backtop


Print 32 comment(s) - last by Autisticgramma.. on Dec 15 at 1:58 PM


A new bill by Congress offers incentives for e-waste recycling in an effort to end the illegal export of tech trash to nations like China.  (Source: Greenpeace)
America is looking to clean up its e-waste

While many manufacturers are switching to electronics devoid of toxic substances such as lead or halogens, electronics waste remains a significant problem for the country.  Much of the potentially toxic waste is shipped over seas to nations like China that try to break it down for parts, endangering the workers tasked with reprocessing it.

Such trade is banned under U.S. law, but commonly occurs anyway.  One problem, according to some, is that there just aren't enough incentives to play by the rules, as developing methods to reprocess electronics waste safely can be expensive.

Looking to provide just such an incentive, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on December 10 approved new e-waste legislation to be presented to the Senate.  The bill will provide research grants to companies and institutions under the Electronic Device Recycling Research and Development Act.  Describes  Sen. Amy Klobuchar, cosponsor of the bill, "Technology continues to advance, but our ways of disposing of electronic equipment haven't kept up. Many states, including Minnesota, are leading the way on recycling electronic equipment, but we need a national solution to ensure that all unwanted electronics are discarded in a safe and responsible manner."

The bill's other sponsor, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, adds, "For too long, too many people have been improperly dumping electronic devices without being aware of the dangerous effects on our environment. This legislation is a win-win for protecting the environment and our families. It takes the right steps to develop the best methods to change the way we dispose of outdated and unused electronics, and the hazardous materials they often contain."

To get a feel for the scope of the problem, you can look at a 2006 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report, which estimated that the U.S. produced 2.9 million tons of E-waste a year.  According to the agency, only 15 percent of electronics are recycled, despite increasingly common recycling initiatives from major manufacturers and waste collectors.  Many of the older electronics include lead or cadmium. 

E-waste in the U.S. is expected to rise sharply in the short term as people finish throwing out their older televisions and upgrade to digital sets (the U.S. switched to digital TV only earlier this year).



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Wrong Solution
By mindless1 on 12/11/2009 7:52:28 PM , Rating: 2
It should not be our burden to recycle these things. If a region, like the orient, chooses to manufacture goods that can't be safely recycled, and by safely I really mean inexpensively because it is not our problem if they CHOOSE to expose workers to things that they can prevent, then it becomes their problem.

I do not think we should not be able to send back trash that came from the orient! Let them think about how they are going to recycle it when they design it, or deal with the problems later if they don't. I even support trade agreements that REQUIRE them to take back anything they make.

If that becomes too costly for them, perhaps they will start to manfacture higher quality products that last longer. While at this moment in history, a few decades into the digital era we are seeing a vast expansion of new products, there will come a point where such devices aren't needing to be replaced for upgrade or whatever other reasons, when we have all the features we want, all the downsizing possible, and primary importance will be is the product durable or a lemon.




RE: Wrong Solution
By mindless1 on 12/11/2009 9:33:44 PM , Rating: 2
... but to clarify, I am not singling out the orient. We should not send them trash originating elsewhere. Each region should take back what it exports if/when needed.


RE: Wrong Solution
By MadMan007 on 12/12/2009 12:00:10 PM , Rating: 2
Taken a look at a 'Made In...' label any time in the past ten years? :p If you believe what you said it's just about going back to the right places.


RE: Wrong Solution
By FishTankX on 12/11/2009 11:30:15 PM , Rating: 2
Honestly, I think if we designed the product, contracted the manufacture, shipped it back and consumed it here, it's ludicrous to assume that the orient should be responsible for taking back waste. By this logic, we should move all of our nuclear fuel rod production back to China, so that China can manufacture it for us and we can send it back to them for disposal. Would make nuclear power alot easier, eh?


RE: Wrong Solution
By mindless1 on 12/12/2009 2:29:02 AM , Rating: 2
You're entitled to that opinion, but first of all much of what we receive is not something the US designed, a US company may make some specifications but leaves latitude to the manufacturer how they get the job done.

Secondly, they can simply so "no" if they don't want to take something back, as it is they who are making money manufacturing it.

Yes by this logic if we pay them to make nuclear fuel rods, we send them back. If they don't want to do this, as already mentioned they can say "no" to selling us nuclear fuel rods. It's much simpler than you're making it out to be.

The only sane position is to require manufacturers to recycle their own products and think about it, if anyone can reuse sub-assemblies instead of having to break everything down into base materials it would be the manufacturer.

