More e-tronics garbage

"E-Waste: How the New iPad Adds to Electronic Garbage"

by

Bryan Walsh

March 8th, 2012

Time

There was a major news event yesterday over at Apple HQ in Cupertino, California, which I know because my Twitter feed was filled alternately with people live-blogging the event (“retina display!”) and mocking the live-blogging (“the screen self-cleans with children’s tears!”). This is how we receive the news of a new iPad, which the good people of Apple are calling… iPad, confounding those who thought it would be called iPad 3 or iPad HD or anything at all to set it apart. We want the iPad—we have the iPad.

I’ll leave it to TIME’s highly capable technology writers to describe what actually makes the new iPad new. The early consensus seems to be that the third-generation iPad—which should go sale by the middle of the month—offers some interesting new updates, including an ultra-sharp screen, a much-improved camera and a faster processor. But it’s less of a revolutionary jump than the iPhone 4S was over its predecessor—at least the new iPhone had a much-hyped digital assistant, even if she didn’t quite turn out to be 100% reliable, especially for the Scottish. The new iPad is an update, the latest version—but not a whole new piece of hardware.

Hence the name: just iPad. Which, as Mat Honan of Gizmodo wrote, makes sense. The more updates to the iPad that Apple rolled out over the years, the odder numbering each might have appeared. By iPad 15, it would have looked like a bad horror movie series—though Robin Sloan’s tweets from the future would seem to indicate that iPad 8 was totally awesome. We can expect Apple to roll out slightly updated iPads every year or so, the way Toyota might follow the 2012 Camry with the 2013 model year Camry. Those with the inclination and their spare cash will come to think of tablets—like our new smartphones—as eminently replaceable objects, good for a year or maybe more before being discarded for the next hot thing. (That could be a large group—4 million people bought the supposedly disappointing iPhone 4S on its first weekend, and the device has been setting sales records.) The lifespan of a device gets shorter and shorter.

And that could mean more electronic devices end up in the garbage—which can be bad for the environment and bad for human health.

E-waste is electronic waste—the afterlife of your phones, laptops, TVs and other consumer electronic devices once they’ve gotten tossed in the trash. We produce a lot of it: 6 million tons in 2010. Improperly disposed of, the lead, mercury and other toxic materials inside e-waste can leak from landfills, threatening groundwater supplies and generally causing a mess. Worse is what happens if that e-waste is exported overseas to poor countries like Ghana or Nigeria. It’s common for traders to take old computers and phones from the developed world, sell the second-hand products that are still in working condition, and send the rest of the scrap to slums. There—in places like the Agbloboshie market in the Ghanaian capital of Accra—the poor take apart the devices, burning plastic wires to get at the copper inside. The result looks bad, and feels worse, as Jack Caravanos of the Blacksmith Institute—an NGO that takes on neglected industrial pollution—described in a blog post:

Everywhere you look you see pieces of circuit boards, televisions, refrigerators, irons, etc. The toxic chemicals released are spread throughout the area when it rains and of course spread to the homes each evening. What especially troubled me was the path of the toxic smoke that floats right into the food market. So whatever doesn’t get into your lungs can now settle onto the food supply of Accra. Agbogbloshie is a large thriving recyclers market but has major environmental health problems.

And the amount of e-waste headed to places like Accra is only likely to increase in the years to come. Pike Research estimates that by 2025, global e-waste will increase to 25 million tons. And a lot of that will be driven by Apple and its product lines.

It isn’t exactly Apple’s fault. Because the company’s products are still in such high demand, you’re unlikely to find many old iPads or iPhones in landfills—they’re far too valuable on the resale market. (If you want to sell your old iPad 2 right now, the re-commerce company Gazelle will give you $165 for it, no questions asked.) And Apple—after some prodding by environmentalists—has a relatively liberal reuse and recycling program: the company will pay you in gift certificates for any old Apple item that still has monetary value, and will recycle free of charge any product that is no longer usable.

