Administration Launches Jobs Killing E-Waste Initiative
Posted July 21, 2011 in Curbing Pollution, Green Enterprise, Living Sustainably, U.S. Law and Policy
It is well known that recycling produces more jobs than any other form of waste management. Indeed, recycling is among the most productive of green jobs producers. Moreover, the environmental benefits of responsible recycling are well documented, especially when it comes to preventing the wholesale dumping of toxic electronic wastes into the developing world.
So why did the White House Interagency Task Force on Electronics Stewardship issue a report this week that supports those irresponsible companies which are exporting electronic waste to the developing world, undermining the chance to produce e-waste recycling jobs here in the United States and perpetuating the export to vulnerable developing nations of unprocessed toxic electronic waste?
Legislation to prevent the export to vulnerable developing nations of unprocessed toxic electronic waste is urgently needed. Such a bill, the Responsible Electronics Recycling Act, is now garnering support in both houses of Congress. But in a political environment in Congress where even the full faith and credit of the U.S. Treasury is being put at risk, where proposals to emasculate the EPA are running rampant, we cannot assume that such legislation will be enacted soon by both chambers of Congress and signed into law by the President.
It is in this context that we must assess the counterproductive recommendations on e-waste export contained in a long-awaited report issued yesterday by the White House Interagency Task Force on Electronics Stewardship, a Task Force comprised of representatives from the U.S. EPA, the White House Council on Environmental Quality, and the General Services Administration.
The export of unprocessed electronic wastes is the number one environmental problem plaguing e-waste management in the United States. Unfortunately, as documented in an Emmy-Award winning feature on 60 Minutes, many so-called recyclers lead unsuspecting businesses to believe they are recycling e-waste domestically, but they are in fact exporting the toxic waste to the developing world, where it is ripped apart, burned, mixed with acids and otherwise horrifically mismanaged, destroying water supplies, ruining the landscapes, polluting the air, and subjecting some of the most already burdened populations on Earth to medieval health risks and, ultimately, greater economic hardship.
The White House Interagency Task Force on Electronics Stewardship report could have and should have helped lead the United States e-waste market away from a reliance on e-waste exports. As of 2005 seventy-four percent of used electronics in the United States were exported and as the electronic waste stream has grown since then, there is no reason to presume that percentage of e-waste exports from the U.S. has gone down. The Task Force is certainly not unaware of this fact and its report states:
“Used electronics in developing countries, which include exports from the U.S. and other developed countries…are causing negative health and environmental effects…The Task Force has serious concerns about unsafe handling of used electronics, especially discarded electronics…in developing countries, that results in harm to human health and the environment. For example, there are problems with open-air burning and acid baths being used to recover valuable materials from electronic components, which expose workers to harmful substances. There are also problems with toxic materials leaching into the environment due to improper disposal of e-waste in developing countries.”
The logical response to address these environmental and public health threats in the developing world would have been for the General Services Administration to announce that it will not use any recycler that cannot certify conclusively that it does not export any unprocessed e-waste. Unfortunately, the GSA, a member of the Task Force, did not do so.
To the contrary, the Task Force actually provides cover to those who are exporting electronic waste with the lofty sounding rhetoric that it will “provide technical assistance and establish partnerships with developing countries to better manage used electronics.” Oh, really? So now the United States is going to invest in China’s recycling industry, or India's, or other developing nations like Ghana's, to bring them up to 21st century standards? The U.S. Congress is cutting health care funding for seniors, cutting funds for school lunch programs for poor children, and promoting laws that make it harder, not easier to promote environmental responsibility whether it involves blowing up Appalachian mountains for coal or addressing the U.S. contribution to global climate disruption. How likely is it that we will invest resources to enhance recycling facilities abroad, and should we even be doing that?