Remember the US doesn't just decide
"we've move" this or that, it is a two-party contract. They want the business, that includes all the waste involved with the product.

Otherwise, things will never change, there will be no incentive to manufacture things in a more recyclable way.


RE: Wrong Solution
By Spuke on 12/12/2009 5:11:41 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Otherwise, things will never change, there will be no incentive to manufacture things in a more recyclable way.
You make great points here and I agree. A manufacturer should include recycling as part of its processes.


RE: Wrong Solution
By marvdmartian on 12/14/2009 8:02:38 AM , Rating: 2
Using your logic, we should expect back all the DDT we've manufactured and sent overseas over the past 30+ years that it's been illegal to use here in the USA. It's still being made here, just exported to countries that don't want to stop using it.
Responsibility starts with the manufacturer, but ends with the consumer.


RE: Wrong Solution
By mindless1 on 12/14/2009 2:53:21 PM , Rating: 2
YES! Yes, yes, yes. It does go both ways, we should take back the DDT and dispose of it, and if we no longer wish to do that we can choose not to make DDT anymore, BUT I never wrote that this would be retroactive, it would start NOW as a new trade and contractual agreement, letting the manufacturer consider these costs and/or savings when pricing the product.

Some might think this will raise the price of products, but if we are going to try and recycle the stuff anyway we'd still be paying for it, though with my proposal we have less governmental intervention and associated overhead costs which we know always become a large % of expense.

"Responsibility" ending with the consumer will mean when they are no longer needing use of a product, then they send it back.

Look at it another way, what sense does it make for us to manufacture more DDT if we can recycle it as it is being returned to us, instead of the old being dumped into the ground and even more being made?


RE: Wrong Solution
By aqaq55 on 12/15/09, Rating: -1
RE: Wrong Solution
By Autisticgramma on 12/15/2009 1:58:05 PM , Rating: 2
Recycling these products is a HUGE boon for us, if we remember what were getting. We as a country (and most of the developed world) mine substances like metals from ores around the globe to turn them into metal products, like our electronics. These mined metals are some of the most rare and valuable metals known, with uses that will push our technology into the next century. This isn't a burden! California reopened a Rare Earth Mine just to keep up with demand from the Chinese lowering production.

These Metals/Chemicals are needed to create our technology!

Trash is simply a configuration of the chemicals contained therein, that is no longed useful.

Lets Recycle their products and sell recycled derivatives right back to them, instead of PAYING to have them illegally take that toxic waste.

Simply saying - "They made it they can throw it away" Is like asking farmers to be responsible for your sewer, - Crazy Talk.

As for products that last longer. Create that demand, but something tells me you don't use the nokia brick phone that you used 5 years ago, even if it works perfectly - and 8/10 of them still do. Phones are by definition a Lemon - strictly because most people by one every year or 2.

We can create jobs and further technology by what? Remembering that stuff you put in the trash doesn't evaporate into the ether.

The whole of your post alludes to the American attitude that: It's not our fault, I don't wanna fix it. I have some news - It is your fault, and my fault. You're reading this on a computer medium, on a product that if ingested can kill or cause cancer. If you paid for it - its yours and you shouldn't have to feel guilty for not having a satisfactory solution for disposal of old electronics, or keep them for ever in a closet.


Go Minnesota!
By Judguh on 12/11/2009 6:15:16 PM , Rating: 2
Up here in Minnesota, I see a LOT of places/companies that take in electronics for recycling (Waste Management, etc...) Prices are very reasonable too. For my company to get rid of 6 tons of electronics, our bill was only about $1300 plus delivering and service fees.

Go Minnesota! :)




RE: Go Minnesota!
By kamel5547 on 12/11/2009 6:52:56 PM , Rating: 5
Yes... but where does the waste end up. The problem is that some "recyclers" turn around and sell the waste to other countries.

Problem is there is no real way of knowing what happens to the stuff even if you try to do the right thing.


RE: Go Minnesota!
By chagrinnin on 12/11/2009 10:32:26 PM , Rating: 2
My dog chewed the cover off of a baseball when I was a kid,...after cutting through all the inner string, thinking I might find a smaller ball at the center, I was surprised to find plastic fortune cookie wrappers. The baseball was made in China. Someone in waste management was being really creative. :P


RE: Go Minnesota!
By quiksilvr on 12/12/2009 11:18:21 AM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't be surprised if that was actually true.


