by dollar value) and exports only 7%.  This could lead a casual reader to conclude that only 7% of used electronics are exported, which is not at all what the report actually says.

4.     Survey format unlikely to get honest answers on illegal exports.

The ITC survey results underreport the volumes of e-waste exports to developing nations. This would  be true of any report based on a survey of exporters.  Why is this so?  Exporting e-waste from the U.S. to non-OECD countries is illegal under international law.  This practice is considered to be trafficking in hazardous waste, and has become such a big global problem that INTERPOL , the international policing agency, has launched a considerable effort to crack down on these exports.  Thus, given that the practice is treated as a criminal enterprise,  it is highly unlikely that a survey will ever yield accurate honest data about those exports. Clearly, there is a strong disincentive for an exporter to admit to exporting untested, or non-working e-waste to developing nations, when this is considered international trafficking in hazardous waste.  Why would a company admit this illegal activity, especially to an agency of the federal government?

The report offers hints at some of the serious shortcomings of the survey methodology:

a) The ITC report admits that “The survey could not determine whether U.S. exports of UEPs bound for recycling or disposal in 2011 were sent to [informal processing] facilities”, those “with little regard to health, safety, and the environment.”  (page xviii)

b) The ITC report admits that the limitations of the survey methodology could not “capture ad hoc shipments of undeclared UEPs mixed in with exports of other items.” (page xviii)

c) Respondents to the ITC survey offered the view that they “did not know the intended final use of nearly 18 percent…of US exports of UEPs.” (Page xviii)

NGOs such as the Basel Action Network have tipped off news outlets and enforcement agencies around the world about illegal exports from the U.S.  In December of last year, EPA enforcement and Homeland Security achieved a criminal conviction of a Denver area exporter who will likely face jail time.

In light of the obvious deficiency of the survey method, one has to ask, “Why do a survey?” The ITC is a well-respected, capable research institute. However, the ITC was compelled to primarily use a survey for this research, since the request from the U.S. Trade Representative asking for research on e-waste exports specifically requested a survey.  Thus, the deficiencies of the report were already baked in by the USTR’s mandate that the ITC use the flawed methodology of a survey.

5.       Small companies not part of the survey.

The survey did not include small companies of 10 employees or less. But many of the “collect and export” type companies are quite small. Their whole business model is built around collecting products, loading containers, and exporting them to developing countries, which requires very little staff. Similarly, some brokers are also quite small.  This survey didn’t include these either.   We are not suggesting that small companies in general are more likely to be exporters, but these are two types of small companies which are quite numerous, and are known to be common exporters of untested, nonworking equipment to developing countries. Omitting them from the survey means underreporting of their problematic activities.

Our analysis of data on weight of used electronics exported

This is our analysis of the data discussed above under 3, “More than half the export volumes reported goes to end uses that are often problematic.”

The table on page 5-2 shows “End uses of exported UEPs (Used Electronic Products). Perhaps this is the most concrete information presented, although it assumes that the exporter actually knows the actual end use at final destination, which the report authors admit that they don’t really always know. As noted earlier, the report explicitly states that Respondents to the ITC survey offered the view that they “did not know the intended final use of nearly 18 percent…of US exports of UEPs.” (Page xviii)

The table does not separate end uses in OECD vs Non OECD countries. But it does show that exports of tested working equipment, and materials for smelting is less than half of what gets exported.

It shows that the total reported exports are 757,721 tons of used products, or just over 1.5 billion pounds.  If we assume that the Materials Processing category is going to OECD smelters, which discussion later in the report suggests) and that the resale of working equipment isn’t overstated, then that still leaves more than half of the volume, or 7.73 million pounds, destined for potentially problematic export uses.

Open PDF version of these comments.

In the U.S., when we buy a cell phone, it is usually “locked” to a particular cell phone carrier, like ATT or T-Mobile. You can’t use it on a different carrier without “unlocking” it, which involves entering a few codes on some phones, although it’s more complicated on other phones.

But recently, the cell phone carriers pressured the federal government to make it illegal to unlock a phone, even after the contract was up. The penalty can be an astonishing $500,000 and up to 5 years in jail, if you do this for commercial gain.  While consumers probably might not face such a stiff penalty, think about all the phone refurbishers who sell used phones to second and third users. They need to be able to unlock phones in order to sell them to new owners.