As a member of the White House Interagency Task Force, the General Services Administration failed to proclaim that it will not rely on any recycler who cannot assure that none of the e-waste it is handling is being exported. Instead, it said it will assure that it works with “certified recyclers.” But the fact remains that the inferior R2 certification program, one of the only two certification programs in use, allows for e-waste to be exported to developing nations. Only the E-Stewards certification program assures that unprocessed e-waste will not be exported, and only the E-Stewards certification program comports with international laws against e-waste dumping. And the GSA has not committed to use only E-Steward certified recyclers, and it has not said it will assure that no electronic wastes produced by the U.S. government are exported.
Clearly, special interest pressure got to the Task Force. The same type of special interest pressure that is now attacking the EPA for regulating air pollutants, for regulating water pollution, for regulating greenhouse gases, for regulating mountaintop removal coal mining, has been putting pressure on the White House to prevent the proper regulation of e-waste.
In an economic climate where jobs production is paramount, the Task Force report will result in not one new e-waste recycling job being produced. To the contrary, I have already been told by an E-Steward certified e-waste processor that they may dismantle the equipment and have to lay off the workers they’ve substantially invested in because processing e-waste domestically in an ecologically responsible way is at a significant disadvantage competing with the economics of dumping wastes abroad.
To their credit, many business and municipalities are taking a more responsible approach than the Interagency Task Force and are seeking out those e-waste processors that are E-Stewards. The Broadway Green Alliance, a consortium of all forty Broadway theaters and almost 200 touring productions is a notable and high minded responsible example. So are many professional sports teams concerned about engendering environmental liabilities.
With the failure of the White House InteragencyTask Force to responsibly address the issue of e-waste exports, the obligation now shifts to the private sector. What all municipalities, businesses and all generators of e-waste must take away from the Task Force report is that they need to act on their own to assure that their used electronic wastes gets recycled domestically for both economic and public health reasons.
However, the single largest generator of electronic wastes in the United States, indeed, the largest generator of e-waste in the world, is the federal government itself, and it must lead by example and it should have assured us that all of its e-waste would henceforth be recycled domestically as well. Unfortunately, it did not.
Join the Conversation
Comment on this post:
All pertinent comments offered in the spirit of civil conversation are welcome! Off-topic comments, commercial spam, obscenity and other rude behavior are not, and will be removed. We are also required to remove any express or implied statement endorsing or opposing any political party or candidate for political office. Valid email addresses are required. (NRDC respects your privacy; we will not use, lend, or sell your email address for any reason.)
Comments (Add yours)
Neil Peters-Michaud — Jul 22 2011 09:15 AM
While the proposals from the Task Force are not everything the environmental community hoped for, I wouldn't want to dismiss the progress made with this announcement, and also the responsibility for all of us to hold the government accountable to its established plan.
First of all, I strongly support the e-Stewards certification program, and my IT Asset Disposition company has been certified to this standard. It is important to recognize that US EPA made it clear that they have no preference of R2 over e-Stewards through this announcement, which is significant given their past involvement in the funding and facilitation of R2 development activities. That at least raises the bar over the status quo.
Also, GSA was questioned during the conference call announcement on 7/20 about whether they will require certified recyclers to process their equipment throughout its disposition process. The federal government disposes of significant volumes of surplus computers through its Computers for Learning donation program and GSAXcess surplus property disposal program. While these programs can provide great benefits to recipients of surplus property and generate some income for the federal government, they also allow the government to wash its hands of responsibility for the final recycling and disposition of the equipment when the recipient/buyer no longer wants it. What I heard during the call was that the GSA would re-write its contracts and update its disposal practices to ensure its hardware is properly recycled no matter who is the final user. I’m not sure how they expect to do this, but we must hold them accountable to this commitment.
On the issue of the US government funding overseas e-waste recycling processes . . . I have personally been involved in the development of sustainable e-waste refurbishing and demanufacturing processing in Ethiopia over the past four years in partnership with the Ethiopian government, World Bank, the International Business Leaders Forum and well respected environmental organizations. The center was visited in February, 2011 by EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, who offered the EPA’s commitment to fund the completion of the center and continued technical support. (See YouTube video about this project: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGN8-S4_nFU).
