March 15, 2006 | Volume 3, Issue 1
E-Waste and Human Rights
The United States currently sends the majority of its used electronic computer waste (e-waste) to China for recycling (Tong, 205). The recycling of this hazardous waste is the cause of both environmental degradation and human rights injustices. China uses this recycling as a means of economic growth but the long-term costs associated with e-waste recycling far outweigh the short-term monetary benefits. The United States must begin to take responsibility for its consumptive habits and reevaluate the “recycling” policies that leave “the poorer peoples of the world with an untenable choice between poverty and poison” (BAN, 4).
Summary of the Issue
There are more than 1,000 different materials in the waste of electronic equipment, and many are toxic and known to cause health ailments (Bortner, 2). Appendix A lists of some of these toxic materials and the health risks associated with each. The U.S. ships its e-waste to China and countries in Africa and Asia for four reasons:
- Environmental regulations are less stringent in these developing countries;
- There are lower costs associated with labor and processing;
- The developing countries have high demand for the recycled material (Tong, 205); and
- There are no policies in place in the United States to prevent the export of e-waste.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not classify e-waste as hazardous waste despite the international perspective. The United Nations Environmental Programme’s 2005 Annual Report, Healthy Living, identified e-waste as a serious hazardous waste concern. (UNEP, 63)
Although the e-waste recycling industry is a source of much-needed jobs and the extracted materials have value in China, many operations fail to follow the meager regulations set by China’s government and the results are respiratory problems, birth defects, loss of functional agriculture land, unhealthy living conditions, contaminated drinking water, and large numbers of toxic waste dumps which destroy soil, air and water resources. Realizing the mounting environmental health problems, China has made an effort to ban unregulated operations but corruption, misinformation about the hazards involved in the extraction processes, and economic needs restrict China’s success (Bouman, 6).
These continued violations of human rights are hampering the sustainable development efforts of various nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). During the Meeting of Experts on Human Rights and the Environment, organized by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme, it was concluded that:
- Human rights and the environment are interconnected;
- Human rights are a “precondition for sustainable development”; and
- Environmental protection constitutes a precondition for the effective enjoyment of human rights protection (UNCHR, 12).
As China is the United States’ third largest trade partner (Budget FY 2006), it is in America’s economic and humanitarian interests, to reevaluate its policy toward e-waste recycling.
Options for Action
Option One: Change Manufacturing Policy
Comply with the Basal Convention, prohibit all trans-boundary movements of hazardous wastes and establish policies within the United States that force the producers of the electronic products to take responsibility for the waste associated with their products. John Elkington, chairman of SustainAbility Inc., a think tank and consultancy based in London and New York, explained that, “concepts like extended producer responsibility, product take-back and ‘reverse manufacturing’ [encourage sustainable practices]. Rather than leaving it to consumers to do the right thing in tricky areas like recycling, policymakers increasingly aim to push the responsibility back upstream to manufacturers” (Elkington, 12).
Advantages
- Dramatic reduction and possible elimination of the movement of hazardous waste from the U.S. to developing countries;
- Environmental and human rights image will be enhanced for the United States; and
- Producers carry the cost burdens of recycling the electronic waste rather than the responsibility falling on non-consumers.
Disadvantages
- Loss of trade between China and U.S.;
- Higher monetary costs associated with recycling e-waste in U.S. because of labor costs;
- Possible decline in jobs in China due to a decreased supply of e-waste; and
- Environmental degradation and human rights violation continue in China because the industry will continue to be fed by the market’s need to recycle e-waste.
Option Two: Change Environmental Policy
Assist China in establishing recycling facilities that are certified by the International Association of Electronics Recyclers, IAER. As laid out by the EPA in its E-Waste Facility Evaluation Program, the IAER certification focuses on establishing high standards for environmental quality and regulatory compliance (EPA, 2). Establish an environmental policy to assure the export of e-trade with only these certified facilities. Additionally, the U.S. must work in conjunction with producers to ensure policy compliance.
Advantages
- Allowance for justifiable movement of hazardous waste from the U.S. to China
- Reduction of environmental and human rights violations in relation to e-waste in China
- Standardized methodologies and guidelines for the recycling of e-waste
- Strengthened sustainable development assistance to China
- Enhanced environmental and human rights image for both China and the U.S.
Disadvantages
- High upfront cost to China and U.S., although there is an opportunity to offset cost by creating a multilateral project involving other developed countries practicing e-waste trade; and
- No incentive to reduce the production of e-waste. If there is no additional cost associated with disposable electronics, the consumer-driven market is likely to increase the production of e-waste.
Conclusion
The export of e-waste to developing countries is responsible for environmental degradation and human right violations. As developing countries struggle to grow, industrialized countries assist their development through generous private and government aid donations. At the same time, these developed countries undermine these efforts by contributing to the expansion of human rights infringement and the degradation of the environment. Changing environmental policy in China, as described in Option Two, outlines the most advantageous solution that benefits all parties and assures a healthier future for humanity as a whole.
“Man’s environment, the natural and the man-made, are essential to his well-being and to the enjoyment of basic human rights—even the right to life itself.” – Declaration by the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment