First, it’s important to understand the context for this announcement.

Suicides, explosions, chemical exposure at Apple plants

Apple’s actions were long overdue, as the company had barely responded following a series of suicides in the last two years, committed by workers at Foxconn Technology Group in China, one of Apple’s primary contract manufacturers, and the largest contract manufacturer in the world. (It’s largest factory in China  has over 500,000 workers.) Labor rights groups say that the suicides at Foxconn resulted from powerless employees, driven to despair over harsh working conditions, including standing 10 hours per day, enduring military-style management, low pay, and extensive (mandatory) overtime, far exceeding what’s allowed under the law.  Workers are routinely shortchanged on their wages, due to “miscalculations,” and they must fight just to receive what they are owed.

Eighteen workers attempted suicide in 2010 (with 15 deaths), mostly by jumping from upper floors to their deaths. The suicides came at a time when Apple was demanding that Foxconn meet aggressive production schedules to keep up with demand for iPhones and iPads.  Foxconn responded to the suicides by installing anti-suicide nets around the buildings. They also made employees sign pledges not to commit suicide! They also hired counselors and raised wages for workers at the Shenzen facility, although the new wage is only slightly above the new minimum wage required by the Shenzen government, according to a report called “Foxconn and Apple Fail to Fulfill Promises: Predicaments of workers After the Suicides,” by Students & Scholars Against Corporate Misbehaviour (SACOM). Plus, says SACOM, they made the wages seem larger than they really are by reclassifying money previously paid as housing and food allowance into salary payments. The net income is almost the same as before. Apple applauded these actions by Foxconn at the time.

Foxconn is reducing the size of the workforce at Shenzen,(in Guangdong Province, where wage rates have seen the highest rise in China)  sending  many of them plus new hires to their other factories in the interior of China, like the Chengdu facility, where wages are lower.

What’s amazing is that after all the pain and suffering endured by these Foxconn workers in making Apple products, their work accounts for a only small portion of the total value of the product. A July 2010 report by market research firm  iSupply, breaking down the actual costs of the iPhone 4, found that assembly costs accounted for only about one percent of the total $600 cost, or $6.54  (Profit was $360.)  This suggests that a simple decrease in profits or a simple increase in price on each iPhone could make a world of difference to the people that make them.

Foxconn CEO compares employees to animals at the zoo

According to Want China Times, Terry Gou, the head of Hon Hai (Foxconn), the largest contract manufacturer in the world, had this to say at a recent meeting with his senior managers:

“Hon Hai has a workforce of over one million worldwide and as human beings are also animals, to manage one million animals gives me a headache,” said Hon Hai chairman Terry Gou at a recent year-end party, adding that he wants to learn from Chin Shih-chien, director of Taipei Zoo, regarding how animals should be managed.

Foxconn’s Chengdu plant, which makes iPads for Apple, had an explosion last May, killing three people and injuring 18 more, caused by combustible aluminum dust. In December 2011, a similar explosion at a Shanghai plant run by a different supplier (Pegatron) injured 61 people.

In 2010 Apple had problems with another manufacturer called Wintek , where 137 workers at their Suzhou plant were sent to the hospital after being exposed to the highly toxic chemical n-hexane on the assembly line making Apple touch screens. N-Hexane has long been known as a serious occupational health hazard and many companies no longer use it as a solvent.  Workers say that Wintek pressured some of the injured workers into resigning and taking cash settlements, even though exposure to the chemical can cause long-term health problems including nerve damage. Some are still unable to return to work.

Foxconn probably made something you own

Foxconn makes many Apple products, including iPhones, iPads, and MacBook Pros. They also make products, parts, or subassemblies for many other electronics companies, including HP, Dell, Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, Amazon (Kindles), Microsoft (Xbox), Panasonic, Samsung, Lenovo, and Nokia.  While many of its plants are in China, it’s controlled by Hon Hai Precision Industry of Taiwan.  Other brand name companies also have problems resulting from Foxconn conditions.

As recently as January 2 of this year, 150 workers at a Foxconn plant in Wuhan, China climbed up to the roof of their building and some threatened to jump to their deaths in protest over management imposed changes and wage issues.  These workers were reported to be from the Microsoft Xbox assembly line. (They eventually settled with the company).