I do not agree with Mr. Hershkowitz that by providing a minimal amount of funding in overseas responsible recycling, we are creating an unfettered open channel for cheap US exports of e-waste to developing countries. The purpose of this program in Ethiopia is to develop domestic capacity for responsible recycling within its border for the e-waste it generates from the use of computers in its country. It will also help to manage the end of life of used electronics shipped into the country. Why should the US help with this funding when we have a budget crisis at home? Because our lack of export restrictions over the years has led to us contributing to the problem of e-waste being dumped abroad. (Plus, these investments are infinitesimal compared to any other Washington spending.) Just as we must take responsibility for domestic e-waste processing in the US and must prevent further toxic exports, we must also clean up the mess we’ve made abroad. Wouldn’t that be novel for our country to do and perhaps go a long way to building bridges with the world?
The government made some good commitments in this Task Force report. They also seem to express a positive momentum to improve over the status quo. I fear that a strong backlash against these efforts may erode the opportunity to work together, or to give us the chance to help set the framework for positive solutions on this front.
Melissa Merz — Jul 22 2011 04:23 PM
The Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries (ISRI) released the statement below in response to the Obama Administration's announcement of its National Strategy for Electronics Stewardship and applauds the US EPA, GSA, CEQ and intergency task force for its work.
Electronics recycling in the United States is a vibrant segment of the U.S. scrap recycling industry and employed more than 30,000 men and women in 2010.
We agree with Mr. Hershkowitz that recycling creates and supports green jobs -- right now, more than 130,000 in the United States. We also agree that recycling helps protect the environment, saves energy and conserves natural resources.
We do not agree that recycling is a form of "waste management."
The bottom line is that scrap is not waste and recycling is not disposal.
Please see our statement below. We welcome this important debate.
Regards, Melissa Merz, ISRI, melissamerz@isri.org
ISRI Lauds Obama Administration on Common-Sense Steps to Shut Down Bad Actors in International Recycling of Electronics, Dismissing Calls to Ban Exports
Washington, D.C. – The Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc. (ISRI) today (July 20, 2011) lauded the Obama Administration for taking concrete, practical steps to address how the U.S. government will manage its used and end-of-life electronics while refuting an effort to ban such legitimate international trade, a move that would deliver a serious blow to the vibrant U.S. scrap recycling industry.
ISRI President Robin Wiener said that the Administration’s announcement closely mirrored ISRI’s position for stepped up enforcement of the federal CRT rule to stop illegal exports, increased third-party certifications of responsible recyclers and continued exchange of U.S. technology and best practices to help strengthen the environmentally responsible processing of electronics globally.
ISRI is a strong supporter and a stakeholder in the R2, R2/RIOS™ and RIOS™ standards. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa Jackson today embraced R2 as one of the standards increasingly used by the industry to ensure that electronics are recycled in a manner that is safe for both human health and the environment.
Additionally, in making today’s announcement, federal officials acknowledged the importance of Design for Recycling™, a program ISRI has been promoting for more than 25 years as way to promote the design and manufacture of goods that, at the end of their useful life, can be recycled safely and efficiently to the maximum extent possible.
Jackson, General Services Administration (GSA) Administrator Martha Johnson and White House Council on Environmental Quality Chair Nancy Sutley announced the new policy during a news conference at Round2 Recycling’s facility in Austin, Texas. Round 2 Recycling is an ISRI member and certified to the Responsible Recycling (R2) standards which ISRI helped develop.
“Our federal government is the largest source of used and end-of-life electronics. It is encouraging to see that the government is taking a strong position on the responsible management of these materials,” Wiener said. “Even more, we are encouraged by the Obama Administration's flat dismissal of burdensome and overreaching legislation that would ban exports and pull the rug out from under an industry that continues to create jobs and contribute to both the U.S. and global economy. Today’s announcement includes practical, effective steps that actually address bad actors instead of shutting down an industry.”
Today’s announcement by Obama Administration officials and industry leaders shows that the sustainable path forward in ensuring the proper handling of electronics is to promote the safe and responsible recycling of electronics at home and abroad–in direct contrast to the approach taken in legislation (HR 2284/S1270) recently introduced in Congress.