This change prompted over 114,000 people to sign a petition to the White House, which led the White House to issue a statement yesterday saying it opposed this new change, and it thinks we should be able to unlock our phones AND tablets.

What changed?

Technically what happened was that effective January 26, 2013,  the Library of Congress cancelled  an exemption to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), which had allowed us to unlock our phones without the carrier’s permission.  What in the world does the Library of Congress have to do with our cell phones? It’s because the software in your phone is copyrighted, and the U.S. Copyright office is part of the Library of Congress. The carriers say they believe that unlocking phones undermines the software encryption protection.  Conveniently for them, if you can’t unlock your phone, you must continue to pay that carrier for service.

Why we need to be able to unlock our phones?

Freedom to switch carriers. With an unlocked phone, once your contract is up, you can switch carriers without buying a new phone.

Use your phone overseas: If you travel to Europe, you will incur expensive roaming charges if you use your GSM phone there. But with an unlocked phone, you can buy a different SIM card to use while you are there, saving a lot of money if you plan to use your phone.

Reuse. Probably the most compelling reason we should be able to unlock our phones is that an unlocked phone is much more likely to be reused, since it can be used on any carrier’s network. The environmental footprint from manufacturing new phones is significant, so anything that promotes the reuse of a phone to a second or third owner, is important and worth doing. This change has thrown a serious wrench into the business model of  phone refurbishers who need to be able to unlock phones in order to sell them to new owners.

Ownership. Because we paid for our phones, so we should actually OWN them. If it’s locked, then we don’t really own it.

Click to sign the “Free our phones” petition.

What can you do?

Two members of Congress, Senator Amy Klobuchar of MN, and Rep. Jason Chaffetz of UT, have said this week that they will sponsor legislation to fix this ridiculous problem.

Right now, you can sign Freepress.net’s FREE OUR PHONES petition to Congress, urging them to take action.

Once the bills are introduced, we will have letter in our action center that you can send to your Senator and Representative asking them to pass this legislation.

iFixit found that the Microsoft Surface Pro has so much glue holding the casing closed, they needed a heat gun to open it up. Photo by iFixit.

A new repairability scorecard from iFixit, the champions of  easy gadget repairs, rates the repairability of the top tablet computers on the market, with a score from zero to ten.

Dell’s XPS 10 got the highest grade, a 9 out of 10. The lowest score (1 out of 10) went to the Microsoft Surface Pro, although the iPad mini, and iPads 2, 3, and 4 were right behind with only two points. The iPad 1 scored 6 out of 10, but the later versions are glued shut.

What makes a tablet more repairable?

Higher grades went to tablets where it is:

• Easy to remove the casing (without breaking it) to gain access to the parts
• Easy access to the things that will need replacement the most, like batteries, cameras
• Easy to separate the LCD panel from the glass
• Using certain fasteners instead of soldering parts in place. (Fasteners make it easier to remove the part without causing damage, and to reattach it later)
• Modular design
• Fewer screws overall and fewer sizes of screws in one product (requiring the repairer to change tools less frequently) The Microsoft Surface pro has 90 screws in it, compared to Dell XPS’s 20 screws.

What features get in the way of easy repair? 

• Gluing the case closed
• Gluing the LCD panel to other parts – the glass and the bezel. If the screen gets cracked, you must replace all three parts.
• Gluing the battery in place
• Too many screws, hidden screws
• Soldering parts in place, instead of using screws or other fasteners
• Using proprietary screws, which require a special screwdriver

Gluing in parts is not “Design for the Environment”

Making these gadgets easy to repair (which equals cheaper to repair in most cases) means that the first owner is more likely to use it longer, plus it makes it more likely that it will get second lifetime.  The lifecycle impact of manufacturing electronics products is huge, when you consider the materials (including critical minerals) used, energy, and water used to manufacture the products (including extracting and refining metals, and semiconductor and other component manufacturing).  So designers should be doing everything possible to prolong the life of existing products by making them very easy (and cheap) to repair and refurbish.

Clearly Dell’s designers are paying attention to this aspect of Design for the Environment, as are Samsung and Motorola, according to this scorecard.  We hope to see other companies do better with their future products.