Foxconn Not The Only Problematic Contract Manufacturer

Foxconn is the world’s largest contract manufacturer, with 13 factories in China alone, and almost 1 million workers worldwide. But these kinds of problems are not limited to Foxconn. A study by China Labor Watch shows that the deplorable conditions at Foxconn are actually typical of the electronics contract manufacturers in Asia. In their study of 10 electronics factories in the Guangdong and Jiangsu regions of China, they found widespread problems in all the factories, (eight of which are suppliers to Dell, and seven to HP) including:

• All factories had people working overtime hours from 36 – 160 per month. (Legal limit is 36 hours).
• In nine of the ten factories, the minimum monthly wage ($138 in one factory) didn’t meet the living costs of many workers, which leaves them no other option but to take many hours of overtime work just to survive.
• High pressure production line conditions, often standing for 8 to 10 hours a day or more. Breaks are often not allowed.
• Discrimination. All ten factories were found to discriminate in hiring. Many prefer young (often below 18 years), female workers who are seen as easier to control.

China Labor Watch concluded that these are systemic problems in the electronics industry, which require new strategies to change.

So what kinds of strategies are needed, and did Apple take the right first step?

Transparency is always a good first step. The labor conditions of electronics workers have been pretty well hidden (at least from the U.S. audience) by the electronics industry for a long time, so any real solution must start by shining a bright light on all aspects of this problem. More disclosure about who the suppliers are is certainly a good first step, and Apple has now done that.

While many in the media are calling Apple’s disclosure an unprecedented step, Apple is not actually the first to do this. In response to demands from activists around the world,  HP published its supply chain list back in 2008. Dell maintains a similar list on its website, following HP’s lead.  But it was a particularly significant change for Apple, which has had an historic obsession with secrecy, and we hope that this signals  a new era of transparency for Apple under new CEO Tim Cook. But like HP and Dell, Apple’s disclosure is just an alphabetical list of suppliers, without addresses, or even countries, and without any other details, like who makes what and where.  Or which companies are their top 10 or 20 suppliers by volume, or by income.   So this disclosure doesn’t provide much help to anyone who wants to research and track down working conditions and environmental pollution at any of Apple’s suppliers.

Disclosure must be more detailed to be meaningful

What is needed is much more detailed disclosures about the locations, and operations by these contract companies and full disclosure of working conditions as well as the occupational and environmental health track record. Consumers should be able to know where their products were made and by whom. This is particularly important for the high-tech brands, since most consumer electronics are not manufactured by the company whose name goes on it. Consumers need to be able to figure out who actually did make their products , and how those companies are performing on standards for labor rights, health and safety, and the environment.  Only then can consumers exercise their purchasing power by rewarding those brands that have the best track record on issues of concern.

Companies should also be transparent about the chemicals and materials used to make their products, including what the workers are exposed to as well as what ends up  in the product. Workers often have very limited information about the chemicals they are handling, which limits their ability to understand what kind of precautions should be used.

The second part of Apple’s announcement last week was that it had joined the Fair Labor Association (FLA), as the first electronics manufacturer. (FLA was formed to address issues in the garment industry.) Because FLA is a multi-stakeholder group, this will hopefully mean that Apple is now willing to dialogue with international groups, including labor rights groups, and labor unions. That could be a positive step, but it remains to be seen whether Apple will open the lines of communication. We hope so.

In joining the FLA, Apple must now follow the FLA’s workplace Code of Conduct, and make sure the code of conduct is implemented throughout its supply chain. International labor rights groups, including Good Electronics Network and MakeITfair are somewhat skeptical that this approach will yield real results,  in part because they believe solving the problem requires the brand companies like Apple to pay a fair price to suppliers, who must agree to reasonable delivery times (without forced overtime) and who pay a decent wage to their employees.  They believe that the FLA does not adequately address that problem with its Code of Conduct approach. They also point out that FLA only audits 5% of the supplier base, not the whole supply chain, and they had trouble meeting even that goal.

Once upon a time, you could buy products that were made in the U.S. (or other developed countries like Japan) by people who were employees of the brand name companies. But companies have shifted to using overseas contractors, who work with subcontractors who have even more subcontractors. These supply chains are complex and it’s very difficult for one manufacturer to effect change. Current strategies – like the FLA or the EICC (Electronics Industry Citizenship Coalition) who have both established voluntary codes of conduct – may sound good, but they are enforced only by audits, are too easily gamed by a supply chain in countries where cheating your audits (which are announced well in advance)  is a well-honed skill.

