Environmentalists say that besides global warming, electronic waste, or "e-waste," is the most threatening environmental problem in the world today. Mounting global sales of electrical and electronic products are generating an equally imposing amount of toxic waste that's too complicated to process.

Although the exact amount is unknown, the United Nations estimates that roughly 20 to 50 million tons of e-waste are generated worldwide each year, comprising more than 5 percent of all municipal solid waste. Alarmingly an estimated 70 percent of e-waste ends up either illegally dumped or crudely processed in many of the poorer Asian and African countries, where workers in e-waste scrap yards are constantly exposed to toxic chemicals that are byproducts of deconstructing components. These chemicals also pollute water, soil and air.

Poorer countries in Asia, such as India, Vietnam, Philippines and some impoverished regions in China, are turning out to be the dumping grounds for e-waste. What's even more alarming is rich countries such as the United States, Canada and some European Union countries - the world's largest generators of e-waste - have adopted only small or halfhearted measures to deal with this looming problem. Critics say that the United States and Canada have taken woefully inadequate steps to stop e-waste dumping in developing and poor countries where import laws are full of loopholes. While other developed countries in the European Union (EU) and Japan impose restrictions on e-waste exports and mandate that manufacturers take back their end-of-life products, critics claim there's no monitoring or control on adherence to those rules.

"The issue of exporting [hazardous e-waste by] countries like the U.S.A and Canada has not been resolved yet," said Ibrahim Shafii, from the Secretariat of the Basel Convention, the most comprehensive global environmental agreement on hazardous wastes. The convention controls trans-boundary movements of hazardous waste and its disposal.

"The U.S.A. and Canada are still exporting computer waste to other developing countries because under the laws of these countries, discarded computers and mobile phones are not considered as wastes and therefore they are not controlled," said Shafii.

The Basel Action Network (BAN), which seeks to ensure that the Basel Convention norms are followed, and the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition (SVTC) are two U.S.-based environmental organizations that have been trumpeting the e-waste problem in reports such as Exporting Harm: The High-Tech Trashing of Asia published in 2002. "Rather than having to face the problem squarely, the United States and other rich economies that use most of the world's electronic products and generate most of the e-waste have made use of a convenient, and until now, hidden escape valve - exporting the e-waste crisis to the developing countries of Asia," according to the report.

Indeed, to get a sense of the magnitude of the high-tech revolution's dirty little secret - the mounting volume of e-waste - all you need to do is peek in the narrow lanes of East Delhi, or visit districts in Guiyu, Nanyang and Taizhou in China, or the Sher Khan Market in Karachi, Pakistan. Small boys, young women and even grown men can be found tearing apart personal computers, monitors and other electronic hardware with their bare hands and sifting through the components. The reusable parts are separated out for use in refurbished electronics products, and the rest is sorted to extract glass from the cathode-ray tubes as well as valuable gold and silver traces.

The remaining waste is broken down and incinerated in huge cauldrons filled with acids that spew foul smoke. Whatever can't be incinerated is broken down, hammered and then dumped in the nearest sewer or garbage bin, and from there it goes to landfills. For doing this dirty work, adult laborers are paid at most $3 a day in U.S. currency, and wages are even lower for women and children.

Defining the Problem

So what exactly is e-waste, and why is it such a big issue? Notably there really isn't a standardized definition. Several countries have formulated their own interpretation and usage of the term "e-waste." However, per the Basel Convention's definition - the most widely accepted - e-waste encompasses all discarded and disposed of electrical and electronic assemblies, scrap, components and batteries; some of these wastes may contain hazardous materials such as cadmium, mercury, lead and polychlorinated biphenyl. Therefore, e-waste includes a broad range and growing number of electronic devices - from large household appliances such as refrigerators and air conditioners, to personal products such as handheld cellular phones, personal stereos, consumer electronics and computers.