A Shot in the Arm for the Economy; Good News for the Environment

Federal legislation that would restrict exports of electronic waste from the U.S. to developing countries could create as many as 42,000 direct and indirect new jobs with a total payroll of more than $1 billion, according to a new study commissioned by the Coalition For American Electronics Recycling (CAER).

“This study shows that if Congress takes action to make sure e-waste goes to U.S. recyclers instead of being exported to developing nations, then they will be creating tens of thousands of jobs for Americans, and growing our economy,” said Barbara Kyle, National Coordinator, the Electronics TakeBack Coalition.

The full study is available on the CAER website at: www.americanerecycling.org/images/CAER_Jobs_Study_Report.

Federal legislation known as the Responsible Electronics Recycling Act (RERA) was introduced in the last session of Congress, and will be reintroduced this session. The bill would restrict exports of untested and non-working e-waste from the U.S. to developing countries, although it would still allow free trade of tested and working used electronics being exported for reuse.

The legislation is supported by major electronics manufacturers, including Dell, HP, Apple, Samsung, and Best Buy, as well as by CAER, which represents 82 U.S. companies that operate 158 electronics recycling and disposition facilities operating in 34 states.

The study was conducted by DSM Environmental Services, Inc., a research and consulting firm focused on recycling, materials management and solid waste management strategies. It found that processing e-waste in the U.S. instead of exporting it to developing countries would create 21,000 full-time equivalent recycling jobs with a corresponding payroll of $772 million. It has the potential to create another 21,000 indirect jobs, according to the study. These jobs numbers will increase further as e-waste volumes rise in the years ahead. The U.S. EPA estimates that e-waste is growing two to three times faster than any other portion of the waste stream, fueled by the continued proliferation of electronic devices.

“There is a lot of good work happening in communities across the U.S. to keep e-waste from going into landfills.  But we need Congress to act to make sure that all of these used electronics that we bring to recycling depots and collection events actually get recycled, and not just loaded into containers for export,” said Barbara Kyle of ETBC. “And the Responsible Electronics Recycling Act would accomplish that.”

#

Photo by iStockphoto.

IEEE decides to “take its ball and go home” from EPEAT rulemaking playground

Something really sinister has just happened related to the EPEAT effort to update the computer standards. It happened on the IEEE’s playground, during recess.  Was it bad enough for the EPA and other stakeholders to take the EPEAT standard away from IEEE?

In case you are new to EPEAT, it’s a sort of “green” label for electronics. EPEAT stands for Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool.  IEEE (pronounced “Eye Triple E”) is an enormous electronics industry professional organization, and it’s also the standards development organization (SDO) under whose rules and structure the EPEAT standards have been developed. (We’ve been using their playground.) Under this process, any stakeholder can participate in the meetings and votes to develop these standards, although the final balloting is done by dues paying IEEE members only. (Other stakeholders must pay to join IEEE to vote on the final ballot.) Once the standards are complete, the manufacturers’ products get evaluated against these EPEAT standards, and graded as EPEAT Bronze, Silver or Gold.

IEEE’s Playground Rules

IEEE invites the stakeholders to come to their playground to play and to bring their friends and their dollars. IEEE supplies the ball and jungle gym, and the swings, and you have to follow their playground rules (they even have a playground monitor with a whistle), but you can decide what you want to play. You can even modify some of the rules of your own game (called your Policies and Procedures), with IEEE’s approval. They’ve been inviting those of us interested in electronics over to their playground since 2005, when the EPEAT founders first approached them to be the SDO for the standard for computers (now known as IEEE 1680.1).

That has worked out better for some than others. The Big Kids, the major companies within the electronics and chemicals industry, pretty much always win because the playground rules are unbalanced and favor them. But EPEAT has still moved ahead modestly, recently releasing new standards for TVs and for “imaging equipment” which means printers, faxes, copiers, and multi-functions. The computer standard is six years old, however, and in serious need of revision, as most of the criteria are easily met by most computers, so they are no longer useful in identifying “leadership” products.

