MLA paper & Annotated bibliography

Student 1

Jill Student

Professor Elliott-White

English 111-0011

31 March 2015

Banning E-waste

It is estimated that over 84 million broken or obsolete television, 200 million phones, and millions of computers and electronic devices sit collecting dust in homes, garages, attics, and basements (Infotrac Newsstands). Imagining a world in which no computers, cell phones, or televisions existed is not an easy task because the world has become fast paced complete with sophisticated electronic devices to match. Rapid technological innovations are rendering most electronic devices obsolete quicker than ever and creating a littered urban picture filled with the carcasses of the digital age called e-waste. E-waste is a generic term covering a variety of electronic devices that are nearing their end of life cycle and are discarded, donated, or given up to be recycled and is classified as the fastest growing part of global waste streams. The Environmental Protection Agency, or the EPA, estimates that the United States produces about 2.37 million tons of e-waste annually of which only about 25% of that is recovered with the remainder finding their final resting place in landfills. When considering the imminent danger of e-waste, there is a clear need to ban the flow of e-waste exports from the United States to developing nations due to the importance of ensuring that e-waste exports do not threaten national security, the strategic interest in recovering valuable materials, and the toll that it is taking on human health and the environment.

With the advancements in technology, also comes the advancements in counterfeit techniques which creates a potential for threats against national security. Counterfeit chips have been discovered not only in military equipment, but also government entities, that were refurbished from old e-waste and then sold to the United States. The counterfeit technology now has the potential to cause equipment failure and malfunction (Olds). Not only is it costly to remove malware, but also the man hours needed to remove any affected devices can be time consuming and expensive. In addition to counterfeit chips, there is evidence of fake routers being sold to all branches of the military, again in the form of refurbished and recycled e-waste components, which not only puts the government at risk but also the military (Olds). Secret information within the government and military could be at threat for espionage due to the fake routers which could then be accessed and exploited. There are multiple reports that state the majority of fake materials stem from plants located in China, specifically Guiyu which is a leading e-waste recycling plant (Olds). With a ban on e-waste exports, potential foreign enemies wouldn’t have access to government and military electronic devices that may not have been wiped cleaned before being discarded because the devices would all be recycled and refurbished within the national borders thus significantly decreasing the threat of outside adversaries gaining access to private and secure documents.

Though disposed electronics are classified as waste, they are a source of precious and rare earth metals, which is why a ban on e-waste exports would allow the United States to recover the valuable materials within its own borders consequently becoming less dependent on foreign suppliers for materials and minerals. The United States does not currently have the rare earth metal supply to meet the growing demands of producing new devices therefore if those materials were harvested from national e-waste products, as opposed to being imported from foreign countries, than all the revenue generated from the materials collected would be profit. Electronic devices are complex and consist of thousands of different components such as arsenic, copper, lead, mercury, zinc, and nickel with the average pile of e-waste containing about 60% metal (Alcorn, Clarke, Smith, Thomas, Debaise). The EPA says that for every one million recycled phones that 35,000 pounds of copper, 772 pounds of silver, and 75 pounds of gold are recovered and on average retails for 45-58 cents per pound equaling an average of one million dollars in revenue annually. The potential to make profit is there however current practices do not recover most elements and rare earth metals. With higher demand, the development of new strategies would rise, state of the art recycling facilities would be designed, and growth in the effectiveness of procedures would occur improving procurement rates. Creating more effective practices would mean more metals being recovered and generating even more revenue.

E-waste is a very complex, non-biodegradable, toxic mashup of different parts and substances that include plastics, metals, glass, organic and inorganic compounds that are highly dangerous pollutants when haphazard recycling techniques occur presenting serious health and environmental risks. Current recycling techniques frequently include open air burning and acid baths in which working conditions are unregulated, unlike the same environmental laws demanded of developed nations like the United States. These techniques cause irreparable damages to human health and also the environment (Benge). Open air burning generates toxic pollution because the plastic components are treated with a flame retardant that undergoes a chemical transformation, creating noxious fumes that not only affect the workers tending the burning piles, which are tended by children, but also affects villagers in surrounding towns that suffer from chest related diseases caused by breathing in toxic laden air (Information Today, Sullivan). Workers are unskilled, poorly paid and work in conditions that range from unsafe to lethal due to the fact that they are regularly exposed to toxic chemicals and components without proper protective gear.

In addition to poor working conditions, e-waste recycling sites are prone to leaking which leads to the leaching of heavy metals and toxins into the soil contaminating the soil and water supplies of the plants and surrounding villages (Sullivan). Soil erosion, deforestation, water and air pollution are all common repercussions stemming from improper recycling techniques further supported by reports that state lead levels in Guiyu, China soil have been found 2,400 times higher than the WHO states as acceptable and 80% of the children of Guiyu have also been found to have elevated blood lead levels (Olds, Sullivan). A ban of e-waste export would maintain that e-waste would be recycled in accordance to environmental laws regulating how e-waste is recycled. The United States also has OSHA that protects American workers from toxic and harmful situations, something that is not found in developing nations. With strict regulations, and laws protecting American workers and their health, the environment would be less at risk for irreversible damages.