The e-waste problem has turned into a crisis primarily for two reasons. First, e-waste is hazardous because it contains more than 1,000 different substances, many of which are toxic, so pollution is created upon its disposal. Second, e-waste is being generated at an alarming rate due to the constant evolution of technology, which in turn has driven the sale of new products, as well as the frequent obsolescence of electronics. For instance, according to a Greenpeace International study published in February, this year the number of mobile phone users around the world will reach the 2 billion mark, and at least 150 million new mobile phones will be sold in China alone. Sales of other electronic gadgets - personal computers, TVs, monitors and console game
platforms - are growing internationally from 10 percent to 400 percent annually.

The worldwide e-waste stream, which is already huge, is predicted to grow further, according to Greenpeace, which estimates that by 2010 both industrialized and developing countries will triple their e-waste generation. That's a serious problem. An even bigger problem could be that "the rich countries often legally or illegally will divert this problem from their own backyards, which will result in a hidden flow of e-waste causing environmental damage in the backyards and scrap yards of poorer countries," according to a Greenpeace report, Toxic Tech: Not in Our Backyard.

This "hidden flow" of e-waste escapes collection, reuse and recycling systems, and it's the unaccounted for e-waste that ends up causing the most environmental damage. Greenpeace distinguishes between what it calls a "general hidden flow" - all the e-waste that isn't captured by recycling programs - and the more specific "producer's hidden flow," which is the amount of own-brand e-waste that escapes the control of the brand owner.

"It's this hidden flow of e-waste that concerns us most because it is almost impossible to know its fate," said Martin Hojsik, the e-waste expert at Greenpeace. "No one knows how much of this is ending up - precisely where and how it is processed."

While e-waste generated by the European Union's 27 member countries is an estimated 8.7 million tons a year, the amount collected and treated is estimated to be 2.1 million tons - just 25 percent. The leftover 75 percent is a general "hidden flow," and there isn't precise data available about what happens to this waste - whether it's stored or disposed of in Europe, or exported to Asian countries such as India, China and Africa.

According to Greenpeace, it's likely that part of the 25 percent of the European Union's e-waste that is collected and treated is also exported, although it is impossible to quantify exactly how much. It's also noteworthy that exports are taking place despite EU legislation that bans exports of hazardous waste to non-OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries, and in spite of ratification of the Basel ban on the transfer of hazardous waste from developed to less developed countries by EU member states.

America's Hidden Flow

The United States' situation is quite different; America is a large consumer market with a big appetite for electrical and electronic appliances. At the same time, U.S. infrastructure for the collection and recycling of e-waste is relatively unsophisticated. For instance, U.S. generation of e-waste is just 2 million tons per year, estimated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2007. Greenpeace officials say that number is low because the EPA survey doesn't account for household electrical and electronic appliances and gadgets such as washing machines, TVs, etc.

In addition, the hidden flows of U.S. e-waste are larger. Less than 20 percent of the e-waste is separated from other waste streams for further processing and recovery, while the remaining 80 percent of general hidden flow is incinerated, sent to landfills, put into storage and reuse, or exported.

For newly industrialized countries such as China and India with large, informal recycling sectors, and even in industrialized nations such as Japan and Korea, as well as Southeast Asian and African nations, it isn't even possible to estimate the percentage of the e-waste hidden flow. "In these countries, collection rates are determined by the informal recycling sector, where the focus is on the recovery (albeit inefficient reclamation) of valuable raw materials, and not on the health and environmental hazards inherent in e-waste, resulting in environmental pollution and exposure of workers to hazardous substances from the recycling of e-waste," according to the Greenpeace report.

In fact, experts say the poorer countries' primitive treatment methods are another big driver for the illegal and hidden flow of e-waste. Since crude forms of recycling cut drastically the cost of treating or disposing of e-waste, it often makes sense to "push the e-waste out of destinations where costs are high, to low-cost countries where there are no set norms for processing or import of e-waste," said Ravi Agarwal, director of Toxics Link, an non-profit environmental group based in India.

Toxics Link estimates that while it costs about $50 to recycle a personal computer in the United States, unscrupulous Indian importers pay no more than $15 apiece, which translates to a net gain of $35 for a U.S. recycler. By extracting the usable parts and then dumping it on the backyard scrap-trading outfits, an importer in India can generate about $10 per piece in profits. "It's win-win for both," said Agarwal.