Rules of the eco-label game favor Big Electronics

In 2011, the playground “taskforce” that oversees all the kids working on electronics standards (it’s called the EASC Committee) developed new Policies and Procedures for developing future EPEAT standards, including the revision of the outdated computer standard.  The new P & Ps included some changes to the rules on voting and how stakeholder group assignments are made.  These changes would make the game a little more balanced so the Big Kids are not always guaranteed to win. They wanted to make sure voting is balanced (no stakeholder group can have more than 33% of the vote) even at the Working Group level (where all the work is done), not just at the final balloting. And initially, even the Big Kids on the taskforce supported these proposals.

IEEE doesn’t have to approve every set of P & Ps – only the ones they request to review. Initially, they didn’t request a review of these proposed P & Ps. But then last spring, they asked to review them. They came back to the EASC with requests to delete many of the proposed rule changes aimed at providing more balance.

When the EASC made some modifications and resubmitted their proposals to IEEE, it was again rejected, with even new concerns and arbitrary changes ordered. Efforts by the EASC over the summer and fall of 2012 to work through these issues with IEEE (all of which still adhere to the overall IEEE playground rules, mind you) were unsuccessful.

Playground bullies take over the “stakeholder” process

Then in December, IEEE suddenly stripped the EASC of its role in leading this stakeholder process. IEEE usurped this role and appointed its own three member “oversight group” that will make up their own P & Ps and decide how our little game is played.  This new cabal will require elections of the working group chairs (which have always been appointed, not elected, until now – it’s a crucial role that should be an impartial person, not an elected stakeholder).

Basically, the playground bully decided to “take its ball and go home.” Or for South Park fans, Cartman told them, “Screw you guys, I’m going home.”  It didn’t like how EPEAT was playing the game and trying to make the rules fairer.  From now on, EPEAT can come onto the playground, but it must sit quietly on the bench, while the new cabal calls the shots. And the Big Kids, mostly hiding behind their industry associations, are just fine with this new arrangement.

It’s time to move to a new playground

Many of the groups in the Electronics TakeBack Coalition have been stakeholders in EPEAT for several years. We believe it’s time to find a new playground. IEEE has bullied this process long enough, without adding anything of real value, just obstacles to real progress. They may know how to oversee work on technical standards, but with sustainability standards they are a terrible fit. While in theory this is a “consensus stakeholder process,” the lack of balance and other IEEE rules have allowed the industry voters to whittle away at draft standards in exchange for changing their votes from no to yes.  In the end, we are left with standards that are far too weak, far too limited, and that do little to move this industry forward on sustainability. But they have great potential which many of us would like to see realized. And that will never happen as long as we are under the IEEE stranglehold.

EPA, you were one of the original funders/supporters of this whole process. We hope you are ready for a change.  Let’s start by immediately moving the computer standard revision away from IEEE and, for a change, onto a level playing field.

Both compact fluorescents and LED lightbulbs qualify as hazardous waste under California and EPA protocols

New research from scientists in California and South Korea, published yesterday in Environmental Science and Technology, shows that while compact fluorescent bulbs (CFLs) and LEDs have better energy efficiency than incandescent bulbs, they compare unfavorably when you look at their potential toxicity (at the end-of-life phase) and resource depletion.

First, let’s be clear that the study focused on the kinds of CFL and LED light bulbs  you can screw into a lamp used for ambient lighting, not the LEDs used to light flat screen TVs or monitors (more on that later). Also, the study did not consider toxicity in the extraction or manufacturing phase – but just on the end-of-life phase, assuming they were trashed, not recycled (since sadly, most people do put used bulbs in the trash).

Because the bulbs have very different expected lifetimes, they “normalized” their data on resource depletion and toxicity potential by using data for fifty incandescents, five CFLs, and one LED bulb. Even after normalizing their calculations, the team found that CFLs have from three to 26 times higher resource depletion and toxicity potential than incandescents and LED bulbs have two to three times higher potential.

When was the last time a broken DVD player lead to a trip to the repair shop? If you can even find a repair shop near you, the odds are good the cost to fix your DVD player will be more than the price of a new one. The reality is we don’t fix electronics anymore, we replace them.

Post-Xmas is when most old gear gets tossed, feeding what experts call a growing throw-away electronics culture. While tech company’s benefit from shorter products lifecycles by encouraging the sale of replacement gear, the byproduct can be harmful to household budgets and the planet.

