E-Waste. A Story of Trashing, Trading and Valuable Resources

Transcription

Reihe
n
e
t
h
c
i
h
c
s
Stof fge
nf t
ite n de r Zu ku
Di e gu te n Se
i
chhandel oder be
Erhältlich im Bu
.de
m
ko
oe
t@
ak
nt
, ko
www.oekom.de
»
»
n wir meist
und doch wisse
n
tu
iche,
zu
n
ne
ih
wir mit
re gesellschaf tl
se
un
d
un
n
be
Täglich haben
r Le
Stof fe, die unse
en. Die Reihe
twicklung präg
wenig über sie:
En
e
ch
is
og
ol
n,
und ök
von Materialie
wir tschaf tliche
t die Biograﬁen
hl
hreiben.
zä
sc
er
ch
en
no
ht
e
ic
– und heut
Stof fgesch
n
be
ha
n
be
ie
geschr
die Geschichte
L. Marschall
re des
Nach der Lektü
jedem klar
Buches dürf te
e Metall
sein: Das silbern
n.
geht uns alle a ngg
Süddeutsche Ze
itu
de
Eine erfrischen
ung von naturZusammenstell
en Fakten und
wissenschaftlich
Thema CO2 –
m
zu
n
te
h
ic
h
sc
Ge
durch
originell ergänzt
Experimentende.
Anleitungen zu
spiegel.
»
Aluminium
erne
Metall der Mod
iten, Halbleinen,
Band 4, 285 Se
vielen Fotos
Hardcover, mit
n, 24,90 Euro
und Abbildunge
1-090-8
ISBN 978-3-8658
Reller
J. Soentgen, A.
CO2
d Klimakiller
Lebenselixier un
iten, Halbleinen,
Band 5, 301 Se
vielen Fotos
Hardcover, mit
n, 24,90 Euro
und Abbildunge
1-118-9
ISBN 978-3-8658
er y
n,
uns nicht leiste
Wir können es
ieses Buches
die Aussagen d
ine Geschichtee
zu ignorieren. E
nntnisreich
des Drecks – ke
ähltt..
und brillant erz
cial Times
Finan
D. R. Montgom
Dreck
n
Gesellschaf t de
Warum unsere
n Füßen verliert
Boden unter de
iten, Halbleinen,
Band 6, 347 Se
vielen Fotos
Hardcover, mit
n, 24,90 Euro
und Abbildunge
1-197-4
ISBN 978-3-8658
20/1(2011): 1–72
Seite 2
ECOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES FOR SCIENCE AND SOCIETY
13:55 Uhr
ÖKOLOGISCHE PERSPEKTIVEN FÜR
WISSENSCHAFT UND GESELLSCHAFT
ECOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES FOR
SCIENCE AND SOCIETY
1 | 2011
BUSINESS LOBBYING AND CLIMATE CHANGE | WASTE OF ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT | KOMPETENZEN FÜR NACHHALTIGKEIT
13.03.2011
iben
e
r
h
c
s
e
t
h
c
i
h
c
s
Stof fe, die Ge
000_Umschlag_72S_prixpictet
BUSINESS LOBBYING AND CLIMATE CHANGE
WASTE OF ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT
KOMPETENZEN FÜR NACHHALTIGKEIT
GAIA is available online at www.ingentaconnect.com/content/oekom/gaia
www.oekom.de | B 54649 | ISSN 0940-5550 |
GAIAEA 20/1, 1–72 (2011)
41_47_OswaldReller
14.03.2011
9:19 Uhr
Seite 41
41
E-Waste: A Story of Trashing, Trading,
and Valuable Resources
The rapidly growing mountains of e-waste represent both toxic threats and valuable
“urban mines”. To increase the current low e-waste collection rates, incentives are required,
and consumers need to be educated about their
essential role in the life cycle of their cell phone
or computer. Efforts must be made to increase
Irina Oswald, Armin Reller
awareness of such issues as the rare metals used in
many electronics and dangerous e-waste recycling
conditions in developing countries.
E-Waste: A Story of Trashing, Trading, and
Valuable Resources
GAIA 20/1 (2011): 41– 47
Abstract
Electronic waste, or e-waste, is considered the most rapidly
growing waste category, as electrical and electronic appliances
continue to be essential tools of global information and communication societies. Recent literature on e-waste broaches the issue
of e-waste both as hazardous waste and as so-called urban mines.
