New E-Waste Standards: Junking Electronic Gadgets without Trashing the Planet

Voluntary efforts by manufacturers are beginning to eliminate some of the most toxic compounds in e-waste















Share on Tumblr



Image: © Greenpeace

Last Sunday, six Greenpeace activists boarded a ship named the Yang Ming Success in Hong Kong's Victoria Harbor. Their mission: to prevent workers from unloading so-called e-waste, the toxic remnants of computers and other electronic devices. They succeeded—this time.

The U.S. and some European countries often ship electronic junk to Hong Kong for disassembly in mainland China, where copper, iron and other valuable metals inside are removed and sold. Greenpeace and other environmental groups warn that workers, who wear little or no protective gear when they handle the devices, breathe in toxic heavy metals that include lung-damaging cadmium as well as lead and mercury (both known to cause brain damage). The toxic metals—as well as the fumes emitted by burning plastic and the like that stem from attempts to strip out components—also contaminate the air and water.

Citing the dangers, the Chinese government in 2000 banned the importation of any of the estimated 50 million metric tons of e-waste generated worldwide each year, nearly three million metric tons of which is produced in the U.S., according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). After China officially cut off imports, much of the business shifted to less developed countries with little or no regulation, including Pakistan and Nigeria, but legal loopholes still allow some shipments to make it through to China, according to Lo Sze Ping, communications director for Hong Kong–based Greenpeace China.

The key to stopping the damage, Ping argues, is to bar the use of toxic metals in computers—and to recycle (rather than throw out) those now in use. The U.S. computer industry has responded by adopting a voluntary program called Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT) that is designed to provide standards for greener computers as well as to keep discarded electronics out of landfills, where the majority end up. (There currently are no federal regulations governing electronics disposal in the U.S., but a handful of states, such as California and Massachusetts, along with environmentalists, are pushing Congress to adopt federal mandates.)

EPEAT was launched two years ago by the Green Electronics Council (GEC), a nonprofit group based in Portland, Ore., that was created in 2004 to encourage the manufacture of environmentally friendly electronics. One of the ways they attempt to do this is by rating desktop and laptop computers and monitors based on 51 green criteria, such as limits on the amount of cadmium they contain and whether they are packaged in recyclable materials. Products achieve bronze, silver or gold ratings according to how well they comply with the EPEAT guidelines: Earning a gold rating requires that devices meet at least 41 of the standards. So far, only 68 (of 601 computer models graded) have taken the gold. The majority (510) got silver (and, so, met at least 35 of the standards), whereas 23 have claimed the bronze rating, according to the EPEAT Web site.

Roughly 109 million of these EPEAT-certified computers and monitors were sold globally last year (just over 22 percent of total worldwide sales), according to the program's report. It also notes that these computers used 75.5 million metric tons fewer toxic materials in their manufacture, including 3,220 metric tons less mercury.

All told, the report says the program helped eliminate enough mercury to fill more than 480,000 thermometers, primarily because large purchasers, such as U.S. government agencies, bought computer screens lighted by light-emitting diodes (LED)—a new lighting technology that does not employ mercury as did cold-cathode compact fluorescent lightbulbs of the past.



3 Comments

Add Comment
View
  1. 1. frgough 01:55 PM 6/23/08

    For crying out loud. Where do you think the stuff came from in the first place? Ex nihilo creation? Here's how it works: we take it out of the ground. We do stuff with it. We put it back in the ground.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  2. 2. Bradley 05:33 AM 6/24/08

    I am sure you know that petroleum comes from the ground. Would you be ok with gasoline in your water supply because water also comes from the ground?

    Whatever we put in the ground has the potential of contaminating our water supply, at least for those of us who live on this planet. Maybe you have another planet in mind where this sort of thing would be harmless.

    Wishful thinking will not simplify or make disappear the problems posed by hazardous waste from disposal of electronic hardware.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_poisoning

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minamata_disease

    http://www.rohs.eu/english/index.html

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  3. 3. marbi21 04:38 PM 3/16/11

    A really well written post, thank you for your hard work, please keep it up
    <a href="http://www.recymobilier.com/eng/">Appliances recycling canada</a>

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Leave this field empty

Add a Comment

You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.
Click one of the buttons below to register using an existing Social Account.

More from Scientific American

See what we're tweeting about

Scientific American Editors

More »

Free Newsletters


Get the best from Scientific American in your inbox

Solve Innovation Challenges

Powered By: Innocentive

  SA Digital
  SA Digital

Email this Article

New E-Waste Standards: Junking Electronic Gadgets without Trashing the Planet

X
Scientific American Magazine

Subscribe Today

Save 66% off the cover price and get a free gift!

Learn More >>

X

Please Log In

Forgot: Password

X

Account Linking

Welcome, . Do you have an existing ScientificAmerican.com account?

Yes, please link my existing account with for quick, secure access.



Forgot Password?

No, I would like to create a new account with my profile information.

Create Account
X

Report Abuse

Are you sure?

X

Institutional Access

It has been identified that the institution you are trying to access this article from has institutional site license access to Scientific American on nature.com. To access this article in its entirety through site license access, click below.

Site license access
X

Error

X

Share this Article

X