Barbara Kyle, national coordinator for the Electronics TakeBack Coalition in San Francisco, says the drive for smaller thinner products with increasingly harder to replace components, is partly to blame. But also, companies making delicate electronics with short warranty periods are pushing people to trash their digital gear, not fix it.

“It’s almost always cheaper to buy a new printer than to fix the old one, if you can even find a place to make the repairs,” Kyle says. The end result is electronics – that contain toxic substances, including lead, nickel, cadmium, mercury, brominated flame retardants – ending up in landfills around the world. The environmental group called E-Stewardsestimates only 11 to 14 percent of e-waste is sent to recyclers — the rest ends up in landfills or is burned resulting in soil, water, and air pollution.

To find a list of places to recycle your old tech gear near you, find free recycle-by-mail programs, or how to easily sell your used gear online, skip to the end of this article.

Hard to fix gadget trend

“We are seeing more (electronics) parts being glued into place, like the touchscreens on many smartphones, or the batteries on ultra-thin notebooks,” says Kyle. For example, Apple was criticized by some earlier this year for gluing its lithium polymer battery cells directly to the aluminum unibody shell of the Retina MacBook Pro in order to reduce its size. Teardown site iFixit blasted Apple saying the design made repairs nearly impossible and battery replacements would cost 54 percent more than other MacBooks. While some recyclers said the glued-in battery made it harder to recycle, other recyclers disagreed.

IFIXIT

When it comes to tablet and smartphone owners, according to Best Buy Geek Squad agent Derek Meister, these gadget owners are more likely to buy new gear rather than mess with a repair. “Our most common requested repair for tablets and smartphones is cracked screens and battery replacements,” he says. But when it comes to actually fixing gear, if the warranty or service plan has expired, consumers just upgrade, says Meister.

Kyle calls this type of product manufacturing, that make product repairs costly “designing for the dump.”

The cost to repair the original Kindle Fire’s screen is $110, at the repair service site IFixYouri.com, compared to the $160 price tag of a new Kindle Fire from Amazon. IFixYouri charges $280 to repair an Samsung Glalaxy Tab 10.1′s glass and LCD screen, and the same model costs $350 new at Best Buy.

Gear to garbage in record time

STORYOFSTUFF.ORG

Experts like Kyle say inexpensive gadgets are increasingly showing up in discount, grocery, and drug stores at prices people can’t resist. “It’s a printer for $22 or a $30 camcorder, how can I pass that up?” Kyle says when electronics are priced to be impulse buys too often gadgets don’t meet consumer expectations, or break, and end up in the trash. (See related: What’s cheaper: Replacement ink, or a new printer?)

Instead of mindless buying and chucking, people should have greater reverence for stuff, believes Annie Leonard, founder of The Story of Stuff Project, a consumer awareness campaign promoting sensible gadget consumption. In Leonard’s 2010 Story of Electronics video, she points to a possible solution where manufacturers shoulder the responsibility for recycling their gear in an environmentally responsible way.

“ Making companies deal with their e-waste is called Extended Producer Responsibility or Product Takeback . If all these old gadgets were their problem, it would be cheaper for them to just design longer lasting, less toxic, and more recyclable products in the first place. They could even make them modular, so that when one part broke, they could just send us a new piece, instead of taking back the whole broken mess. ”

There is no federal legislation pending to establish a federal e-waste take back program by consumer electronics companies, however 25 states have passed legislation mandating statewide e-waste recycling, according to the Electronics TakeBack Coalition.

Manufacturers own the problem and solution

The consumer electronics industry has stepped up its efforts. Through the trade association CEA, a number of industry-wide initiatives have been kicked off. As part of the CEA’s eCycling push, manufacturers such as Apple have vowed to build greener products starting at the design stage when it says, “we create compact, efficient products that require less material to produce.” CEA has also be begun an aggressive recycling campaign with a goal to collect 1 billion pounds of e-waste annually by 2016. Greenpeace estimates up to 50 billion pounds of of e-waste is created each year ( PDF).

To help consumers buy gear that is environmentally sound, Greenpeace created a ranking system for consumer electronics companies. It ranks companies based on criteria that looks at things such as if they use a certified recycling partners, whether or not they sell products that are free from hazardous substances and the extent to which they consider durability, streamlining of devices, re-usability and ease of repair.

