Celebrated since 1997, America Recycle’s Day is about educating the public about how and what to recycle, while encouraging people to do so as part of their daily routine.  When most people take part in America Recycles Day events, they focus on the typical items you might place in the nearest blue bin or on the curb for weekly collection–paper, plastics, aluminum cans, etc. However, if you’re reading this blog, you already know that it’s just as important to consider recycling or reusing electronics when they are no longer of use to you.

So take the opportunity today to educate yourself, friends, family and colleagues about how you can responsibly dispose of your electronic devices. Visit the KAB website, and use the recycling location tool available there through KAB’s partnership with Earth911 to find electronics recycling locations in your community.  Just type “electronics” into the “What?” field (or a specific type of item, such as “television” or “batteries”) and then enter you zip code into the “Where?” field to call up a list of area businesses or organizations that accept such items for proper recycling.

Also, read the SEI fact sheet on Electronics Take-Back and Donation Programs to learn other options if there are not local resources available to you, or if you’re interested in selling devices for some extra cash or donating your electronics for a good cause. SEI also provides an extensive Summary of U.S. State Laws on Electronic Waste and Disposal Bans so you can learn what laws, if any, apply in your area. The Law & Policy section of the SEI web site will also help you learn about regulations on the local, federal and international levels, as well as providing more information on voluntary initiatives.

And take some time to think about what is involved in the responsible recycling of electronic devices. Read about the existing Certification programs on the SEI site.

Then take the America Recycles Day pledge today, and be sure to check the box on the pledge form that applies to electronics: “I pledge to recycle my used batteries, cell phones and other electronic waste through a take-back program or e-waste facility near me.”

And then live by that pledge–365 days a year.

The annual symposium brings together members of industry, academia, government, technical assistance providers, representatives of relevant non-profit organizations, and others to discuss the growing problem of e-waste generation and handling, as well as how to create a more sustainable electronics manufacturing system throughout product lifecycles. See the SEI web site for highlights from last year’s symposium.

Questions can be directed to Aida Sefic Williams, Conference Coordinator.

To answer my own question: conflict materials! In short, conflict materials are earth elements that are necessary for many electronic applications. For example, these materials keep your electronics from overheating, help materials maintain an electronic charge, or make the “vibrate” function of your phone possible. Elizabeth Dias of Time Magazine wrote “First Blood Diamonds, Now Blood Computers?,” explaining why these materials are referred to as “conflict materials.” Unfortunately, the trade of these materials is controlled by militia in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). The money used to purchase the conflict materials has been used to fuel a gruesome war within the DRC, where miners (including women and children) are forced to work long hours under horrible conditions. The miners live in fear, as armed guards watch over them. In addition, the militia is also taxing their workers an exorbitant amount, making their livelihoods continuously dependent on harsh working and living conditions. The powers in charge not only use their power to exploit the workers of DRC, but they also use extreme violence and fear tactics to intimidate workers. Most people living in militia-controlled regions live in fear of their lives, as massacres of entire families as well as brutal rapes are a common practice. Lydia Polgreen and Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times have additionally published articles “Congo’s Riches, Looted by Renegade Troops” and “Death by Gadget,” respectively, to shed light to this problem.

Similar to my previous post titled “Future of electronics after 2012,” I am not only concerned about what the problems are. Instead, I am interested in possible solutions. Jeffrey Davis of Green Lifestyle Magazine published “Conflict Materials in Electronics” where he explains the current problem with conflict materials. Furthermore, he discusses possible solutions. An obvious recommendation many have is for manufacturers to stop purchasing “conflict materials.” This action, however, could result in more violence as the militia would not have their source of income, which would only make for worse living conditions of the miners and workers. Davis offers additional ways we can help the people of the DRC.

Additionally, several organizations’ aim to aid the people of the Congo and are determined to find ways to bring attention to this cause. Two main organizations focusing on the Congo and the “Conflict Material” problem are Enough! Project and Raise Hope for the Congo. In addition, Rachel Cernansky of Planet Green published Conflict Minerals 101: Coltan, the Congo Act, and How You Can Help, offering further information about conflict materials and ways to help the current conflict in the Congo.