According to the 2011 Electronics Recycling Industry Survey, the U.S. electronics recycling industry continues to show tremendous growth and strong domestic capacity. The $5 billion-a-year industry employs more than 30,000 full-time workers in the United States and collected and processed over 3.5 million tons of used and end-of-life electronics equipment in 2010, up from 1.8 million tons in 2009.
###
Jim Moltion — Jul 22 2011 05:07 PM
Ok.. Now for some real reality! Manufacturers are not equipped to handle this stuff, they do not have and no not desire to have any knowledge of how to deal with ewaste. They would have to set up demanufacturing lines and tool for every product and model made for the last 15 years or more Hire and train workers to do proper salvage and set up a whole new administration group just to handle this stuff. This not going to happen, they will look for the quickest and easiest way to get it off their hands and fast! Can we say China and Africa? How about other third world countries? What no one is taking on account is that we, the USA are shipping megatons of precious metals and obsolete parts out of our economy and country daily for pennies a pound. Today a ton (2000 pounds) of circuit boards have an intrinsic worth of over $30,000.
What company is voluntarily going to do this? It’s pie in the sky at best.
Perhaps the biggest announcement of the day was the recommendation that the government support ratification of the Basel Convention. If it moves forward, the move would be a boon for those who advocate for tighter controls on the international movement of electronic scrap. More broadly, the policy also lends the official support of the government to both the R2 and e-Stewards standards, and to other accredited, regularly-audited certification programs for electronics recycling. Under this new policy, the EPA will increase its efforts to encourage companies to become certified. Additionally, it opens the door to possible regulatory changes to improve compliance with the CRT Rule and other export regulations.
This whole thing is a boondoggle and those who think it is more than it is are truly outwitted. This stuff is still going to be shipped overseas, unscrupulous recyclers will still benefit for their quest for Immediate Satisfaction, better known as fast bucks and screw everyone else. These people who are making the laws and do not know first or second hand what they are talking about. Sure they will get wined and dined by the “big recyclers” who spread wool over their eyes and make the lawmakers “feel good”. If all things worked like they should, our country would not be at war, in debt, high poverty rates and so on. It just does not work folks, and more over anyone with common sense knows it.
Jim Moltion
Northeast Surplus & Materials, LLC
440 Shonnard St.
Syracuse, NY 13204
315-476-4025
sbbn@aol.com
www.northeastrecycle.com
Barbara Kyle, Electronics TakeBack Coalition — Jul 22 2011 06:10 PM
There were some good things in this report, and it represents an improvement in that the Administration is encouraging use of certification programs. But a slight improvement is not the same as actually "leading by example," a clear goal of this effort. Instead, the federal government is far behind the companies that are actually leading here - Dell, HP, Apple, Best Buy, and others who have strong policies not to export their untested, non working e-waste to developing nations. When we export most of this e-waste we are exporting jobs along with it.
We don't oppose the project that the EPA is doing as referenced by Neil Peters-Michaud above to fix the mess we've made in other countries, but we shouldn't use that as an excuse to send more there. Yet the Task Force report says the "US will seek opportunities to promote environmentally sound exports." That's a seriously flawed concept, because these are products with highly toxic chemicals, that need to be managed in countries with strong environmental and worker protection laws with strong enforcement - something that simply doesn't exist in developing nations.
James Puckett — Jul 22 2011 06:56 PM
Sadly, what Allen Hershkowitz states is spot on. It is a fact that true recyclers as opposed to global scrap dealers, and those that care about international law and environmental justice as well as responsible recovery of critical metals resources, were all undermined by the Task Force's stated export recommendations.
Those who have looked will note that nowhere in the task force report nor in the ISRI scrap dealers association press statement above, is there one mention of the fact that the massive flows of electronic waste flooding from our borders are in fact criminal traffic under international law. You would think those that trade in waste would care about abiding by international laws governing such trade. And you would think the Obama Administration would care about that.