(See related video: The environmental dangers of e-waste around the world)

According to Greenpeace’s Guide to Greener Electronics , HP was the greenest on the list last year, followed by Dell, Nokia and Apple. On the other end of the spectrum, the environmental group determined that RIM, Toshiba and LG are not as environmentally conscious as they could be.

Companies combat waste

To combat the problem many big tech brands offer local drop off centers for old electronics, free shipping labels to send old tech gear back for recycling, and offer coupons for discounts on future purchases when consumers recycle. Here are links to recycling programs run by PC makers and consumer electronics companies:

Apple offers gift cards for old Apple gear and gives 10 percent discounts on new iPod purchases when you recycle your old iPod.

Best Buy will take back nearly all consumer electronics gear advertising, “no matter where you bought it, we’ll recycle it.”

Canon runs several recycling programs online and with retail partners for its printer hardware, toner cartridge, and digital camera gear.

Dell’s recycling program has 2000 physical drop-off recycle centers and runs a mail-back recycling program for print supplies and hardware.

Hewlett-Packard runs several recycling programs for print supplies, PC hardware, cellphones, batteries.

Samsung Electronics allows you to print a pre-paid postage label to send any old cellphone back to Samsung for recycling.

If you still are stuck trying to figure out where to recycle your gear the Environmental Protection Agency runs an electronics donation and recycling site that offers links to resources. The CEA, the consumer electronics trade association, also links to recyclers through it Green Gadgets website.

If your device still works, why not sell it? Plenty of websites buy used equipment or offer trade-up programs, including Amazon, Best Buy, BuyMyTronics, eBay, Ecosquid, Gazelle, and Glyde. And of course, there’s always Craigslist.

The Gazelle site is typical of many buy-back sites. It helps you calculate what your old gear is worth along with sites such as WorthMonkey. But before recycling or donating your PC, make sure to remove any data from it.

A federal court in Colorado today convicted the executives of Executive Recycling, formerly of Englewood, Colorado, of multiple counts of mail and wire fraud, obstruction and environmental crimes related to illegally disposing electronic waste and smuggling. 

This company was featured in the 2008 CBS News’ 60 Minutes Episode, “Electronic Wasteland,” on how e-waste from the U.S. is collected by companies claiming to be recyclers, who instead load it up on containers and ship it to developing nations.  Like many fake recycelrs, Executive Recycling promoted itself as an environmentally responsible company.

The charges came after the Basel Action Network (BAN), a toxic trade watchdog organization, which is a member of our Coalition,  observed and photographed 20 seagoing containers leaving the Executive Recycling loading docks and tracked them overseas. BAN then gave the information to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Enforcement, the Government Accountability Office, and CBS News.

The 60 Minutes team followed one of Executive’s containers to China with BAN’s Executive Director Jim Puckett. Following that episode, investigations by EPA Enforcement,  Homeland Security,  Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the U.S. Attorney led to an indictment of Executive Recycling on 16 criminal counts, and eventually to today’s conviction

We applaud the federal government for mounting this investigation and pursuing this lawsuit.  This practice of fake recycling is all too common in the U.S., and most of them get away with it.  While exporting e-waste to China and other developing countries is common, it’s unusual for most fake recyclers to be brought to court, because much of their activity is perfectly legal under U.S. law. Because Executive Recycling was exporting Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) TVs and monitors, they violated the one regulation on the books (the CRT rule) pertaining to e-waste exports from the U.S.  According to Homeland Security, Executive Recycling exported over 100,000 CRTs from the United States between 2005 and 2008. Because of the company’s particular behavior, prosecutors were able to add charges of obstruction of justice, and wire and mail fraud, in addition to environmental violations.

But it wouldn’t take such a monumental effort by the EPA, Homeland Security, ICE, and the U.S. Attorney to stop fake recyclers like this if we passed legislation, like what most of the rest of the world has, that would make this kind of global e-waste dumping illegal. Such legislation was introduced in this past Congress as the Responsible Electronics Recycling Act, and is expected to be reintroduced in the new Congressional session next year.