This is perhaps why advocates of "ethical disposal", such as Greenpeace and the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, feel that electronics manufacturers should take on the financial burden and management responsibility for their products when they reach the end-of-life phase. "The producers' responsibility theory has a two-pronged benefit," said Hojsik. No. 1, incorporating the cost of waste management into the product price motivates producers to improve their products' environmental design and increases their shelf life. "Instead of designing a TV or a PC that lasts for just three years, perhaps the producer could design a PC that could last twice as long," said Hojsik.

No. 2, it could force producers to "clean up their products by eliminating hazardous substances, replacing harmful ingredients through use of safer alternatives or design changes." For example, Apple reports its recycling rate as a percentage of sales made seven years ago. In 2006, Apple recycled 9.5 percent of the weight of all products sold seven years earlier and has near-term goals to recycle even more: 13 percent in 2007, 20 percent in 2008, and nearly 30 percent in 2010.

Therefore, Apple's commitment to recycle its products has also led to the new MacBook Air laptop that uses a recyclable aluminum enclosure instead of flame-retardant plastics. "The e-waste crisis then should not be regarded only as a waste management issue but also a driver for product design," said Hojsik.

Nevertheless, although Greenpeace says that the EU's e-waste directive makes each producer responsible for its own-branded discarded products that have been brought to market since August 2005, a key problem that arises is "it's hard to ensure to what extent the own-branded, end-of-life products are actually controlled by the producers," said Hojsik.

In several non-EU countries, including Taiwan, Japan, Australia and Korea, some manufacturers voluntarily take responsibility for the end-of-life phase of their products - but often such efforts are temporary and isolated. That's particularly true in the United States and Canada, even though they are the world's largest generators of e-waste.

Manufacturers' Responsibility?

Producers taking responsibility for their end-of-life products has been found predominantly in those countries where it's required by legal frameworks (such as the EU) or where public awareness is high, says Greenpeace. "Unfortunately, in the U.S. and Canada, there is a general lack of laws and regulations to control the export of e-waste, and there aren't norms to determine whether a shipment is a hazardous e-waste or not," said Shafii.

Although at least four U.S. states have passed e-waste recycling laws so far, and a dozen more have producer take-back bills pending, the United States still doesn't have a clear definition of e-waste. According to the EPA, electronic products that are "near" or at "the end of their useful life" are classified as e-waste or "e-scrap." (Recyclers prefer the term "e-scrap" since "waste" refers only to what is left after the product has been reused, recovered or recycled.) Moreover, "the U.S. government's policies - by refusing to ratify the Basel Convention - also appear to be designed to promote sweeping the e-waste problem out the Asian backdoor," according to Basel Action Network.

Therefore, while California Integrated Waste Management Board officials who work on the state's e-waste recycling program say that it's hard to devise a perfect model for global management of e-waste, the federal government could play a significant role. "That's because the states can have their own laws but they cannot impose restrictions on exports. It is something that only the federal government can do," said Jeff Hunt manager with the Electronic Waste Recycling Program of the California Integrated Waste Management Board.

In February, several Congressional offices floated a concept paper laying out a possible framework for a federal model. "Though at this point it's just a concept, efforts to create national level legislation have been started," said Hunt.

The Fed's concept paper tries to establish a national electronic recycling system that makes reusing and recycling services readily available to consumers, and among other goals, addresses global market issues that can be uniquely addressed at the national level: providing a level playing field that deters interstate dumping of scrap products and "sham" recycling; accelerated adoption of clean product standards; protection of consumers' and recyclers' health and safety; protection of the environment; and assurance that exports are managed responsibly.

But if the European experience holds true in North America, legislation may not fully solve the problem without better public awareness. There is a role here for every community and for all levels of government to take more responsibility in promoting awareness of the e-waste problem.

There are tremendous benefits to being a member of a digital community. But the resultant success should not come at the expense of environmental devastation and poisoning of other poor, overseas communities.

Indrajit Basu is international correspondent for Government Technology's Digital Communities.