While most consumers are unaware of the current “conflict materials” problem, the US government seems to be paying attention. On January 5, 2010, President Obama signed Pub.L. 111-203/HR 4173, also known as Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The act would require some electronics manufacturers to disclose where they obtained conflict materials in the DRC or an adjoining country. Companies would be required to report this to the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) and place the information on their website. Furthermore, companies may also need to hire external auditors and provide additional information to the SEC. Baker and McKenszie has published a Client Alert titled “New Reporting and Audit Obligations for High-Tech and Other Manufacturers” on August 16, which details the act, by providing an executive summary, reporting requirements, and practical considerations.

While purchasing electronics for most people within the United States can be done inexpensively, most consumers, including myself, do not think about the negative consequences our actions have. When handing our money to electronics manufacturers and distributors in order to get the newest, coolest phone, our bank account is not the only thing that takes a hit. As a society, we need to be aware of the materials, mining and manufacturing processes that occur in order to bring us the electronics we want.

It seems that in 2002, when e-waste legislation was first considered and drafted, California also considered manufacturer responsibility legislation (Modesto Bee), which is currently used by 21 states. The voices of the tech industry, however, prevailed and California passed an e-waste recycling law requiring an advanced recycling fee (ARF). Given this legislation, when a customer purchases a new monitor or television, they are charged a fee (between $8 and $25), which should in turn be used to recycle the purchased equipment. The goal of the program was to provide a way for consumers to dispose of their electronics responsibly while providing funds for a green industry (Sacramento Bee). While the state had good intentions, no one could foresee the fraudulent activities that would take place.

Due to the amount of state-funding, hundreds of new electronics recyclers sprung up throughout the state (Merced Sun-Star). State officials passing the ARF legislation only counted on the environmental spirits in the state, but they did not foresee the greed that would take over the program. This has led to organizations importing electronics from Arizona and other neighboring states, in order to recycle the electronics within California and receive money for recycling such electronics products. To date, the state of California has paid approximately $320 million for electronics recycling, since the law’s passing in 2005 (Desert Dispatch). The state additionally recognizes that approximately $30 million have been used to recycle electronics which came in from other states, but it has rejected approximately $23 million of fraudulent claims. The Sacramento Bee offers a chart detailing California’s recyclers with the most claim denials.

Understandably, many are angered by the news and knowing their money is used to recycle e-waste  brought in from illegally other states. Environmentalists, however, have another problem with California’s law and its mistreatment – the disposal of usable monitors. California’s model makes it more enticing for people to recycle their “old” but usable monitors, instead of using them until they physically break or donating them to a charitable organization. ScrippsNews tackles this issue in their article “Mounds of usable computer monitors in Calif. dumps“.

So how can California handle this apparent fraud and misuse of their laws and funds? Will they change their laws to reflect other US states? If so, how long will this process take? What can be done in the meantime? These questions need answers – and soon! The failing system needs to go to the root of the problem, update legislation to meet these new challenges, and with proper care and maintenance, the system will be working better, more effectively, and should last for a very long time.

In my opinion, increased e-waste laws only indicate an increased interest in solving the current e-waste problem. Two of the states not only require e-waste collection, but they also impose a disposal ban on electronic equipment!

In Vermont, Act 079/S77 was passed in April of 2010 and takes effect on Jan. 1, 2011. Like all other extended producer responsibility (EPR) laws, the state requires electronics manufacturers, recyclers, retailers, and refurbishers of electronics to register with the state. If an organization is not registered, they will be unable to continue their business within the state of Vermont. The bill requires the collection and proper disposal of desktops, laptops, CRTs,  TVs, monitors, computer peripherals (keyboard, mice, etc.), and printers.

South Carolina’s HB 4093 was passed on May 19, 2010, and it takes affect on Jul. 1, 2011. Similar to the Vermont law, South Carolina also requires the state registration of electronic manufacturers, retailers, collectors, refurbishers, and recyclers. South Carolina requires the collection and disposal of desktops, laptops, CRTs, televisions and monitors. Unlike Vermont, South Carolina does not require the collection and disposal of computer peripherals and printers. Along with requiring the collection of electronics, South Carolina also included a disposal ban in the HB 4093 bill. The disposal ban forbids the disposal of computers, monitors, CTTs, televisions, and printers in municipal waste locations, starting on Jul 1, 2011.

