Perspective: Time to clean up tech's act

If business is booming for Steven Wyatt, it's a sign the rest of us are in trouble.

For more than a decade, Wyatt has run Computer Recycling Center, a nonprofit outfit in the San Francisco Bay Area that collects old computer equipment that people throw out.

"We handled over 12 million pounds of electronics last year," Wyatt said. "This year, we've already doubled that number--and it's only June."

All the while, we're increasing the amount of toxic waste in landfills. As Americans discard used PCs and other electronic devices in growing numbers, let's hope there will be enough people like Wyatt to answer the call. We'll need them: By the end of this year, the Environmental Protection Agency estimates, 10 million computers will be decommissioned each month--up from 2 million in 1999.

You can plot out the geometric growth of high-tech junk on a graph and see where things are headed. We're hell-bent on creating a mess that future generations will choke on. Greenpeace recently estimated that nearly 4,000 tons of high-tech waste (which can contain lead, mercury, flame retardants and other chemicals) gets discarded in the world every hour--an amount roughly equal in weight to about 1,000 elephants.

I heard a number of experts present similar concerns at the recently concluded weeklong celebrations of World Environment Day, sponsored by the United Nations. Mayors from around the world came to San Francisco and pledged to reduce waste sent to landfills by 20 percent by 2012.

So if this is such a big deal, how do you explain the big disconnect? For reasons that escape me, e-waste is a political snoozer in Washington.

Last month, a small group of congressional legislators formed what they called an "E-Waste Working Group" with the goal of creating a national plan that deals with high-tech garbage. I never say never, but there are so many obstacles in the way.

"At the federal level, it's a joke," said Wyatt, who was invited with other nonprofit recyclers to a meeting with EPA officials earlier this year, where they had a virtually fruitless conversation about how to get greater backing from Uncle Sam.

We're hell-bent on creating a mess that future generations will choke on.

So that leaves it up to the states. At last count, there were 25 states weighing various e-waste programs. My home state of California does a reasonably good job helping to take away old products and sending them off to a dumping ground. (The state imposes fees of up to $10 per device on the sale of computer monitors and TV sets.) But that's still not attacking the problem at the root. Talk to any IT person, and you'll find their business doesn't necessarily need new computers. Systems that are 12 to 18 months old are often just as good for a company's purposes.

One answer is greater reuse. Sounds great in theory, but don't expect California to embrace zero-waste programs anytime soon--not with all the myriad special interests that would flip out if the state ever went that route. Silicon Valley has too many chips to manufacture and too many new PCs to sell to let that ever happen.

The other answer is equally politically unpalatable: Make consumers foot more of the bill. Yeah, I know--a cold snowball in hell and all of that. Maybe e-waste is destined to stay on a political back burner because it's too closely associated with so-called green political causes. That would be a mistake. After all, cleaning up your own mess is as American as apple pie.

Biography
Charles Cooper is CNET News.com's executive editor of commentary.

More Perspectives

[lsander153]

Credibility

Never believe political commentary that originates in a blue state.

[charlie cooper]

Puh-leeze

Way to go, Louie. Dismiss the reality by dissing the geographical origin of the author. Brilliant! Meanwhile, the piles of tech garbage keep growing.

Time to clean up tech junk coming from California

This is the issue isn't it?

We could tell the Japanese how 'things' are, but nobody would dare tell Californians they, too, have an ugly side, can we?

It's called "precious".

[ip_fresh]

EPA officials

"At the federal level, it's a joke," said Wyatt, who was invited with other nonprofit recyclers to a meeting with EPA officials earlier this year, where they had a virtually fruitless conversation about how to get greater backing from Uncle Sam.

danni
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.my-insurance-loans.com" target="_newWindow">http://www.my-insurance-loans.com</a>
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.marketingtops.net" target="_newWindow">http://www.marketingtops.net</a>

Cooper's Cause has Bigger Things to Worry About

While the few tidbits of numerical data in Cooper's write-up are alarming (come on! it's the usual doomsdayer/sky is falling from the liberal green people!), it would be nice if it were a balanced enough article to point out the real offenders. Fact is, 90% of the lead problem/content in our environment is comprised of an 80% contribution by batteries (mainly storage type batteries), 4.8% roughly by "oxides" consisting of paint, glass and ceramic materials in products, and 4.2% roughly in ammunition (yes, really -- bullets and such).

The "high-tech" electronics lead contribution, CRT displays and the actual solder on the board included, only comprise a whopping 0.49% of the entire lead problem.

Instead of looking for another liberal tax-dollar-sucking cause of cutting on Americans for being consumers, maybe Cooper's following (or is he a follower?) should concentrate on contributions to new storage technologies to replace the battery issues. If they fixed just 0.6% of the battery lead contribution, it would offset the computer/display/ckt board contribution 100%.

Unfortunately, it is too late to stop the Pb-free/RoHS initiative within the electronics mfg and components industries, even though their portion of the problem is minute compared to approximately 10 categories which add more lead to our environment. AS USUAL, the green movement picks the most visible, emotional, consumer-driven and pop-culture items to yell about rather than the less exciting industry that does the most damage.

Always consider the source.