RE: Go Minnesota!
By Solandri on 12/13/2009 3:20:14 AM , Rating: 3
RE: Go Minnesota!
By Perkins1986 on 12/11/09, Rating: -1
RE: Go Minnesota!
By kkuulr on 12/12/09, Rating: -1
LCD Avalanche
By Shig on 12/11/2009 4:58:51 PM , Rating: 2
Is coming soon!

My first generation LCD's are starting to wear out now. (Early 2000's models)




RE: LCD Avalanche
By mindless1 on 12/11/2009 9:39:30 PM , Rating: 2
The avalanche has already started, I frequently see LCD monitors barely outside their warranty period (3 years or less) that have failed, and with the drop in price and rise in resolution they aren't *normally* cost effective to fix if you can't DIY.

That's the problem with projected product lifespans, they like to assume an ideal environment, ideal engineering, ideal parts/materials, then come along _later_ and look at ways to cut costs while balancing profits vs warranty fulfillment costs.

I can't single out the LCD industry though, quite a few products "could" last very long if repaired and regularly maintained. Take automobiles for example, and granted I'm ignoring the benefits of successive models and that shiney-new smell.


Fee
By btc909 on 12/11/2009 11:56:02 PM , Rating: 2
So are states going to tack on a "recycling fee" like they do on LCD screens now?




Not going to pay...
By MadMan007 on 12/12/2009 7:43:23 AM , Rating: 2
I hope that better ways to recycle electronics is worked out. Right now I will certainly not *pay* someone to recycle my electronics though that's for sure. Pickup fees at the most but that's only really needed for very large items like TVs.




Whatever happened to the Constitution?
By chruschef on 12/11/09, Rating: -1
By ElFenix on 12/11/2009 6:38:12 PM , Rating: 2
funding research is apparently regulating commerce.


RE: Whatever happened to the Constitution?
By foolsgambit11 on 12/11/2009 7:24:18 PM , Rating: 4
The Constitution doesn't say that any right not given to the Federal Government is given to the States. It says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Congress was explicitly given the power to collect taxes to promote the general welfare. That covers most things Congress might do. I'm so sick of this argument. Why do people always tend to ignore the very first of the enumerated powers? But just in case you wanted something more specific:

"The Congress shall have the power ... To regulate commerce with foreign nations...." The Supreme Court has generally recognized that a regulatory power is accompanied by, not only the power of enforcement, but also powers to make enforcement as simple as practicable - within reasonable limits. This bill is specifically aimed at simplifying enforcement of an existing regulatory structure by promoting a home-grown industry to supplant an illegalized foreign one.

Additionally, since the Supreme Court has recently decided that English grammar doesn't apply to the Constitution, and you can separate out clauses as you like (see Amendment II, where they decided to ignore the "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" clause), we might be able to use "To promote the progress of science and useful arts", ignoring the part about establishing a patent system. (Okay, that one was a bit tongue-in-cheek.)


By wookie1 on 12/12/2009 2:19:04 AM , Rating: 2
This is a good point. Powers are the opposite of rights. Powers force people to do (or not do) things that they otherwise wouldn't on their own, taking away their rights to do these things. When people think that the government has rights, it is troubling.

I'm sure that the commerce clause would be used for this. It's used in most cases where the government wants to get around the enumerated powers. When this doesn't work, the feds provide money to the states to go along with their desired new powers. Then the states can't ever seem to do without the government money. Think about this every time you hear that the feds are going to give the states money for something, it just means that the enumerated powers were in the way. Hey, it's not their money anyway, what do they care?


RE: Whatever happened to the Constitution?
By MadMan007 on 12/12/2009 7:39:09 AM , Rating: 3
Stupid founding fathers, why couldn't they anticipate e-waste!


By AssBall on 12/12/2009 11:08:15 AM , Rating: 3
Maybe it was because of their lead fillings.


RE: Whatever happened to the Constitution?
By Reclaimer77 on 12/12/09, Rating: -1
RE: Whatever happened to the Constitution?
By MadMan007 on 12/12/09, Rating: 0
RE: Whatever happened to the Constitution?
By Reclaimer77 on 12/12/09, Rating: 0
RE: Whatever happened to the Constitution?
By MadMan007 on 12/12/2009 2:50:07 PM , Rating: 1
No it does not indicate that because you never said anything that you did personally in the post to which I was trying. Just try thinking a *litte* bit, particularly about the last sentence in your post.


By thurston on 12/12/2009 8:12:06 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Just try thinking a *litte* bit


You're asking a bit too much.


"I'd be pissed too, but you didn't have to go all Minority Report on his ass!" -- Jon Stewart on police raiding Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's home




Latest Headlines










botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki