Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Should local government be saddled with this cost? And shouldn't manufacturers be
involved? The question of manufacturer responsibility is now coming to the forefront.'
32
In the 1970s and early 1980s, environmental organizations and farsighted elected
o
cials in the USA led the way in developing state legislation that pushed companies to
publicly report the extent of chemical substances they used or produced, so that nearby
communities would be more aware of potential public health risks. The legislation was
taken up by so many states that it became obvious that a national approach was the best
way to go. This e
ort gave birth to the federal Emergency Planning and Community Right
to Know Act of 1986, which led to signi
ff
cant improvements in safety across the nation.
Today, with rising volumes of e-waste and safety threats to public health and to the
environment here and overseas, many activists and scholars believe it is time for a more
sensible approach - a national policy on electronic waste. The US Congress could take a
cue from the states and computer
fi
rms that have stepped up to the challenge and pass
federal legislation. Like the EU, the USA could ensure that its electronics goods are safer
for consumers and the workers who produce them, and that companies will take them
back and recycle them responsibly (with non-incarcerated labor in the USA) when they
are obsolete.
There are three policy initiatives that would likely improve the situation. First, the US
Congress could
fi
nally ratify the Basel Convention and the Basel Ban on hazardous waste
exports from OECD to non-OECD nations. The USA is the only OECD nation that has
not yet rati
fi
ed it among the 149 nations that have. Second, the US Congress could
strengthen the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) - the main law
that regulates hazardous waste in the USA. The problem is that RCRA currently exempts
more and more hazardous wastes from export bans because if the waste managers
declare that it is destined for recycling in another nation, it is considered non-hazardous.
This happens with circuit boards and CRTs that would otherwise be declared hazardous.
Thus RCRA - a domestic policy - contributes to global environmental inequality by
allowing hazardous waste exports to less a
fi
nally, the federal
government might consider implementation of legislation similar to that which is in place
in the EU, which facilitates the reduction of toxics in electronics goods and a national
program for the takeback and recycling of electronics goods funded by industry. This
would also go a long way toward addressing the USA's global impacts on environmental
inequality.
uent nations. Third, and
fi
Notes
1.
Christopher Reuther (2002),
'Spheres of
in
fl
uence:
who pays for e-junk?',
Environmental Health
Perspectives
,
110
(4).
2.
Andrew Osborn (2002), 'Britain accepts recycling deal',
The Guardian
, 12 October.
3.
Basel Action Network & Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition (2002),
Exporting Harm: The High-Tech Trashing
of Asia
, Seattle: BAN, p. 1.
4.
Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition (2001),
Poison PCs and Toxic TVs: California's Biggest Environmental
Crisis that You've Never Heard Of
, San Jose, CA: SVTC. p. 3.
5.
David N. Pellow and Lisa Sun-Hee Park (2002),
The Silicon Valley of Dreams: Environmental Injustice,
Immigrant Workers, and the High-Tech Global Economy
,New Yo rk:New Yo rk University Press. See also
Ted Smith, David Sonnenfeld and David N. Pellow (eds) (2006),
Challenging the Chip: Labor Rights and
Environmental Justice in the Global Electronics Industry
, Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
6.
Computer TakeBack Campaign (2003), 'The solutions: electronics recylers pledge of true stewardship',
June. http://www.computertakeback.com/the_solutions/prison_sum.cfm.
7.
Ibid.
