My TiVo died. How do I deal with the e-Waste?
Brian Palmer, July 22 2013,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/my-tivo-died-how-do-i-deal-with-the-e-waste/2013/07/22/0d0b87c2-ed5d-11e2-9008-61e94a7ea20d_story.html
Washington Post contributor Brian Palmer recently used his broken TiVo device as inspiration to write an article about the state of electronic waste and recycling domestically and abroad.
Palmer began the article detailing how his recently broken TiVo device perfectly fit the description of e-Waste. The device, while non-functioning, still contained a working hard drive, motherboard, power supply, and numerous metal and plastic parts. The device was therefore fit to be recycled rather than thrown away. Palmer uses this fact as a springboard to discuss the increasing global concern of e–Waste.
Electronic waste is currently prohibited from being dumped into landfills in twenty states, the reasons for which are based on two prevailing arguments, according to Palmer.
The first argument in favor of the ban is that the toxic materials contained within e-waste can potentially “leach into the groundwater” and pose a public health hazard. Palmer called this particular argument “controversial” because a number of studies have disputed whether or not e-waste is inherently more of a contamination threat than any other waste found in landfills.
The second, less controversial argument for banning e-waste from landfills is that it can be put to better use. Rather than mining for “more virgin materials,” we can instead extract the valuable materials (gold, silver, palladium, aluminum, steel, and plastic) from disposed electronics and recycle them.
The economic argument is more appealing when one takes into account that manufacturing electronics from scratch requires “a massive amount of energy.” In fact, according to a study by Eric Williams, faculty member of the Rochester Institute of Technology, the fossil fuels required to manufacture a computer weigh eleven times as much as the computer itself. By contrast, manufacturing an automobile only requires twice the product’s weight in fossil fuels. The argument, therefore, is that banning e-waste from landfills could potentially save a substantial amount of energy.
Palmer then moves on to detail how his old TiVo can be given a second life: through reputable recyclers. The first course of action for a responsible recycler is to inspect all electronics received for “keepers,” devices that are still entirely functioning. Even if the devices are worth little in their entirety, their individual components (such as RAM chips or hard drives) may still be valuable.
While there are many benefits to electronic recycling, Palmer notes the “dark side” of electronics recycling, known as “backyard recycling” in developing countries. When e-waste is exported to these locations, legally or otherwise, the workers (often children) and methods of disposal are damaging to the environment and human health. For example, rather than stripping the insulation from copper wires, workers will simply burn the wires in large piles, releasing dioxins and furans into the air. Studies in China have shown that recycling workers have elevated levels of lead in their blood, as well as the air above recycling facilities becoming polluted with dioxins.
Palmer raises one final issue that, as with many environmental issues, “doing the right thing” requires a time investment from individuals. Due to the limited availability of curbside electronics recycling, the burden falls upon the individual to personally deliver their unwanted equipment to a designated recycler or retailer. However, doing so offers individuals the benefit of knowing to where their equipment is being sent.
Palmer concludes the article by noting that research into sustainable and biodegradable electronics production is being undertaken and that this research will hopefully result in electronic waste being an issue of the past.