Until such time as we pass legislation to solve this problem, your best option is to choose a recycler that is certified to the e-Stewards standards, which prohibit exporting toxic e-waste to developing nations.

Read about other fake recyclers here.

Today is America Recycles Day, but this year we might need to change it to “America Stockpiles Toxic CRT Glass Day.” A new study shows that many electronics recyclers across the U.S. have collected payments for recycling our old CRT (cathode ray tube) TVs and monitors, but then instead of actually sending the toxic leaded CRT glass to proper glass processors, they simply stored this glass on their property or other locations.

Cathode ray tubes from old TVs or monitors can contain 4-8 pounds of lead.
Photo: Dreamstime.

Recyclers have stockpiled an astonishing 860 MILLION POUNDS of CRT glass in the U.S., according to a new report from Transparent Planet, entitled “U.S. CRT Glass Management: A Bellwether for Sustainability of Electronics Recycling in the United States.”  The bulk of that glass is said to be in the Southwestern states (500 million pounds) and California (200 million pounds). The report findings were presented today by the author, Lauren Roman, Managing Director of Transparent Planet to an e-waste conference.

Get the Lead Out

We all know that “normal” glass is pretty easy to recycle, and in many places they pick it up from our curbside bins for recycling. But CRT glass isn’t easy to recycle because it contains a lot of lead, which is very toxic. Typical CRT TVs or monitors each contain 4-8 pounds of lead in the glass tube, and the inside of the tubes get coated with toxic phosphor dust. While virtually no one in the U.S. is buying new CRTs anymore (we’ve moved on to flat panels),  CRTs still comprise a significant amount (often over 60%) of what is coming back in electronics recycling programs, especially from consumers who have been retiring their tube TVs in a steady flow since the Digital Conversion in 2009. Because lead is very toxic, it’s important that CRT glass is managed safely and responsibly. Many states have passed bans on putting CRTs in their landfills or incinerators. Federal law also bans them but the law contains a big (and in our opinion, ridiculous) exemption for people who generate small quantities of waste (like consumers and small business).

Recyclers have typically had two options for what to do with CRT glass: send it for glass-to-glass recycling, where it is used as a feedstock to make new CRTs, or send it to a lead smelter where the lead is separated out for other applications (but the smelting usually results in toxic air emissions).  The glass-to-glass recycling business has mostly disappeared, as there are not many CRTs being manufactured any more in the world.  And the few lead smelters in North America have limited capacity, and they are expensive.

Manufacturers Don’t Pay Enough for Proper CRT Handling

With shrinking options for processing CRT glass, the economics of recycling CRTs have turned upside down in just a few years. According to the report, where recyclers used to earn $205 per ton recycling CRT glass in 2004, they must now pay $200 per ton, a net loss in value of $405/ton in eight years.  The problem is that most of the electronics manufacturer takeback programs are not paying their recyclers enough per pound to manage this toxic glass properly.

Other Key Findings From the Report:

• California stockpiles. Even in California, where the state program reimburses recyclers 39 cents per pound, some recyclers are still stockpiling glass.  The State of California is so worried about the stockpiles that they have issued emergency regulations and will now (for the next two years) allow leaded CRT glass collected under their electronics recycling program to be disposed of in the State’s hazardous waste landfill.
• Billing for more than what’s been collected. The CRT Report also documented a problem that’s been whispered about for a while in this industry – referred to as “air pounds” or “ghost weight.”

• Ghost weight – That’s where a recycler charges a manufacturer’s takeback program for more e-waste than they’ve actually collected.  Since weight records are not usually required for material collected at public collection events, some recyclers quote very low prices per pound to the manufacturers to get the work but then claim they collected twice the material than they actually did so they can bill the manufacturers for more than they actually collected.

• Air pounds - Paper transactions  are created between recyclers that often do not represent actual material recycling but rather a ‘recycling’ of paperwork that is used to “prove” recycling occurred…used over and over again.

Some recyclers tell me that they believe that some manufacturers are aware of this problem, but have little incentive to bust recyclers for these deceptive practices as long as they are able to claim the higher volumes towards their (manufacturer) collection goals, and still pay a very low price per pound.   But it also takes away business from the responsible recyclers who don’t use ghost pounds, and who won’t sign a contract for CRTs if the price is too low to process it safely.