Most recently, New York state has passed a comprehensive e-waste bill, which requires the registration of electronic manufacturers, collectors, recyclers, refurbishers, and retailers.The bill A 11308/S 7988, Title 27 requires proper disposal as well as enforces a disposal ban on the following electronics: televisions, monitors, desktops, laptops, computer peripherals, printers, and fax machines.

A detailed chart showing the differences between the various e-waste laws is available online on the SEI website. The chart may also be downloaded as a PDF.

In hopes of continuing the discussion I plan on posting a multi-part series addressing different topics raised at the symposium.

The first of this series will continue the topic from a recent post: export.

Eric Williams, one of the speakers at the symposium, has been researching electronic waste for many years. In fact, he recently testified in front of congress speaking in regards to the H.R. 1580, “e-waste R&D act.”

Williams’ recent work, studying the material flow of electronics, indicates that e-waste in developing countries will soon  (in about 6 or 7 years) exceed the amount that the developed countries create. Therefore, perhaps shortly, the problem will not be the presence of foreign electronics in developing countries but the developing country’s own piles of e-waste.  Perhaps then the need for trade bans like the Basel Convention is not of utmost importance right now. Perhaps it is more important to set up responsible recycling facilities in developing countries because, no matter from what source, e-waste is inevitable. And while the developed countries are still at major fault for the scale of e-waste in developing countries, it makes sense that the  developed countries contribute to setting up these facilities.

Some experts (like the organizations BAN and StEP) claim that the exportation of equipment should halt altogether because either not enough of the exported equipment is going to reuse or if it is going to reuse, there are claims that it is only used for two to three years. But according to Williams’ research, there is an extremely high reuse rate of the electronic equipment. In Peru, for instance, Williams reports that 87% of electronic equipment coming into Peru is intended for reuse rather than material recovery. The Sustainable Electronic Initiative is currently conducting research with the help of PCRR to find information regarding reuse like how long people tend to make use of used equipment. Perhaps this is a premature assumption but with that consideration in mind, thus far, we have found that people make use of used equipment significantly longer then two or three years (a figure suggested by StEP) and therefore we consider reuse a worthwhile effort. We have also found the carbon footprint of using used rather than new to be incredibly significant.

As Mr. Williams acknowledged in his speech at the symposium, the most harmful part of dismantling e-waste occurs when acid or burning is used to extract materials.  If done correctly, setting up responsible recycling facilities in developing countries can not only help maintain the jobs of the people living there by enabling them to still be in charge of disassembly and delivery to the facility, but the facility can take on the job of extracting materials in a responsible manner (not pouring the acid used for extraction onto the ground and having it potentially leach into water systems.)

One fear whenever a system like this is set up is that black markets of cheaper labor and materials will appear, after all, the e-waste industry we are concerning ourselves with right now is that of a black market. However, it is known that informal recycling, such as most of the recycling performed in Guiyu, China, recovers only 20% of the intended material.  The upside to this is that recycling facilities could potentially offer a better financial incentive than an unsafe black market recycling system.

The 2010 Electronics and Sustainability: Design for Energy and the Environment Symposium held two weeks ago was a great success! Over 20 impressive speakers in the fields of academia, manufacturing, retail, government, and recycling presented their take on electronics and sustainability. We had an impressive turnout, lively conversation, and overall, a great time had by all.

Here are some highlights from the event:

►Dr. Tim Lindsey, Sustainable Electronics Initiative Director, opened the symposium with an optimistic message. Dr. Lindsey suggested that the perfect blueprint for sustainability is the natural ecosystem and, unlike our man-made system, a natural ecosystem does not operate in isolation. Hope was given when Dr. Lindsey acknowledged that we had every stage of the electronics cycle present at the symposium; a great opportunity to work together towards sustainable electronics.

► “We will be the greenest technology company on the planet.” –Michael S. Dell. This is the challenge given to Dr. Mike Newton, Rajib Adhikary, and the rest of the team at Dell. Dr. Newton responded to this challenge in his presentation by identifying the areas in which Dell needs to improve, acknowledging the accomplishments that have already been made, and giving a picture for future endeavors. Mr. Adhikary, one of the keynote speakers, took a designers approach to addressing the problem. He recognized that a change from a focus of selling physical equipment to selling the service or experience that equipment provides is a step in the right direction in terms of using less materials and helping the environment.