End-of-life management of e-waste is more challenging than that
of other waste due to the wide range of products that qualify as
e-waste, their complex material composition, and their low collection and recycling rates. Collection of e-waste from consumers is
difficult especially with regard to small appliances as these tend
to be disposed of in solid waste containers or are stored by
consumers. The article also uncovers complex aspects within
the discussion on international trade of e-waste: Developing
countries are frequently referred to as the “e-waste dumpsites”
of industrialized countries; on the other hand, inexpensive access
to information and communication technologies is considered
an important driver for development.
Keywords
collection rates, electronic waste, global e-waste trade,
recycling, technology metals
Contact: Dipl.-Geogr. Irina Oswald | Tel.: +49 821 5983001 |
E-Mail: irina.oswald@wzu.uni-augsburg.de
Prof. Dr. Armin Reller | E-Mail: armin.reller@wzu.uni-augsburg.de
both: University of Augsburg | Institute of Physics | Chair of
Resource Strategy | Universitätsstr. 1a | 86159 Augsburg |
Germany
©2011 I. Oswald, A. Reller; licensee oekom verlag.
This is an article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
GAIA 20/1(2011): 41– 47 | www.oekom.de/gaia
ales of electronics and high-tech products were booming once
again last December, with mobile phones, net- and notebooks,
tablet personal computers (PCs), and flat screen televisions being the most popular gifts of the holiday season according to the
German Association for Information Technology (BITKOM). It
was estimated that 60 percent of all German citizens older than
age 14 – a total of 42 million people – planned to purchase electronics for Christmas (BITKOM 2010 a). In 2009, only 29 million
people of the same age group had included electronics on their
gift list.
The point of highlighting these sales figures is not to deplore
the popularity of electronic gadgets, but to focus attention on the
extraordinary amount of waste material that will need to be managed in the coming years, once the consumers discard the appliances (figure 1, p. 42). A study by the United Nations University suggested that the generation of waste electrical and electronic
equipment (WEEE) – also called electronic waste, e-waste, or escrap – added up to at least 8.3 million tons in 2005 in the European Union (EU 27)(Huisman et al. 2008). E-waste is considered
the most rapidly growing waste category and involves a complex
waste stream. A lack of robust estimation techniques to assess
global, national, and regional e-waste arisings complicates the
development of solution strategies to manage the continuously
increasing amounts of e-waste (Schluep et al. 2009). The variety
of products qualifying as e-waste is diverse, as are the life spans
and optimal end-of-life management options for different product categories.
Due to their recyclable metal content, waste electronic appliances are referred to as “urban mines” 1. At the same time, e-waste
contains a number of highly toxic substances that require it to be
collected and treated separately from other solid waste. A large
number of non-governmental organizations are putting in a great
effort to fight the “digital divide” by donating used information
S
1 The term “urban mining” refers to the extraction of reusable
materials from urban waste.
>
41_47_OswaldReller
9:19 Uhr
FORSCHUNG | RESEARCH
Seite 42
© Irina Oswald
42
14.03.2011
FIGURE 1: Electronic waste, or e-waste – consisting of electrical and electronic appliances – is considered to be the fastest-growing waste category. E-waste has
a complex composition including hazardous and highly valuable substances.
and telecommunication technology (ICT) equipment to developing countries, while other organizations are promoting legislation to ban e-waste exports. The controversial and complex nature of the e-waste issue is the central topic of this paper, which
is divided into three parts.
First, we will provide some general background, definitions,
and figures on e-waste through a review of the emerging literature. The second chapter examines the material composition of
e-waste, which includes both precious metals and toxic substances. The third chapter discusses the global e-waste trade. We
conclude with a number of open questions and recommendations based on the preceding discussion.
E-Waste as a Complex Waste Category
The term “e-waste” is commonly used to describe broken electrical and electronic equipment, so-called EEE. This definition implies that an obsolete electrical or electronic device that is being
discarded by its owner is either no longer fully functional or com-
pletely inoperable. However, rapid innovations in technology and
design, together with a fast replacement process, have resulted in
considerable amounts of appliances becoming obsolete despite
the fact that they are still entirely functional. Many appliances
have more than one owner throughout their life span. Therefore
Terazono et al. (2006) argue that secondhand electrical appliances
and electronics cannot be neglected when defining e-waste. They
suggest alternative terms for e-waste, such as “discarded consumer electronics”. Correspondingly, according to the latter definition,
this paper refers to e-waste as a waste category consisting of any
broken or unwanted electrical or electronic devices, regardless
of whether an appliance is still functional or not.