Hope Apple’s steps are the first of many down the road to improvements

So we hope that these moves by Apple are not the only ones they will make, but are the first of MANY steps to help fix this broken and deplorable situation and that all the other brand name electronics companies invest some of their billions of dollars in profits into assuring that their suppliers are paying their workers a living wage, providing a healthy and safe workplace, and ensuring that their handling of toxic chemicals used in production do not damage their workers or the environment.

What would real leadership in sustainability look like?

Perhaps Apple can lead the electronics industry in pursuing strategies that will result in real change. Apple has developed a reputation for being a design leader globally – wouldn’t it be great if they decided that they want to build on this reputation to become the global sustainability leader also!  This starts with full transparency of the current situation:

• - Who makes what, where, and for whom (full transparency of the supply chain for all products)
• - What wages are paid at each factory, how much overtime do workers have to work in order to achieve a “living wage”
• - what assurances do the companies make to ensure that employees have the right to freedom of association and collective bargaining, consistent with the International Labor Organization convention
• - What chemicals are used to manufacture the products and which chemicals end up in the products and
• - What chemicals are the workers exposed to and in what concentrations
• - What health tracking and monitoring of the workers is being done and what are the results
• - What training and information is provided to workers about toxic exposures (right-to-know and capacity building)
• - What compensation does the company pay when a worker gets sick from exposures to chemicals on the job
• - What toxic chemicals are being discharged into the environment by all of the suppliers in their supply chain
• - What is the brand name company doing to develop safer and “greener” chemicals in their production processes

————————————————-

Learn more:

 Watch:

The Daily Show: Fear Factory

The Daily Show, Comedy Central

Jon Stewart’s brilliant and hilarious take on conditions for iPhone workers in “FearFactory.”
January 16, 2012.

Listen:

KQED’s Forum with Michael Krasny, January 17, 2012:
“Working Conditions at Apple Suppliers”

Mr. Daisey and the Apple Factory
This American Life, Public Radio International. Jan 6, 2012

“Mike Daisey was a self-described “worshipper in the cult of Mac.” Then he saw some photos from a new iPhone, taken by workers at the factory where it was made. Mike wondered: Who makes all my crap? He traveled to China to find out.

Read:

 Tragedies of Globalization: The Truth Behind Electronics Sweatshops

China Labor Watch, July 12, 2011.  Link to report.

Foxconn and Apple Fail to Fulfill Promises: Predicaments of Workers after the Suicides.

Students & Scholars Against Corporate Misbehaviour (SACOM), Hong Kong, May 6, 2011.  Link to report.

Apple Joins Fair Labor Association: Will other IT companies follow suit?
by the Institute for Occupational Health and Safety Development,  January 18, 2012  Link to article.

Apple’s list of suppliers

Apple’s supplier responsibility report

The Coalition for American Electronics Recycling (CAER) is a new organization of electronics recyclers committed to growing the U.S. based electronics recycling industry, and expanding the capacity of U.S. companies to manage e-waste here, adding new jobs and promoting the U.S. economy.

Why A New Coalition?

You might ask why you even need a coalition to promote such mom-and-apple-pie goals as more recycling, more jobs, and a stronger economy. Doesn’t everyone want that?  But it makes sense when you understand that many companies calling themselves recyclers are mostly exporters – companies who collect e-waste, who pick out a few of the highest value items, and then export the rest by the container-load, to developing countries, where the toxics in the e-waste are not well-managed, and they end up causing great harm to communities and the environment.  These are the companies that are behind a lot of local community or charity collection events, or who contract with local governments to handle the used electronics from local residents. They don’t actually recycle most of it – they export it, or more likely, they just sell it to a broker who exports it. It doesn’t take a lot of workers) or create a lot of jobs) to load up shipping containers.

On the other hand, real recyclers create a lot of jobs. Recyclers take the products back to their facilities. They sort and disassemble the products, pulling out reusable parts (or separating out, testing, and refurbishing reusable whole products), removing hazard-containing parts, and then separating the products into various materials (glass, plastics, metals, etc) that they can sell as recyclable commodities. Many of them have invested in expensive equipment (shredders) that help with this material separation and processing, as well as equipment for testing, inventory, sales.