Changes to State Laws Could Resolve Both Problems

Both of these problems, CRT stockpiling and ghost pounds, is happening both in states with e-waste laws and in states without e-waste laws.  Twenty four states have passed e-waste  recycling laws, with 23 of them (all but California) based on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), which makes the manufacturers financially responsible for recycling their old products.  The States didn’t anticipate these problems; neither did we, as advocates for EPR laws. But clearly there is a need for a little more State oversight into the details, including:

• Establishing base line pricing for responsible CRT glass management
• Requiring third-party mass balance monitoring of collection volumes, so that the only “proof” of pounds comes from the third party entity

Bottom line – Product Redesign is the Answer

None of these problems would exist if electronics were designed in a way that the materials were valuable enough and easy enough to recover for new manufacturing.  CRTs are the poster child for not designing with the product’s end-of-life in mind.  Maybe that’s not a fair criticism, since CRTs were designed back before anyone was thinking about recycling electronics.  But the industry still isn’t designing with recycling in mind. They moved from leaded glass CRTs to flat panels using fluorescent lights with highly toxic mercury in them.  And used panel “glass” from LCD TVs and monitors do not currently have much recycling value so some recyclers are just landfilling them.

It’s time for this industry to challenge their designers and chemists to design products using safe materials that make their products just as valuable at the end of life as they were when the companies sold them.

Repairing is better than trashing

Unlike Toshiba, HP, Dell, and Lenovo publish their repair manuals online, for anyone to use. HP Manual pictured.

Anyone who has spent any time following the e-waste issue will recognize that it’s better if we can make our electronic products last longer instead of just trashing them when we don’t want them any longer. It’s even better than recycling. A significant amount of the earth’s precious resources, including metals, energy and water, goes into making each new computer, phone, or television. So while recycling is good, repairing or refurbishing a product for a second owner to use is even better.The best champions of reuse in this country are the hundreds of (mostly small) non-profits who divert products from the landfill or shredder bin, and refurbish them for new owners. Just as important is the huge network of devoted “geeks” who have never met a gadget they can’t fix, and who crusade (often in their spare time) for others to fix their own stuff by making the repair information and parts very easily accessible to everyone, for free.  One such group, based in the U.S. is iFIXIT, which posts free, easy-to-follow repair instructions on a whole range of products, and encourages kids and novices to jump into the Fix-It-Yourself waters and have a swim.

Dell and HP post their manuals, why not Toshiba?

But when one such devoted repair geek in Australia, Tim Hicks, posted Toshiba’s computer manuals on his website, he got a cease and desist letter from Toshiba, saying it was proprietary information.  According to a piece in Wired magazine, Tim’s site is used by a lot of non-profits and service technicians alike (for free, of course).  But now they will no longer have access to his Toshiba manuals, which he has had to take down.

Every product has a repair manual, which the companies supply to their own authorized repair vendors. While they are copyrighted, many companies don’t enforce the copyright. Any repair guy will tell you  that it helps them to their jobs when the manufacturers of the products make their own repair manuals available online, for everyone to use.  Dell and HP both do this – with photos to make them even easier.  Lenovo does this for some products.  Apple, like Toshiba, will have their lawyers send you a letter if you post their repair manual online.

Technically, Toshiba has the right to enforce their copyright. But consider the bigger picture here. Toshiba (along with every one of its competitors in the industry) follows the planned obsolescence business model, where they make money by constantly selling us new stuff, not by getting us to hang onto our old stuff longer. Using the official manufacturer repair depots is often expensive, and not always convenient (it’s common to have to ship the product off for repairs). So companies that only offer that option (and don’t empower other repair options) are, in effect, creating an obstacle to reuse and repair of their products. It’s bad enough that manufacturers like Toshiba don’t design their products the be significantly upgradeable and long lasting;  the least they could do is to make it easy for people  to find out how to fix them to get a little more use out of them.

Come on, Toshiba. Show us that you actually mean the words in your Environment Vision 2050 statement, and publish your repair manuals on your own website, enabling people all over the world, who want to keep using your products, to easily do so. Really, you should consider this an endorsement of your products that people think they are worth fixing and refurbishing.