E-waste is a complex waste category in terms of the variety of
items that qualify as e-waste. Simply put, any obsolete appliance
with a plug or a battery can be considered as electronic waste:
computers, monitors, mobile phones, game consoles, dishwashers, microwaves, large domestic appliances, televisions, radios,
MP3 players, battery operated toys, power tools, and medical devices, to name just a few. These appliances substantially differ
in size and material composition, as well as in the average time
www.oekom.de/gaia | GAIA 20/1(2011): 41– 47
41_47_OswaldReller
14.03.2011
9:19 Uhr
Seite 43
43
they are being used by the consumer. The end of the useful life
of an electronic product marks the point at which the appliance
turns into waste. It is challenging to determine the exact life span
of a product type as it considerably depends on the product itself
(quality and durability), as well as behavioral tendencies and individual decisions of the consumer (secondhand vending, stockpiling, etc.).
Furthermore, the term “life span” is not defined consistently in literature. For consumer electronics, an average life span of
seven years is widely assumed. However, studies show that
1. the life span of different consumer electronics categories is
not consistent – i. e., some products are disposed of faster
than others –, and
2. the life span of appliances such as PCs is not constant over
time. Babbitt et al. (2009) discovered that over the period from
1985 to 2000, computer life span (defined as the time from
sale to end of use by the last user) decreased from an average
of 10.7 years in 1985 to 5.5 years in 2000. Not only are appliances replaced by the consumers; some product categories
such as MP3 players have practically become useless due to
the rollout of products with more advanced abilities such as
smart phones that integrate computing and telecommunication features.
Yet another trend that boosts the accumulation of electronic waste
is the integration of microelectronic components in appliances
that formerly did not carry a display or a microchip (for example,
car hi-fi systems, digital home appliances, and radio-frequency
identification tags). The volume of electronic components per appliance is often small, but the challenge lies in separating these
hidden components from the solid waste stream. Appliances that
are not perceived as electronics (for example, toys) are more likely to be disposed of into the solid waste bin by consumers.
Forecasts presume that e-waste arisings will grow between
2.5 and 2.7 percent annually in the EU 27, reaching about 12.3
million tons in 2020. Specifications and data on global quantities
FIGURE 2: In 2010, a survey conducted by the German Association for
Information Technology (BITKOM) revealed that the majority of consumers
either store or pass on their obsolete cell phones (BITKOM 2010b).
“Hibernating e-waste” in drawers and basements is difficult to quantify.
TABLE: Life cycle analysis of a computer shows that manufacturing – including raw material extraction and processing, components production, and PC
assembly – accounts for the majority of greenhouse gas emissions along the
entire life cycle (Apple 2010). In contrast, life cycle analysis of a washing machine shows that over 70 percent of the emissions occur within the use phase
(S.A.F.E. 2006).
life cycle impact (greenhouse gas emissions)(%)
production
transport
use
recycling
computer
washing machine
66
6
26,5
27
72,6
1
0,9
of e-waste are vague as material flows are hard to track once an
electronic or electrical device has become redundant. In the situation where redundant electrical or electronic items are still operational yet obsolete, they are often being stored by consumers
and remain as “hibernating e-waste” in drawers and basements
(figure 2). Kapur and Graedel (2006) claim that hibernating waste
is empirically difficult to quantify because the individual owner
decides whether to discard or retain a product.
A considerable amount of obsolete electronic equipment is
being sold and reused as secondhand equipment. This option
frequently includes refurbishing activities, which is particularly
popular for computer equipment. Some e-waste is being returned
to retailers or delivered to specialized waste collection points and
consequently being recycled. Small appliances in particular (ICT,
household appliances, etc.) are frequently disposed of in solid
waste containers. Some of this e-waste can be separated from the
solid waste conglomerate at the waste incineration plant; a part of
it, however, is incinerated and lost for recovery of recyclable content. As for Europe, a recent study by the United Nations University estimates that only around 30 percent of the total e-waste
arisings are being collected by the collection schemes implemented by the member states of the European Union. The study also
indicates that collection rates for appliances lighter than one kilogram are the lowest as compared to large appliances such as
refrigerators or mid-size appliances such as cathode ray tube
screens (Huisman et al. 2008).