But through the introduction of the incredibly popular iPhone and the iPad, Apple has single-handedly expanded the consumer electronics market. As recently as five years ago, smartphones were for a relatively small Blackberry and Palm Pilot business contingent, while the rest of us took the handsets offered by the telecoms and used them for years. (Or until we lost them.) Then the iPhone rolls around in 2007 and changes everything. The smartphone goes mainstream, with other electronics companies quickly following—see the proliferation of Android phones. The period between upgrades gets shorter and shorter, churning out new devices that replace old ones well before their natural lifespan is up. Suddenly that two-year-long mobile contract doesn’t seem long enough, and the number of old phones in your desk drawer keep adding up.

And then there’s the iPad, which essentially invented a new consumer electronics category: the tablet. Some of the initial confusion about the iPad centered on whether it was meant to replace the laptop or the desktop computer, but it became clear that wasn’t really the case. (Even if some commentators see the new iPad as gunning for the PC market.) The iPad was meant to be an additional device, fitting into the Apple ecosystem along with your iPhone and your MacBook Air. And like the iPhone, it was meant to be upgraded relatively frequently—Apple has released new iPads like clockwork every March. Just like that, a new e-waste stream was born.

It’s clear that Apple devices—and most consumer electronics products these days—are not meant to be used for a long period of time. The fact that the iPhone battery is not replaceable is proof enough of that. Though there’s a healthy secondary market for the devices, how long will it be before they too become once-expensive bricks? After all, the old computers being dismantled by hand in the Agbloboshie were once top of the line as well. The more electronics we consume, the more products that will end up in landfill some day.

Look, e-waste isn’t going to stop Apple, and as the owner of an iPhone 4S, I have no interest in seeing that happen. This is just a reminder that our acceleration addiction to consumer electronics does have a cost—albeit one we can mitigate with the right steps. The recycling programs offered by companies like Apple are a good first step, but a better one would be free pickup for devices—a service offered by a growing number of businesses. If you’d rather sell your old devices on the secondary market—and that’s as good as recycling—there’s no shortage of ways to do so. (You can even donate them if you’re feeling particularly guilty.) Just don’t toss it in the trash, as 130 million phones are tossed each year. While many activists have called for a tougher ban of e-waste export to poor countries, a better idea would be to provide equipment and facilities in places like Accra that allow the poor to recycle electronics—which can be a valuable industry—without harming their health or the environment. “This can be a valuable economic opportunity for people,” says Meredith Block, the executive director of the Blacksmith Institute. “What we need to do is mitigate those dangers.”

E-waste isn’t going away—not with iPads coming out every calendar year and Steve Jobs’s successors dreaming up new devices we don’t yet know we want. But Block is right—we can mitigate the worst of it, if we care.

Use the blog's search engine for more on electronic waste.

Toxic waste

What a problem. What do we do with it? The dreams of the 1950’s whereby we envisioned a society run with cheap and abundant fuel has somewhat been tarnished by Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island Susquehanna River accident [1979], the Chernobyl accident [1986], and the waste byproducts of nuclear fission. We want the ability to gain energy but don't want or know how to properly handle the waste products. Plus, there is the additional waste from nuclear medicine and industry. This has been an ongoing debate involving not only science but politics and the safety of societies. We haven't the technology to neutralize radioactive waste, fearful of shipping the waste into space--so the best thing is to bury it somewhere and wait. Does anyone have any other ideas? Do we need nuclear reactors? And like with all technologies side effects do happen. I am amused at the advertisements on television and in print that offer a pill that will give symptomatic relief from an ailment and discover that the side effects are worse than the ailment. Cancer chemotherapy has made great strides in reducing side effects from treatment. But the nuclear issue is a tough one. Digging a hole is impractical. I don't even know what the physics would be under those conditions. Sending the waste to the sun is extremely risky--just getting it off the planet is a problem. And I don't think a class of mutant turtles would work either or the denizens of Springfield’s river --pizza rules for Donatello, Leonardo, Michaelangelo, and Raphael. Nuclear power is still a good option. A change over from fission to fusion. A total dependency on nuclear resources would really imbalance the global economics. It is best not to places all of one’s eggs in one basket--spread out the energy sources. I suppose we are doing the best we can with spent nuclear fuel. Bury it, forget it...until we glow in the dark. Industrial toxic waste is a different story for much of it can be filtered, treated, neutralized, recycled. We occupy the Earth and are having a tough time keeping it ecologically clean.

“Spent fuel accounts for the majority of U. S. highlevel nuclear waste. (Nuclear weapons facilities also contribute to the total.) As of 1997, about 70 power plants across the nation stored 35,000 metric tons of spent fuel. Increasing by about 2,000 metric tons per year, total highlevel waste will reach at least 60,000 metric tons by 2010, and 80,000 metric tons by 2020.”

Fossil fuels:

The history of the chemistry of cracking crude petroleum into kerosene, gasoline, etc. is fascinating and was introduced through the combustion engine ca. 1890’s [yes, the automobile] and that promoted the distillation of gasoline. Nevertheless, the early gasolines were poor in performance and huge polluters and improvements of a higher octane gasoline [introduction of tetra ethyl lead gasoline] didn't help matters a whole lot either except in engine performance. I suppose that the byproducts of the combustion engine can be stretched to fall into the realm of toxic materials and ranked with the farm cows emitting large quantities of methane, but the largest culprits are those of industry and energy production. Contamination can be severe and insidious such as a recent warning regarding methylated mercury in tuna. Benign science created the toxins and those using the services and technologies of science to create amenities and improve the human condition must assume the responsibility for wise management: Production, distribution, and eventual control of many products. Simply sticking it in the ground is the “Band Aid” approach and is extremely shortsighted. However, in defense of short term solutions, man is limited in the knowledge in the proper neutralization of many toxins. Sometimes “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”. Foresight and correct thinking with the “profit” motive placed in suspension or at least in proper perspective will go a long way in solving the toxic waste issue. For now we are stuck with a lot of nasty stuff.

And biofuels aren't the answer either: Economics of producing one gallon of ethanol does not make economic sense plus it is depleting the food supply and adding to inflation.

Electronic waste:

The electronic industry offers its own form of toxic waste...yes, the good ole PC. What are we going to do with all of the discarded computer products--or any electronic goods? It is not a simple issue and covers the spectrum of environmental hazards, altruism, and software proprietorship, money in recycled parts and elements. Most people simply place the broken or obsolete item on the curb and hope that the trash company will alleviate your worry and pick the items up and absolve your responsibility. It's their problem now. Granted, there are some companies in large urban areas that will accept your goods and attempt to refurbish them for donations or for profit. And then there is the scrap value--some good and some bad. Plastic can be recycled and certainly elements like gold, platinum, copper, tin, antimony, barium, lead, palladium, niobium, tantalum are worth reclaiming. But the industry is small and does include expense and danger. Collection, refurbishing, and the whole gamut of recycling the materials is not that cost effective. The consumer is going to have to pay somewhere along the line. Maybe a built in cost at the time of purchase, a "dumping" fee, or a special tax increase. And, the issue of copyrighted software items that are refurbished may be a legal issue. ARGH, we created these pieces of technology and we must share in the responsibility of their recycling.

I suppose if you owned a "Cray Y-MP C90" supercomputer things would be different. The Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center owned this item and were somewhat stuck as what to do with it when it was replaced. The manufacturer said they would haul it off for $27.000--yipes. However, someone at PSC came up with the brilliant idea of putting it on eBay. Well, it sold for $45,100.70 to a retired person [age 47] from Silicon Valley--Steve Blank.

"Pittsburgh Auctions Off Vintage Supercomputer"


References to read:

"Low-Level Radiation: The Effects on Human and Non-Human Life"

"Microbial Fuel Cell: High Yield Hydrogen Source and Wastewater Cleaner"

"Nuclear Waste Disposal"

"Promising new materials for better nuclear waste storage"

“Protecting the Land”

"Radioactivity speeds up"

"The Effects of Low Level Radiation"

"War of words over waste"

"Waste Management"