Why the Sims Announcement Is Significant

This new coalition represents real recyclers, not the exporters. They came together to voice support by their industry for the Responsible Electronics Recycling Act in Congress.  Currently, the primary opponent to the bill is the scrap recycling industry association called ISRI – the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries. ISRI says they are the voice of the recycling industry. But the existence of this new coalition, whose members have 89 facilities in 32 states plus the District of Columbia,  suggests that ISRI does not speak for the whole industry. The addition of a large company like Sims to this coalition is significant, because Sims is the world’s largest electronics recycling company, and they have been a key ISRI member. They have more than one seat on ISRI’s governing board. And they are on the other end of many of the electronics companies’ own takeback programs.

The business community’s support for this legislation continues to grow. It’s been endorsed by Dell, HP, Apple, Samsung, LG, and Best Buy – all companies that operate e-waste recycling programs, all companies who are already living by the policies and principled behind the legislation.  It’s a policy that’s good for business and good for our economy.

Want a sleek tablet or a fax-scanner-printer for Christmas? As you part with the old stuff, be aware that more states have made it illegal this year to simply throw away computers, printers and TVs.

Seventeen states have banned electronic waste from landfills, requiring it to be recycled so its toxic materials don’t leach into groundwater. Seven of these bans took effect this year, and two more will take effect soon: Illinois in January 2012 and Pennsylvania in January 2013.

“The disposal bans are starting to kick in,” says Barbara Kyle of the Electronics TakeBack Coalition, which promotes recycling. She says most are part of broader e-waste laws that increase recycling options.

“Are there green police? Not really,” Kyle says, adding states aren’t enforcing the bans by checking a household’s garbage. Rather, she says the goal is to educate the public. “This stuff definitely does not belong in the trash.”

Electronics can contain lead, mercury, cadmium and other potentially harmful chemicals, but only 25% of discarded devices (by weight) was recycled in 2009, the most recent year for which the Environmental Protection Agency has final data.

States are enacting bans because they don’t see voluntary programs as effective as mandates, says Scott Cassel of the Product Stewardship Institute. He says the bans prompted a boom in recycling programs.

Yet the patchwork of state laws “creates challenges for manufacturers and retailers,” says Walter Acorn of the Consumer Electronics Association, an industry group. “We’d prefer a national model,” he says.

Twenty-five states have passed e-waste recycling laws, 15 of which include disposal bans. Massachusetts and New Hampshire have independent bans.

When Minnesota first banned e-waste from landfills in 2006, local governments reported a surge in illegal dumping, says Garth Hickle of the state’s Pollution Control Agency.

“You’d come across a TV sitting in an alley,” he says. As recycling options expanded, he says, the problem has gone away.

Officials from states where the ban took effect this year — Connecticut, Indiana, New Jersey, New York (for businesses), North Carolina, South Carolina and Vermont — say they’ve tried to prepare residents.

In North Carolina, e-waste recycling has more than doubled in the last year, even though the state is not fining violators, says Scott Mouw, state recycling director. He adds, “Encouragement is working better than enforcement.”

A 2010 study of children in Guiyu, the “e-waste capital” of China, shows that a shocking 88 percent of the 167 children tested (all younger than 6 years old) had lead poisoning. China Daily reports that the main reason for high levels of lead among Guiyu’s children is the lead dust from e-waste, “which floats in invisible clouds about a meter above the ground – that is, around the same height as children’s noses and mouths.” Some exposure occurs from the dust that the parents, who work in the e-waste facilities, bring home on their clothes.

The study was performed by the Shantou University Medical College, which has been measuring blood lead levels in children in Guiyu since 2004.

A second report just released by the Danish journalistic watchdog DanWatch and the makeITfair campaign shows that e-waste exports to Ghana, the primary e-waste dumping ground in Africa, is causing similar harm to children on the other side of the world from China.  According to the report  Children constitute around 40 percent of the scrap workers at the Agbogbloshie dumpsite, a Ghana’s biggest e-waste dumpsite.