The life cycle of electronic appliances includes extraction of
raw materials, component and product manufacturing, distribution, product use, and end-of-life management. In order to investigate and evaluate the environmental impacts along the entire
life cycle of products, a number of studies have conducted life
cycle analyses (LCA) of electronics. LCA evaluates material and
energy use from raw material extraction to manufacture, distribution, use and, ultimately, disposal. Assessing the “energy footprint” of a desktop computer, numerous investigations have found
that its production, particularly parts production, takes up most
of the energy used, as compared to the actual use phase (Choi et
al. 2006, O’Connell and Stutz 2010). According to Williams (2004),
life cycle energy use of a computer is dominated by production
counter to operation. This is different in many home appliances,
for example, so-called white goods such as refrigerators or washing machines, where the use phase takes up most of the energy
along the products’ life cycle (Steiner et al. 2010) (see table).
>
41_47_OswaldReller
44
14.03.2011
9:19 Uhr
Seite 44
The differences in life cycle impacts revealed by these studies underline the complexity of the electronic waste category.
Life cycle impacts have to be considered when assessing environmentally and economically optimal end-of-life options for different product types. While refurbishing and reuse of computers is
ecologically worth considering due to their comparatively large
energy footprint at production, the energy footprint of white goods
makes reuse a less favorable end-of-life option. Williams and Sasaki (2003) show that extending the life span of a PC by ten percent can reduce its life cycle impact by up to 8.6 percent, while
recycling a PC only saves 0.43 percent. Despite the substantial
differences in life cycle impacts, legislation in some countries and
regions addresses the e-waste stream as a whole with little differentiation in sustainable and environmentally benign end-of-life
options.
Given the environmental impact and economic value of ewaste, the European Union implemented the Directive on Waste
Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE Directive) in 2003 (EU
2003a). Other countries or regions such as Japan and California
have also enacted e-waste legislation since then. The WEEE Directive obliges the European member states to develop national
infrastructures for the collection and recycling of electronic waste.
The national schemes must provide possibilities for consumers
to return e-waste separately from other waste and free of charge.
The national implementation of the directive is different in each
European country, resulting in a variety of regulations and compliance schemes. The directive sets collection, recycling, and recovery targets for electronic waste across the European Union,
and embraces the principle of extended producer responsibility, which makes producers liable for end-of-life management of
their products.
By shifting the costs to the producers, the European Union
originally hoped to promote eco-design and encourage manufacturers to improve the recyclability of EEE. Over the years of implementation across the member states, the WEEE Directive received criticism from many stakeholders – producers, recyclers,
environmentalists, municipalities, etc. – involved with e-waste recycling. Many producers claim to be unable to keep up with the
paperwork and costs involved with the regulatory requirements.
As the WEEE Directive is implemented differently in each European country, manufacturers that sell their products all over Europe have to register with well over 15 different producer registration systems as well as recycling schemes, including the respective specific reporting requirements.
Recyclers claim that current system infrastructures do not
support efficient treatment with regard to resource conservation
and value recovery (see following section). The European WEEE
Directive is currently undergoing a recast process. It is likely that
the present e-waste collection aim of four kilograms per person
per year will be increased to a more ambitious collection target
that reflects the e-waste arisings – or quantity of products put on
the market, respectively – in the member states. Moreover, the
revision will presumably involve stricter rules to control export
of e-waste and reuse equipment.
Toxic Threat or Urban Mine?
The material composition of e-waste is heterogeneous and depends on the type of product. It also differs according to the year
of manufacture as substances such as chlorofluorocarbons in refrigerators are being phased out and new technologies are being
applied. Liquid crystal display (LCD), for instance, is replacing
cathode ray tube (CRT) technology. Many products contain well
over 30 substances, a mix of ferrous metals, glass, plastics, base
metals (copper, aluminum, etc.), toxic heavy metals (mercury,
lead, chromium, etc.), precious metals (gold, silver, platinum
group metals), and others.
ICT appliances in particular are considered “urban mines” as
they accumulate relatively high concentrations of precious metals and special technology metals such as cobalt, gallium, tantalum, or indium. Provided that the appliances enter appropriate
recycling processes, these materials can potentially be recovered.