A common argument for not banning e-waste export is that the United States also lacks the infrastructure to properly recycle e-waste however it does have the technology, manpower, money, space and resources to create the required infrastructure while creating a variety of jobs in the process. The new plants would be state of the art recycling facilities, taking advantage of all recent advancements in e-waste recycling techniques, and creating facilities that are the most efficient at obtaining valuable materials. In contrast, the developing nations also seriously lack the infrastructure to handle the high volumes of e-waste while efficiently recovering materials in a safe, non-toxic manner. The amount of e-waste produced by developing nations is expected to increase dramatically with figures saying that developing nations would have double the number of obsolete computers compared to developed nations like the United States (Olds). Eric Williams, a professor at the University of Arizona corroborates those findings saying that as early as 2016 the developing nations will start to generate more e-waste with 400-700 million units by 2025 in which the numbers do not represent imported e-waste. Import countries like China, already have bans in place that prevent importing e-waste which creates even fewer options for developed nations to export e-waste too, so instead of waiting for the problem to escalate, the United States should spear head the innovation now, create a job market nationally while building state of the art facilities capable of safely recycling e-waste and collecting the most amount of materials possible so that an export ban would be a very feasible idea.

The e-waste problem is not helped by the fact the general public remains largely unaware of the repercussions that stem from improper disposal of unwanted electronic devices. Not only educating the general public on options, but also making e-waste recycling mandatory, will aide in helping effectively reduce the amount of e-waste discarded carelessly.

The United States is a major contributor to the global e-waste flows, thus national legislation should be put in place to ban the country’s exports to developing nations in an effort to generate more revenue by harvesting precious metals and materials creating less dependence on foreign dignitaries to supply the national demand. National security is not to be taken lightly and in the interest of protecting the public from foreign adversaries, recycling e-waste within the national borders would cut down on the threat of accidentally exposing information within the government, or military. In considering passing a ban on exported materials, the impact of improper, and poorly monitored, recycling techniques in overseas plants should be taken into consideration. With developing countries lacking the infrastructure to properly disassemble e-waste now, the expected growth within those borders will only cause more harm than good. The techniques now only include the imports from other countries and does not take into consideration the expected growth that will happen soon for them within their borders. The United States is far better equipped to handle the growth by already having the land available, the money to create new facilities, and would also aid in creating a plethora of new jobs all over. By creating a mandatory recycling plan for the general public, it would help to recall more e-waste from across the nation, thus creating a constant cycle and generating revenue across the board.

Works Cited

Benge, Raymond D., Jr. "Electronic Waste." Salem Press Encyclopedia (2013): Research Starters. Web. 4 Feb. 2015.

DeBaise, Collen. "Finding Rewards, Financial and Spiritual, in E-Waste." The New York Times. N.p., 16 Jan. 2014. Web. 4 Feb. 2015.

"EPA." Cleaning Up Electronic Waste (E-Waste). N.p., 27 Oct. 2014. Web. 05 Feb. 2015.

Griffin, Donovan. "Electronic waste hazards." Information Today 2014: 1. Academic OneFile.

How E-Waste Is Becoming A Big, Global Problem. n.p.: National Public Radio, 2013. Science In Context. Web. 5 Mar. 2015.

"State e-waste Disposal Bans Have Been Largely Ineffective." Targeted News Service (TNS) 2013: InfoTrac Newsstand. Web. 3 Mar. 2015.

Sullivan, Jack. "Trash or Treasure: Global Trade and the Accumulation of E-Waste in Lagos, Nigeria." Africa Today 2014: 89. JSTOR Journals. Web. 4 Feb. 2015.

Townsend, Timothy G. "Environmental Issues And Management Strategies For Waste Electronic And Electrical Equipment." Journal Of The Air & Waste Management Association (1995) 61.6 (2011): 587-610. MEDLINE. Web. 8 Mar. 2015.

Ursery, Stephen. "E-Waste Bills On Capitol Hill." Waste Age 42.7 (2011): 12. Associates Programs Source. Web. 5 Mar. 2015.

Williams, Eric. "3 Reasons Why a Ban on E-waste Exports Is Wrong: DNews." DNews. N.p., 11 Mar. 2013. Web. 03 Mar. 2015.

"WM, Alcoa back e-waste export ban bill." Waste & Recycling News 2012: General Reference Center Gold. Web. 5 Mar. 2015.