
In what may be the least astonishing news of the day, some major US companies who say they are environmentally recycling electronic waste - aren't. Rather more startling -- they are dumping everything from cell phones and old computers to televisions in countries such as China and India where disposal practices are unsafe to people and dangerous to the environment. Controlling the exportation of all of the e-waste plops on the doorstep of the US Environmental Protection Agency which is doing a woeful job, according to a scathing 67-page report issued by the Government Accountability Office today.
US hazardous waste regulations have not deterred exports of potentially hazardous used electronics, primarily for the following reasons, the GAO stated:
The GAO went on to say recent surveys made on behalf of the United Nations found that used electronics exported from the United States to many Asian countries are dismantled under unsafe conditions, using methods like open-air incineration and acid baths to extract metals such as copper and gold. GAO observed thousands of requests for these items on e-commerce Web sites during a 3-month period--mostly from Asian countries such as China and India but also from some in Africa, the GAO stated.
Some US recyclers mix broken units with working units in shipments to Africa, and the nonworking units are often dumped and left for scavengers, the GAO said. Accepting such "junk" equipment is often part of the "arrangement" US recyclers make with African importers, according to a used computer importer in Senegal, the GAO said. Negotiating the amount of working versus broken equipment is routinely part of the agreement, and this importer told the GAO that even if he receives a shipment of up to 40% "junk," he can still make a profit. Often, the "junk" computers are dumped in the countryside and burned, he explained. In addition, in 2007, an official with the Basel Convention Regional Centre for Africa for Training and Technology Transfer noted, on the basis of his experience that a high proportion of the units that arrive in Nigeria are unusable, that used electronics are rarely tested for functionality before export to developing countries like those in Africa.
So what can be done? Perhaps little in the near term. The GAO said beyond actually enforcing the CRT rule, EPA should take steps to ensure that the larger universe of potentially harmful electronic devices--such as computers, printers, and cell phones--are exported in a manner that does not harm health or the environment. Among the options raised by GAO are:
For its part the EPA said in a six-page response the GAO report may not offer a "complete and balanced picture of the agency's electronic waste program." The agency said it does in fact enforce the CRT rule for example, and has 10 cases currently pending against offenders.
<!--stopindex-->
Layer 8 in a box
Check out these other hot stories:
FTC wants to clamp down on prepaid phone card deception
FBI going high-tech for mounting intelligence gathering role
FBI uses digital billboard network to fire warnings at criminal element
Researchers look to bury current air traffic control network
Complete Reporting?
If the targeted U.S. companies are explicitly soliciting foreign companies to illegally export and dispose of their waste items, then they should be appropriately and fully prosecuted. But is the whole story being told? It sounds like only half of the real story is being told here in the potential interest of sensationalism.
Are the foreign companies (and undercover agents) misrepresenting themselves to the U.S. companies as legal recyclers, providing assurances of legal transport and export compliance, and providing assurances that they conduct safe handling and disposal of the questionable items? If so, it is the foreign companies (and undercover agents) that are operating in a fraudulent and illegal manner.
Let's have some answers to these questions, in the interest of journalistic integrity, shall we? Or are potential half-truths sufficient to qualify for publication these days? I'm sure that the wide brush used in the wording and headline of this article are intended to paint all of the "U.S." and "U.S. Companies" universally as eco-unfriendly villains to further political agendas. I am positive that the indicated 10 cases of illegal disposal activities under investigation by the EPA do not represent the vast majority of U.S. companies, or what they are doing to do the right thing with their waste.