By recycling one ton of scrap information technology (IT) appliances, over 300 grams of gold, silver, palladium, and other precious metals can be recovered (Moran 2006). The concentration
of gold in printed circuit boards amounts to around 250 grams
per ton in PCs and to 980 grams per ton in mobile phones, whereas the gold concentration in virgin ore usually does not exceed
ten grams per ton (Hagelüken and Buchert 2008). As the market
value of precious metals is significant, efficient recycling of ICT
scrap is profitable, i. e., the value of recovered material exceeds
recycling costs.
The amount of energy required for recycling metals is much
lower than for mining primary metals from ore. Producing one
ton of primary aluminum, for instance, requires 4,700 terajoules
per 100,000 tons, which is almost 20 times as much as the energy
needed to recycle the same quantity from scrap (240 terajoules
per 100,000 tons) (Grimes et al. 2008).
Recycling of e-waste is also frequently mentioned in the context of resource efficiency and finite mineral resources. Many
emerging technologies – for example, renewable energy, ICT, and
energy storage technologies – are applying so-called technology
metals such as gallium in solar panels, indium in liquid crystal
displays, or rare earths in automotive catalysts. Technology metals only occur in extremely small concentrations in the Earth’s
crust. In light of the growing importance of post-fossil energy
sources, continuous development of new ICT technologies, global population growth, and a rapidly growing middle class with
substantial purchasing power in countries like India and China,
demand for these materials is projected to increase substantially.
Not only is the geological availability an issue for many technology metals; most of them are byproducts of the mining of other
metals. Indium, for instance, is extracted from zinc ore, directly
linking indium production to zinc production. Moreover, mineral deposits of many technology metals are located in only a few
countries such as China or South Africa, posing additional risks
for import-dependent regions such as Europe. For most technology metals, substitutive materials either do not exist or compromise the functionality of the original material. In some cases,
41_47_OswaldReller
14.03.2011
9:19 Uhr
Seite 45
45
© Irina Oswald
substitutive materials are also considered
critical (see below), for example antimony
tin oxide as a substitute for indium tin oxide in liquid crystal technology.
A report issued by the European Commission in 2010 classifies antimony as one
of the 14 most critical raw materials for the
European Union, in addition to beryllium,
cobalt, fluorspar, gallium, germanium,
graphite, indium, magnesium, niobium,
platinum group metals, rare earths, tantalum, and tungsten (European Commission
2010).“Critical metals” are metals combining characteristics like predicted demand
growth, limited geological, technical, economic, and/or geopolitical availability, and
constrained possibilities in recycling and
substitution. E-waste holds a number of
these critical technology materials. This
further underlines that priority should be
given to increase collection rates and efficient recycling of end-of-life electronics.
Currently, however, well over 50 percent
of the e-waste arisings fail to enter the recycling chain, with collection amounts being below 30 percent for some product categories (see above). Every mobile phone,
computer, or DVD player ending up in a
waste incineration plant or in inefficient
recycling processes contributes to irretrievable dissipation of precious and critical
metals, making it virtually impossible to
recycle the substances into a closed loop
system (Reller et al. 2009).
Dissipation of precious and critical metals also occurs within the recycling process. This is particularly an issue for smallsized e-waste with a high recovery value FIGURE 3: Disassembly of a cathode ray tube (CRT) monitor. CRT glass contains significant amounts of
such as mobile phones or PCs. A recent lead and other hazardous substances and has to be recycled separately from the rest of the monitor.
study demonstrates that these appliances
need to be channeled into specialized recycling processes that Nigeria, there is little awareness for appropriate handling of eallow for efficient value recovery. If mobile phones and PCs are waste. Thus e-waste recycling operations often present dangershredded together with low-value scrap – i. e., appliances domi- ous working conditions in those countries. Mostly, obsolete EEE
nated by plastics, steel, etc. –, the majority of the material volume is being dismantled manually; environmental and health precaumay be recycled, but the majority of the (low volume) materials tions are either insufficient or not being taken at all. Toxic emissuch as gold or palladium that generate the value of the scrap are sions and contaminated ashes are being released into the air, soil,
lost (Chancerel et al. 2009).
and water, and pose severe threats to both human health and the
E-waste also contains numerous toxic substances such as local environment.
heavy metals or brominated flame retardants that can cause seAlthough the European Union has enacted legislation with the
vere damage to the environment and human health. In many Directive on Restriction of Hazardous Substances (EU 2003b) to elimcountries, for example the United States, the release of toxic sub- inate the use of hazardous chemicals such as lead, mercury, cadstances from discarded electronic devices by landfill leakages has mium, hexavalent chromium, and brominated flame retardants
become a major issue of concern (Jang and Townsend 2003). In in EEE, most appliances that are discarded today still contain sigdeveloping and emerging economies such as China, India, and nificant amounts of these substances.