According to the report,  children who work at the e-waste dumpsite at Agbogboshie visit the nearby health clinic regularly with cuts, coughs, headaches, upper respiratory problems, rashes and burns, which are attributed to their work with the waste. The toxic fumes from the burning process and the glass and metals from the dismantling cause problems for the children.

The exposure isn’t limited to people working in the dumpsites.  “Just around the corner you will find one of the biggest food markets in Accra, an area that is indeed also being affected by the hazardous handling of e-waste at the dumpsite, since the black smoke from the bonfires reaches this area too. In addition to this, some of the vegetables sold at this market come from the small farms situated in close proximity to the Odaw river, which in turn means that these vegetables are being irrigated with contaminated water.”

A study of blood and urine from adults working in or living nearby the dumpsites found high levels of lead and other heavy metals. (Children were not studied.)

While much of the e-waste going to Ghana comes from Europe,  some of it comes from the United States, particularly from the east coast.

While officials in Ghana are seeking safer methods of processing e-waste, they are also asking developing countries to change their exporting practices.

“ ‘We are calling on the companies and governments in the developed countries in the light of the Basel Convention to stop dumping of electronic gadgets,’ says John Pwamang head of the Toxics Department at Ghana’s Environmental Protection Agency.” Stakeholders in Ghana want the exporting countries to be sure that the exports consist only of working products.

Members of the House and Senate have introduced legislation that would do just that. H.R. 2284 and S.1270 would allow exports only of tested, working electronic equipment, but would restrict the export of untested or non-working e-waste from the U.S. to developing countries. This would not only stop our used electronics from contaminating workers, children, and communities in these nations. But it would also promote more recycling, and create jobs, here in the U.S.

Read more:

“Lead levels in children linked to rise in e-waste profits”
The China Daily, November 16, 2011

“What a waste – how your computer causes health problems in Ghana”
A report from the MakeITfair campaign in Europe and DanWatch (Denmark), November 2011.

The federal Interagency Task Force on Electronic Stewardship issued its report this week on what the Obama Administration will do to address the mounting e-waste problem. The report made many good recommendations, particularly with ideas for promoting greener design. But the report really got it very, very wrong on the biggest problem – the export of toxic e-waste to developing nations.  This misstep in fact exacerbates the problem for our economy and environment.

The scope of the task force’s work was right:  how to promote better design of new electronic products and better management of used electronic products. Their big focus, especially in their media releases, was how their plan will create domestic recycling jobs and improve the economy. But the actions they recommend do nothing to stop exporting e-waste to developing countries (even though most of those exports are illegal), so in fact, they will end up stifling U.S. recycling job growth in this sector.

Why solving the export problem should have been top priority

The problems of exporting e-waste from the U.S. to developing nations are well documented. Exports travel the low road, ending up in places where they are crudely handled, bashed, burned, and dipped in acid to extract the metals.  Studies have found that workers and communities are being poisoned in the process.  And with every container of e-waste we export, we’re shipping out U.S. jobs. Until we close the door on this cheap and dirty export low road, we will never see robust development of the recycling industry in the U.S.  Responsible recyclers tell us they are eager to expand their businesses, and hire more people to do disassembly, processing and repairs if the used electronics come their way. But they can’t do that if we simply load up the containers and export it all to China, India, Ghana and other developing nations.

Why won’t Feds lead by example?

One of the stated goals of the report is to “Ensure that the Federal Government Leads by Example.” We completely agree that the federal government SHOULD lead by example in managing the equipment they bought with taxpayer money. And while they did say that federal agencies must work with certified recyclers, they failed to set the bar where the other true leaders do – making sure that federally owned used electronics won’t be exported to developing nations (unless they are working and going to reuse).

Instead of being out in front, they stand several giant steps behind the true leaders on managing their used electronics, including manufacturers (like Dell, HP, Apple, Samsung, LG, ASUS), retailers like Best Buy, recycling customers (like Wells Fargo and Bank of America), and counties (like Santa Clara County, CA and King County, WA) who all have policies that ensure that their e-waste does not end up in developing countries.  While the federal agencies will now use certified e-waste recyclers, one of the two certification programs they will use allows e-waste to be exported to developing nations.