►Mike Tibbs, a Senior Director at Walmart, was the other keynote speaker. Mr. Tibbs gave a compelling presentation about the progress made by Walmart by acknowledging what we were all thinking: the scale Walmart operates on is indeed incredible; the smallest change made from the top has a great impact. Therefore, it was reassuring to hear Walmart’s work towards zero waste, 100 percent renewable energy, and selling sustainable products.

►Charles Newman, founder of ReCellular, was also able to give a sense of scale and gravity to the problem of electronic waste by identifying and quantifying just one section of it: cell phones. He discussed the efforts of ReCellular, the type of equipment being turned in, the process used to repurpose the equipment, the main sources of opposition, and ways he has made his business successful. When asked about the difficulty of wiping the cell phones Mr. Newman replied with an, “Oh boy…” and then explained that he employs 14 people solely committed to wiping cell phones. Insuring data destruction seems to be a huge challenge in the field of electronic reuse.

►Dr. Bill Olson and Roger Franz represented two different sectors of Motorola. Dr. Olsen gave an overview of the sustainability and stewardship efforts made by Motorola. Dr. Olsen’s explanation of Motorola’s W233 RENEW was especially impressive. Roger Franz is an Engineering Manager at Motorola. He was responsible for eliminating hazardous materials from Motorola cell phones before it was the popular thing to do. He gave an illuminating presentation regarding the materials currently used in cell phones along with more environmentally friendly materials that could potentially be used.

►Joseph Shacter and Mell Nickerson addressed the new Illinois E-Waste Law entitled, “Electronic Products Recycling and Reuse Act, Public Act 95-0959.” They each gave great information regarding the components of this law, who it will affect, and what they still need to work on.

►There were a great number of SEI University Affiliates who gave presentations including Deborah Thurston and Harrison Kim from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC). They shared information on the work that they and their graduate students are currently conducting dealing with a new design for Take-Back of electronics. Also from the UIUC, Dr. John Abelson gave a riveting presentation about the material choices when considering the entire life cycle of a product. At one point in his presentation, Dr. Abelson quizzed the attendees to guess the most energy intensive steps in the life cycle of a water bottle and then gave his results. The attendees were surprised by the outcome. Steve Belletire, Associate Professor of Industrial Design at Southern Illinois University, was also in attendance. In addition to the unequivocal design perspective, his presentation also had a humanitarian message. Mr. Belletire showed a picture of his young grandson to remind the attendees of the reason for the need to become more sustainable: future generations. Another SEI University Affiliate in attendance was Dr. Tim Smith, Director and Associate Professor at the University of Minnesota. Dr. Smith analyzed the ways in which we govern electronic standards and gave his educated opinion. Kate Catterall and Amrita Adhikary were represented the work they do at University of Texas, Austin. Kate Catterall comes from a designing background, so gave great insight to design regulations and pointed out the work that could still be done.

►Other academics included Dr. Callie Babbitt of Rochester Institute of Technology. Dr. Babbitt introduced her innovative hybrid approach to a Life Cycle Analysis (LCA). Dr. Babbitt then showed results from this type of LCA applied to a 2001 Dell laptop. This type of approach seemed to insure a great amount of accuracy. Eric Williams, Professor at Arizona State University, focused his presentation on addressing present heuristics related to the solutions of electronic waste and suggested that the a risk management perspective combined with a consideration of economic and social issues would be a more prolific approach when considering solutions to electronic waste.

And there was much more! 

Turn to the Paper and Presentation Archives for copies of the presentations and videos of the presenters. The archives are free to symposium attendees, and are available to the outside public for $50. Attendees, you will be receiving an email with your sign-in information shortly. 

If you attended the conference, please make sure to fill out this survey and tell us about your experience and how we can improve the symposium for next year. http://bit.ly/ctbXxy

E-Waste Challenge Results!
During the symposium, participants were asked to take the “E-Waste Challenge” by comparing two computers on the basis of their performance. Without knowing which computer was refurbished (on the right) or brand new (on the left), participants filled out a survey stating which computer performed better. 50% of the survey participants stated that the new computer performed better, and 31% and 19% of the surveyed individuals said they could not tell a difference between the two computers and that the refurbished computer performed better, respectively.