>
41_47_OswaldReller
46
14.03.2011
9:19 Uhr
Seite 46
To account for the fact that e-waste contains toxic as well as
valuable substances, it is important to handle e-waste in a way
that avoids dissipation of valuable materials and exposure of toxins to the environment and to humans (figure 3). Unfortunately,
these two aspects frequently intertwine in developing and newly industrializing countries. In many African and Asian countries,
scrap appliances such as cathode ray tube televisions, monitors,
or refrigerators are harvested for valuable parts, for example, copper and aluminum cables, printed circuit boards, and pure metal fractions (tin, aluminum, copper, etc.). The remainder is being
landfilled in open spaces, which directly exposes hazardous substances (for example, lead in cathode ray tubes and polychlorinated biphenyls in plastics) to rivers, soil, and precipitation-induced
washout of toxins (see below).
Exporting E-Waste – Fighting the “Digital Divide”
or Poisoning the Poor?
According to the Basel Convention 2, a treaty that came into force
in 1992, international movements of hazardous waste, including
e-waste, are illegal. The convention has so far been the only approach to regulate e-waste movements world-wide. It specifically aimed to respond to the dramatic environmental and social issues resulting from exports of electronic waste from Europe and
the United States to developing countries and emerging economies. All the same, transnational movements of e-waste to countries such as Ghana, Nigeria, India, China, and Vietnam do exist
on a large scale. It is estimated that millions of redundant electrical and electronic devices per year are shipped to Asian and African countries from ports such as Rotterdam, Antwerp, Houston,
Portland, and Vancouver. In many cases containers have found
to be mislabeled in order to conceal the shipment of e-waste.
Containers often contain a mix of reusable equipment and scrap.
Export of reuse equipment is not illegal under the Basel Convention and yields significant revenue on the markets of cities such
as Lagos and Accra. Shipping a 40-foot container full of used electronics from the United States to an African port city costs an average of 5,000 US dollars. Since a used but functional Pentium
III computer fetches a price of 130 US dollars on the Nigerian
market, only 40 good computers equal the shipment cost of an
entire container. African importers have to purchase the container as a whole, so the leftover space is being filled up with less
valuable scrap (Schmidt 2006).
As branded reuse equipment can be sold at higher prices in
developing countries, secondhand trade is often much more financially profitable in developing countries than in the industrialized countries of origin. For instance, a secondhand notebook
costs 200 to 300 US dollars in Ghana. The demand for affordable
electronic equipment is large, resulting in growing domestic e-
2 Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes
and Their Disposal: www.basel.int/text/17Jun2010-conv-e.pdf.
waste quantities in Africa and Asia (Prakash and Manhart 2010).
Processing of e-waste in these countries often involves primitive
manual techniques such as open burning of wires to recover copper, cracking of monitors to remove copper chokes, desoldering
of printed circuit boards over coal fire grills, and chemical leaching of printed circuit boards to liberate precious metals. In many
cases, workers do not wear any protective equipment or clothing.
Men and women working in the informal recycling business are
constantly exposed to contaminated air and soil and toxic fumes.
However, the exposure to toxins originating from e-waste goes
even further than that: Inexpensive jewelry sold in the United
States, often imported from China, has been found to contain
significant amounts of lead, which has been proven to stem from
recycled circuit board solders (Weidenhamer and Clement 2007).
However, as opposed to recycling, collection of e-waste is relatively efficient in developing countries, with door-to-door collection
very common and general awareness for reusable material value
well established.
The controversy and complexity associated with e-waste also
pertains to international e-waste trade. Many non-governmental
organizations actively encourage the donation of cell phones and
other ICT equipment to developing countries. These activities
are founded on the widely accepted understanding that access to
communication technologies supports development, creates opportunities for local entrepreneurs, and promotes employment.