So too, you would think that the Obama Administration would say something about ratifying the Basel Ban Amendment if they are going to mention ratifying the Basel Convention. The Convention without the amendments, is kind of like the Constitution without the Bill of Rights. The Ban Amendment which has already been implemented by most of the developed countries of the world, prohibits the export of all forms of hazardous wastes moving from developed to developing countries. Ratifying the Convention alone actually legalizes more waste dumping by the US.
Currently major industry players such as Dell, HP, Best Buy, Apple and Samsung are way ahead of the government when it comes to preventing global toxic dumping. The task force approach on the other hand seeks to throw a bandaid on the unfortunate recipients of our toxic waste rather then prevent its delivery. It is tantamount to continuing to allow the burning down of our global neighbor’s houses and offering them a fire extinguisher as a remedy.
Meanwhile the recyclers that wish to do the right thing and are certified to do so – the e-Stewards Recyclers, are forced to operate on an uneven playing field while good American jobs are swept out the door along with our toxic trash.
A true remedy rests with the Responsible Electronics Recycling Act (http://www.electronicstakeback.com/wp-content/uploads/GREETX_028_June-6-2011.pdf). This is a bipartisan bill supported by environmental groups and responsible industry – not global scrap dealers. It deserves our unqualified support.
Jim Puckett, Basel Action Network
Andrew Willner — Jul 23 2011 12:42 PM
I agree with Allen Hershkowitz. I too am deeply troubled by the report issued by the White House Interagency Task Force on Electronics Stewardship. I feel that this is a huge missed opportunity for the Administration to “do the right thing” on electronic recycling particularly when it did not require Congressional approval, as the Responsible Electronic Recycling Act would.
A positive report supporting responsible private sector electronics recyclers would have gone a long way to rectify the missed opportunity to ratify the Basel Convention as the rest of the world has, and joining most of the developed countries that have enacted the Basel ban. It appears to me that the report’s findings make it clear that loop holes will not be closed. Loop holes that that allow exporters to claim the non-working electronic junk they are exporting is not waste but working equipment for resale without any required verification.
The White House Interagency Task Force report is in stark contrast to the promises the President has made to ban exports of electronic waste. The Task Force’s strategy caters to unscrupulous exporters who exacerbate the economic and environmental tragedy of un-supervised and opaque practices of so called “e-recycling” activities in places like China, Nigeria, Iraq, India and, Vietnam.
The Task Force’s strategy will continue to allow the externalizing of the costs of irresponsible companies that export non-working used electronic waste to the slums and riversides of the developing world – countries that lack the national infrastructure, environmental laws, enforcement, regulations, tort law, toxic waste management, training and medical and other social safety nets. These wastes will continue to be smashed and burned in open pits in order to retrieve the gold, copper, and other precious metals producing harmful air and water pollution and sickness, by local men women and children who are struggling to survive.
The miracle machines that educate and entertain us make staggering profits for the manufacturers and accelerate the cycle of production and obsolescence. The resulting high tech runoff is flooding the world and most consumers are uninformed and fooled into thinking that taking it to the recycling yard means it is “going away.” Unfortunately “away” is likely poor communities in Africa and Asia where the waste is hammered apart, burned, or acid bathed in order to extract the valuable metals.
Responsible electronics recyclers like those who comply with the e-Stewards standards are put at an astounding disadvantage by the Administration’s strategy. I believe it is reasonable that they might have to take a realistic look at the future of their businesses and training and hiring new employees. The private sector cannot be expected to take on the entire burden of e-recycling without at least the tacit cooperation and encouragement through well thought out and responsible government policy.
While I understand the political complexities in trying to get any environmental and safety legislation through a hostile House of Representatives, I do not understand why the Task Force apparently gave into special interest pressure when there was no “political down side.”
If I differ with Allen Hershkowitz’s Blog in any respect it is that I feel even more strongly that at a minimum there must be an explicit and affirmative policy that the GSA mandate that the federal government, the largest generator of electronic waste lead by example and assure that all of its e-waste be recycled domestically with e-Steward recyclers.