Join the SEI as a Corporate, Not-for-Profit, Professional or Student Member at http://www.sustainelectronics.illinois.edu/join/index.cfm

The second annual Energy and Sustainability Symposium is scheduled for March 23 and 24, 2011. So keep those dates open on your calendar!

This is a much-debated issue in the electronics world. Let’s face it–if a consumer paid a substantial amount of money for a computer, he or she will not be thrilled with the idea of paying more money to dispose of the computer. For many individuals in such a case, the option of storing an old computer sounds better than recycling it for a fee. Manufacturers are also not jumping for joy to recycle and dispose of electronic components with their money. So, once again, whose responsibility is it?

One would think that both parties are equally responsible. I firmly believe that today’s designers, engineers, and manufacturers are responsible for finding ways to use environmentally friendly materials in order to create reliable products. But consumers also need to take on some of the responsibility by utilizing current and upcoming systems in order to recycle our Earth’s quickly depleting resources.

When dealing with electronics recycling, there are two main terms which pop up frequently: advanced recycling fee (ARF) and extended producer responsibility (EPR).

The advanced recycling fee is a fee which is paid when a customer purchases a computer. This fee is applied at the register and will cover the recycling cost of the computer. I highly recommend John Shegerian’s video; he is the chairman and CEO of Electronics Recyclers, Inc. A more detailed explanation of California’s ARF program is also available here.

EPR is based on the principle that the manufacturer is responsible for the entire life cycle of a product, including its end-of-life disposal. For more information, I highly recommend this Waste to Wealth website, because it contains a wealth of information regarding the subject. In addition, Wikipedia also offers good information about EPR concepts.

Since these views differ so greatly, state legislators need to find the best way to alleviate this problem and come up with a mutually agreeable solution; one which would not place the sole responsibility on the consumer or manufacturer, but one which would share the responsibility between the two parties.

Questions related to electronic waste, or “e-waste” issues, sustainable electronics design, improving electronics manufacturing processes and related topics can be submitted via an online form available at http://www.sustainelectronics.illinois.edu/services/askexpert.cfm. SEI staff members will provide one hour of free Internet and/or literature searching related to your sustainable electronics question. Also provided is input from ISTC staff scientists and/or referrals to external contacts for further information on technical questions. Responses can be expected within a week (usually within 1-2 business days). Citizens, organizations, government agencies, businesses, non-profit groups, and academic institutions are all invited to use this free service.

The responses obtained from the Ask an Expert service are meant for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as endorsements by SEI, ISTC or any affiliated organization. Responses are also meant to be starting points for inquirers rather than definitive answers, advice or prescriptions for action. Inquirers must draw their own conclusions based upon the information provided.

In the near future, questions and answers received via this service will be archived and searchable on the SEI web site, www.sustainelectronics.illinois.edu. An extensive collection of resources is also under development for the web site, and archived Ask an Expert questions and answers will be integrated into relevant resource collections.

According to the U.S. EPA, Americans own nearly three billion electronic products and continually purchase new ones to replace those deemed “obsolete,” even though about two-thirds of the devices are still in working order. As designers, manufacturers and the general public are becoming more aware and concerned about this issue, SEI’s Ask an Expert service will be one way to address concerns and assist in more sustainable practices.

SEI is a consortium dedicated to the development and implementation of a more sustainable system for designing, producing, remanufacturing, and recycling electronic devices. Members of the consortium include academia, non-profit organizations, government agencies, manufacturers, designers, refurbishers, and recyclers. Specific elements of the SEI include programs for research, education, data management, and technical assistance. SEI conducts collaborative research; facilitates networking and information exchange among participants; promotes technology diffusion via demonstration projects; and provides forums for the discussion of policy and legislation.

For more information on SEI, visit www.sustainelectronics.illinois.edu or contact Dr. Tim Lindsey, Associate Director of ISTC, at 217-333-8955 . For more information on the Ask an Expert service contact Laura Barnes, ISTC librarian at 217-333-8957.

ISTC is a unit of the Institute of Natural Resource Sustainability at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.