Many studies validate that economic growth accelerates as mobile phone penetration rates increase. Any discussion on international e-waste trade should consider the importance of access
to electronics, particularly ICT technologies, in developing countries, and the urgent need to raise awareness for safe handling
of e-waste. Furthermore, recycling infrastructures tailored to the
conditions in these countries need to be developed in collaboration with the existing informal sector engaged in e-waste recycling.
Conclusion
The preceding discussions underline that the context of the ewaste issue is diverse, which requires a more sophisticated argument than that of “rich countries dumping e-waste in poor countries” and “the performance of a recycling system depends on the
mass that is being recycled”. Low collection rates of e-waste are
a major concern. The question remains how to increase consumer willingness to dispose of obsolete appliances in a way that allows safe and efficient recycling processes.
There is a lack of strategies that aim at increasing collection
rates in industrialized countries, where the largest percentage of
the global e-waste arisings currently occur. Will economic incentives help solve the problem? Will disposal of electronics in solid
waste be fined? And can these measures help to increase collection rates, particularly of small-sized e-waste? There are different
strategies that have already been tested, for example, a depositrefund system for refrigerating appliances which was implemented in Austria in 1993 and existed until 2005. However, deposits
41_47_OswaldReller
14.03.2011
9:19 Uhr
Seite 47
seem to be unsuitable for EEE as its life span is much longer
than that of items such as beverage containers. The deposit policy in Austria revealed unmanageable administrative burdens.
Buyback or trade-in of obsolete appliances is also common among
retailers but is often driven by short-term profit making and not
likely to influence consumer behavior in the long term.
We argue that a sustainable and long-term change in consumer behavior cannot be accomplished exclusively by the implementation of incentivizing measures. To increase e-waste collection
rates in the long term, efforts need to be made with regard to education in order to help consumers understand that they play an
essential role within the life cycle of their cell phone or computer. There is currently little awareness among consumers for intricate issues such as technology metals in mobile phones, and
distant problems such as e-waste recycling in Africa. Raising consumer awareness for the e-waste problem may be a first step to
increase collection rates of obsolete electronic equipment and
contribute to a more sustainable global information and communication society.
References
Apple. 2010.15-inch MacBook Pro: Environmental report. http://images.apple.com/
environment/reports/docs/MacBook-Pro-15-inch-Environmental-Report_
April2010.pdf (accessed December 9, 2010).
Babbitt, C. W., R. Kahhat, E. Williams, G. A. Babbitt. 2009. Evolution of
product lifespan and implications for environmental assessment and
management: A case study of personal computers in higher education.
Environmental Science & Technology 43/13: 5106–5112.
BITKOM (Bundesverband Informationswirtschaft, Telekommunikation und
neue Medien e.V.). 2010a. 42 Millionen kaufen Hightech zu Weihnachten.
www.bitkom. org/de/markt_statistik/64086_66115.aspx
(accessed January 14, 2011).
BITKOM. 2010b. Die meisten Handy-Besitzer entsorgen Geräte umweltgerecht.
www.bitkom.org/de/presse/66442_62348.aspx
(accessed February 16, 2011).
Chancerel, P., C. E. M. Meskers, C. Hagelüken, V. S. Rotter. 2009. Assessment
of precious metal flows during preprocessing of waste electrical and
electronic equipment. Journal of Industrial Ecology 13/5: 791–810.
Choi, B.-C., H.-S. Shin, S.-Y. Lee, T. Hur. 2006. Life cycle assessment of a
personal computer and its effective recycling rate. International Journal
of Life Cycle Assessment 11/2: 122–128.
EU (European Union). 2003a. Directive 2002/96/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on waste electrical and electronic
equipment (WEEE). Official Journal of the European Union L 37: 24–38.
EU. 2003b. Directive 2002/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 27 January 2003 on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances
in electrical and electronic equipment. Official Journal of the European
Union L 37: 19–23.
European Commission. 2010. Critical raw materials for the EU. Report of the
ad-hoc working group on defining critical raw materials. Brussels: European
Commission, DG Enterprise and Industry.
Grimes, S., J. Donaldson, G. C. Gomez. 2008. Report on the environmental
benefits of recycling. London: Bureau of International Recycling (BIR).