Andrew Willner
Jennifer Sellers — Jul 24 2011 07:51 AM
No one should wait for the federal government to create a bill or policy about exporting e-waste. It should be the responsibility of states, local governments and consumers for learning what is going on with e-waste exports. If any some of them knew that the computer or tv they dropped off at any event or goes to a well-known manufacturer for recycling, gets dumped in Guiyu, China, I bet those people wouldn't have dropped it off. We have to be responsible for our own waste and practice due-diligence, if we left everything up to government, where would we be? South Carolina passed e-waste legislation and signed a recycling company in to a state contract, all counties, municipalities, and universities have to use them and they are certified in the Basel Action Network's e-Steward program. The next step is education for the people, glad I work at a university!
Alan Amzek — Jul 24 2011 05:41 PM
So if ISRI issues a statement on the administration's action, it's a press release. But if BAN releases a statement, it's God's truth. Nevermind the fact that BAN reaps tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in licensing fees from its e-stewards program which is dependent upon a narrow definition of the e-waste trade that the Basel Secretariat itself has rejected. And nevermind that BAN is supported by organizations - Apple, HP, Dell - that have a financial interest in cutting off the trade of legitimate used electronics to the developing world. What BAN says about e-waste is truth; and what everyone else says is financially self-motivated. Brilliant!
Jim Puckett — Jul 25 2011 03:39 PM
Dear Alan: ISRI's statement above was a press release. That does not make it better or worse than any other statement. More important is your misinformation that the Basel Secretariat takes any particular position. This they are not allowed to do so I do not know what you are referring to. The Secretariat, serves the Parties and the Party positions on e-waste trade are clearly that it falls within the Basel Convention. There have been some "gray" areas (exports for repair) that are currently being resolved. The resolution of these are in favor of more control not less. The problem is that the trade for repair, while perpetuating reuse, which is generally a good thing, at the same time, can involve sending hazardous non-functional parts, or parts that will be thrown away as part of the repair process -- ending up swamping developing countries with toxic waste and that is not a good thing and illegal.
Sincerely, Jim Puckett
Igor Plahuta — Aug 13 2011 03:00 AM
In the US e-waste regulations, where until now only 23 states are updated, the e-waste isn't even properly identified. If every state would follow the actual regulations, still 50-60% of e-waste would be dumped into landfills or in incineration. E-waste ins't only computers/TV's, Monitors, fridges........I would like to underline a very important message above: Exporting e-waste is export of jobs. Dumping unidentified e-waste is dumping jobs. The possibilities in creating jobs in here are still not identified properly because of missing overview. The only way out of the mess is possible once the people have an understanding of the nature of energetic/holistic status of a country/state/county/town in this context. Selling goods/services minus buying goods to do so minus internal cost creates the result positiv or negativ. In this system you have resources (natural resources, know how, man power, ect.) and you have a cost structure (unemployment, energy consumption, resource dumping, longterm remediation costs, health care, ect.) So its obviously clever to stop dumping, to create jobs, to educate people handling it, to create a knowledge base, to EXPORT THE KNOWLEDGE/TECHNOLOGY handling the problems abroad, having successfully solved the once at home. Recycling creates: Jobs, Know How, employment, energy efficiency, natural resources and avoid future remediation/health care costs. It was an US Citizen who already told this story in 1983: Turning Point, Fritjof Capra.
paul rudnick — Dec 14 2011 12:40 PM
All, there is a fundamental problem that underlays the ewaste issue. There is no technology or methodology for how this material is processed to sequester the bromine, and other toxic materials and to recover the precious metals to pay for the processing. While a billion dollars of precious metals go into landfill annually from ewaste, the cost to recover this by direct labor is too great to make it economically feasible. While we have this technology in alpha phase, no one is interested in funding. That is, all talk, no walk. So the cycle is repeated, let's regulate, the recyclers and collectors join committees and wring their hands, the export continues. There is no government or private funding to actually solve the problem to motivate the industry to make money and, then process the material here. Just my two cents...