Also quite troubling are the recommendations in the section called, “Reduce Harm from US Exports of E-Waste and Improve Safe Handling of Used Electronics in Developing Countries” which basically holds open the export door, using the faulty notion that we can make sure it’s sent to “environmentally responsible” recyclers in developing countries.  This is an industry plagued by cheating (even in this country), cutting corners, and quick profits without concern for long term impacts. It’s hard enough to tell the high road companies from the cheaters even in this country. How exactly will the EPA or any other agency determine that a facility in China or India is handles e-waste safely – not just on the day of an audit, but all year long?

What we suspect has happened here is that the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), one of the agencies at the Task Force table, has strong-armed this report to what it THINKS best serves U.S. businesses. But that’s the sad part, their recommendations only serve to undermine U.S. business.  The companies that export a lot of the e-waste are not companies that typically have made a lot of investment in their U.S. businesses, or that have a lot of employees. You can run an export business without much in the way of equipment or staff. You basically need a truck and a place to load up containers.

Why not support job growth in the U.S. instead of China?

Contrast that with what responsible U.S. recyclers’ businesses look like. They have larger facilities, with much more equipment and workers, since they need to evaluate equipment, take it apart, separate materials and parts, package materials and parts to go to processors, or in some cases do some processing themselves. Some have enormous (and very expensive) mechanical shredders that do some of the materials separation. Many typically have people doing repairs and refurbishment.  These recyclers have invested quite a bit already into their businesses, and their workers. Why wouldn’t we want policies that help these companies grow, since we know they will hire workers here in the U.S.  Instead, the Task Force is advocating that we hold the export door open, so that companies abroad will see all the job growth.  Sorry, but the Administration got this part wrong, very wrong.

Underscores Need for Congress to Act

With this report, the Administration showed it’s not ready to solve the e-waste problem. But fortunately, members of Congress are.  A bill has been introduced in both houses (HR 2284/S1270) that would address the e-waste export problem, promote recycler business development  and job growth in the U.S.

(San Francisco, CA – July 20, 2011)  An Interagency Task Force – chaired by the White House Council on Environmental Quality, Environmental Protection Agency, and General Services Administration, today released “A National Strategy for Electronics Stewardship.” The report makes a variety of important recommendations to promote green design of electronics, and to improve handling of e-waste coming from federal agencies.   According to environmental groups, the report has some good recommendations on green design and on using certified recyclers, but it completely fails to address what is generally recognized as the most serious e-waste problem –e-waste exporting to developing countries.

One of the report’s stated goals is to ensure that the federal agencies will “lead by example” in managing their used electronics.

“We are very disappointed that the Task Force missed the opportunity handed to them by President Obama’s mandate to truly lead by example and ensure that all federal agencies do the right thing and not export obsolete used electronic equipment unless it is fully functional,” said Barbara Kyle, National Coordinator of the Electronic TakeBack Coalition, a national environmental coalition which promotes responsible recycling of e-waste.  “We have other companies like Dell, HP, Apple, Samsung that have set the leadership bar there, so I don’t understand why our own federal government can’t do the same with its own e-waste.”

“Sadly, this report is a living contradiction,” said Jim Puckett, Executive Director of the Basel Action Network.  “On the one hand it claims to promote responsible recycling and job creation here in the U.S., but then does nothing to prevent e-waste exporting, which   squanders our critical metals resources, and poisons children abroad while exporting good recycling jobs from our country. This report shows why we need Congress to pass the Responsible Electronics Recycling Act, now under consideration in both the Senate and Congress, to truly address this issue.”

Currently, most U.S. electronic waste is exported to developing countries by many U.S. companies that claim to be recyclers, to be bashed, burned, flushed with acids, and melted down in unsafe conditions in developing countries.  Eighty percent of children in Guiyu, China, a region where many “recycled” electronics wind up, have elevated levels of lead in their blood, due to the toxins in those electronics, much of which originates in the U.S.  The plastics in the imported electronics are typically burned outdoors, which can emit deadly dioxin or furans, which are breathed in by workers and nearby residents.

ETBC applauds the commitment by the GSA to use its purchasing power to promote greener products, and to get involved in the standards setting processes.

“We think it’s appropriate that the country’s largest electronics purchaser, especially one using taxpayer dollars, do everything possible to advocate for products that are less toxic, longer lasting, and more recyclable,” said Barbara Kyle.

