Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
founders, explains how the network emerged from the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition's
work:
It was late 1980s and early 1990s when we
rst got interested in the international angle of e-
industry. At that time industry was moving out of Silicon Valley, particularly to the Southwest
US, so we started working with SNEEJ (the Southwest Network for Environmental and
Economic Justice) in particular and other groups in the US. But then it was pretty clear it was
beyond that - internationally. We began to hear from people in other countries and we started
to reach out to them in Europe and Asia. They started to deal with these aspects and we
started making linkages and we started meeting at conferences. It was basically the same sets
of issues - groundwater contamination and worker health, deregulation and corporate welfare
- giving away of huge subsidies. In 1990 SVTC formed the Campaign for Responsible
Technology, which later became the International CRT.'
26
fi
The transnational environmental justice networks that have evolved to track and combat
the e-waste epidemic are clear in their framing of the problem as one rooted in inequali-
ties by race, class and nation, and as perpetrated by both corporations and national gov-
ernments. They articulate a challenge to global environmental racism and inequality in a
political economy that bene
fi
ts consumers, private industry and states in the North.
New directions in policy
The Basel Convention su
ered from loopholes that allowed the shipment of hazardous
wastes as long as they were o
ff
cially for 'recycling'. In the 1990s, 77 non-OECD nations
and China pushed heavily for a ban on the shipping of waste for recycling purposes. As a
result, the Basel Ban was adopted, in order to end the export of hazardous waste from
rich OECD nations to poor non-OECD nations, through 'sham recycling' operations. The
USA has thus far refused to participate in the ban. In fact, the USA lobbied governments
in Asia to establish bilateral trade agreements to continue dumping hazardous waste after
the Basel Ban came into e
ect on 1 January 1998.
27
Hence it should be no surprise that
the transnational export of e-waste remains a problem.
However, there is some cause for optimism. At the international level, the most pro-
gressive state action around e-waste yet is in the European Union. The EU passed two
major policy initiatives, known as the Directive on Waste from Electrical and Electronic
goods (WEEE) and the Restriction on Hazardous Substances (RoHS). These policies
require electronics producers to take back products at the end of life and reduce the use
of toxics in production. This should allow for products to be recycled and reused instead
of being dumped into land
ff
lls or exported. Unfortunately, even with the WEEE legisla-
tion in place, if producers are not actually taking responsibility for recycling products
domestically, many experts expect to see a continued rise in the export of hazardous e-
waste to Africa, Pakistan, India and China and elsewhere in the global South. In 2003,
record volumes of e-waste left the UK for such destinations - 23 000 tons of it. And gov-
ernment
fi
gures indicate that, more than ever, these materials are being shipped abroad.
This is particularly acute since, in the UK, electronic goods are required to be recycled
and barred from incinerators and land
fi
lls.
28
Even the WEEE directive, while arguably the strongest such legislation anywhere, will
not address the roots of the e-waste problem. Research by some environmental sociolo-
gists emphasizes the relationship between growth in markets and socio-environmental
harm, and a critical examination of e-waste recycling might conclude that this practice
fi