Hagelüken, C., M. Buchert. 2008. The mine above ground – Opportunities
and challenges to recover scarce and valuable metals from EOL electronic
devices. Paper presented at the 7 th International Electronics Recycling
Congress. Salzburg, January 16–18.
Huisman, J., F. Magalini, R. Kuehr, C. Maurer. 2008. Review of Directive 2002/96
on waste electrical and electronic equipmen (WEEE). Bonn: United Nations
University.
Jang, Y.-C., T. G. Townsend. 2003. Leaching of lead from computer printed
wire boards and cathode ray tubes by municipal solid waste landfill
leachates. Environmental Science & Technology 37/20: 4778– 4784.
Kapur, A., T. E. Graedel. 2006. Copper mines above and below the ground.
Moran, S. 2006. Panning e-waste for gold. New York Times, May 17, 2006: 8.
O’Connell, S., M. Stutz. 2010. Product carbon footprint (PCF) assessment
of Dell laptop – Results and recommendations. Paper presented at the
2010 IEEE International Symposium on Sustainable Systems and Technology.
Washington, D. C., May 16–19.
Prakash, S., A. Manhart. 2010. Socio-economic assessment and feasibility study
on sustainable e-waste management in Ghana. Freiburg im Breisgau:
Öko-Institut e.V.
Reller, A., T. Bublies, T. Staudinger, I. Oswald, S. Meissner, M. Allen. 2009.
The mobile phone: Powerful communicator and potential metal
dissipator. GAIA 18/2: 127–135.
S.A.F.E. (Swiss Agency for Efficient Energy Use). 2006. Altgeräte – Ersetzen
oder reparieren? http://assets.wwf.ch/downloads/altergraete_flyer_a4_
printversion.pdf (accessed February 16, 2011).
Schluep, M. et al. 2009. Recycling – From e-waste to resources. Nairobi:
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
Schmidt, C. W. 2006. Unfair trade: E-waste in Africa. Environmental Health
Perspectives 114/4: 232–235.
Steiner, R., M. Faist Emmenegger, N. Jungbluth, R. Frischknecht. 2010.
Timely replacement of white goods – Investigation of modern appliances in
a LCA. www.esu-services.ch/fileadmin/download/Steiner-2005-Timely
Replacement.pdf (accessed January 14, 2011).
Terazono, A. et al. 2006. Current status and research on e-waste issues in
Asia. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management 8/1: 1–12.
Weidenhamer, J. D., M. L. Clement. 2007. Leaded electronic waste is a possible
source material for lead-contaminated jewelry. Chemosphere 69/7: 1111–1115.
Williams, E. 2004. Energy intensity of computer manufacturing: Hybrid
assessment combining process and economic input-output methods.
Williams, E. D., Y. Sasaki. 2003. Energy analysis of end-of-life options for
personal computers: Resell, upgrade, recycle. Paper presented at the
2003 IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment.
Boston, MA: May 19–23.
Submitted October 20, 2010; revised version
accepted February 9, 2011.
Irina Oswald
Born 1984 in Landshut, Germany. Studies in physical
geography. Research associate and PhD student at the
Chair of Resource Strategy of the University of Augsburg,
Germany. Research focus: recycling of e-waste,
recovery of metals, potentially critical metals, and
corporate performance metrics to assess end-of-life
product take-back and recycling programs.
Armin Reller
Born 1952 in Winterthur, Switzerland. Studies and
PhD in solid state chemistry. 1992 to 1998 professor for
applied chemistry at the University of Hamburg, Germany.
Since 1999 professor at the Chair of Solid State Chemistry,
chairman of the Environmental Science Center, and
since 2009, holder of the newly established Chair for Resource Strategy,
all at the University of Augsburg, Germany. 1988 to 2006 coordinator
of the programme Solar Chemistry/Hydrogen/Regenerative Energy Carriers
funded by the Swiss Federal Office of Energy, Berne, Switzerland. Editor-inChief of Progress in Solid State Chemistry. Member of GAIA’s Editorial Board.
47

E-Waste. A Story of Trashing, Trading and Valuable Resources

Transcription

Similar documents

Shaping Change - Sachverständigenrat für Umweltfragen

Survey of Switzerland`s 100 largest companies

Plan7 vom 2.6 bis 9.6 - Hamburger Morgenpost