More information:

Link to Task Force Report – http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/materials/ecycling/taskforce/docs/strategy.pdf

E –waste Overview – www.electronicstakeback.com

E-waste reports, films and photos – www.ban.org and www.ban.org/photogallery/index.html

E-waste legislation – http://www.electronicstakeback.com/promote-good-laws/federal-legislation/

Export briefing book http://www.electronicstakeback.com/wp-content/uploads/E-Waste_Export_Briefing_Book.pdf

As laptops, flat screens and smart phones grow ever more ubiquitous, so does the problematic trash they ultimately become. It’s a quandary for the Information Age that seldom gets the attention of the cool tech tools themselves.

Individual communities in the U.S. have been struggling with how to dispose of electronic waste, who should pay for its recycling and whether companies that manufacture electronics should be responsible for their full life cycle. But much of this e-waste is never disposed of anywhere in the U.S. — whether at local municipal dumps or corporate facilities.

It winds up, of all places, in Africa, or the Philippines, where it’s mined for valuable components as small as copper wiring. And conscientious consumers trying to hand off their old electronics seldom realize this.

“That’s the infuriating part of this — people who are really trying to do the right thing, who haul their big hulking televisions down to an Earth Day collection event in the neighborhood, people who are going to the trouble of taking their old stuff to some place thinking it’s going to be recycled, have no idea that it’s not going to be recycled at all,” said Barbara Kyle, national coordinator of the Electronics TakeBack Coalition.

“Recycling” is not really the best word to describe what happens to this material when it arrives in other countries, and its toxic components pose serious environmental and public health hazards there.

Currently, nothing about this business is illegal. But legislation introduced last week in Washington aims to finally address the booming trade, banning exports from the U.S. of most electronic waste to the countries least prepared to responsibly process it.

Researchers estimate that between 50 and 80 percent of electronic waste from the industrialized world that winds up in the hands of “recyclers” actually goes to a few developing countries: China, India, Pakistan, Vietnam and the Philippines. There, the unregulated materials are crudely handled in acid baths and burn pits, releasing into the air and soil heavy metals and chemicals that are used to make flexible plastics and flame retardants.

Studies of individual scrapping facilities in Ghana and China have measured contaminants and toxic metals like lead present in soil at more than 100 times typical background levels.

And as more of the world uses electronic products — and as their individual life spans shorten in favor of ever-evolving upgrades — the waste is getting worse. Reports have pegged the global e-waste generated each year at 20-50 million tons.

“‘Recyclers’ make more money exporting this stuff, and it’s actually a pretty easy business to get into,” Kyle said. “Really all you have to do is figure out how to hold a collection event — and lots of times they’ll get charities to front for them not even knowing they’re doing it — and you need to have a place where you can bring in a shipping container and load it up.”

In 2008, an investigation by the U.S. Government Accountability Office observed over a period of three months thousands of requests on e-commerce sites for such material, primarily coming from Asia. Investigators posed as foreign buyers of lead-containing cathode ray tubes — the only e-waste the EPA is supposed to regulate — and 43 U.S. companies expressed an interest in exporting them, including, the GAO noted, “ones that publicly tout their exemplary environmental practices.”

The GAO concluded that this international flow of toxic e-waste goes “virtually unrestricted.”

Keeping it in the U.S., according to the bill’s two Democratic sponsors in the House, Gene Green and Mike Thompson, could both curb the harmful health and environmental impacts overseas and create recycling jobs at home. Apple, Hewlett-Packard and Dell, which say they’re already trying to do responsible recycling, support the bill.

Those jobs, of course, won’t look here like they do in Ghana.

“It would definitely look different than those pictures you see of people burning stuff and stirring the [trash] pile with a stick,” Kyle said.

If anything, she hopes as a result of banning exports that the U.S. would develop a more sophisticated recycling industry that’s better able to process problematic technology. This idea, too, is often overlooked: As we build more advanced electronics, we also need more advanced ways of taking them apart.

“And who’s going to make those investments when there’s this cheap and dirty escape valve for all this trash that just goes into these containers and over to another country?” Kyle asked. “I have this feeling,” she added, “that we’ll look back in 10-15 years, like we do now when we look back and say, ‘Remember when we used to burn trash in the back yard?’”