eWaste? eWhere?

Earlier today, I watched a 20-minute documentary entitled "eDump" which chronicled the path of American-generated "e-Waste" overseas to a small town in China where it was to be dismantled. What is e-Waste? The "e" comes from the word "electronic" and loosely defined, e-Waste refers to computers, televisions, cell phones, circuitry, etc. and all their associated hardware that gets discarded. Instead of being thrown away in landfills or burned in incinerators, unwanted electronic devices have lately met a new fate upon being discarded; they are sent to developing nations worldwide. The e-Waste is then dismantled for its various parts. While the reuse of the parts of electronics may seem like a good way to reduce dependence on raw materials, there is something to be said about the communities in which they are dismantled and treated. As "eDump" depicts, the communities handling this waste, such as Guiyu, China (the study site of the documentary), are subject to polluting, dirty, hazardous facilities where workers are subject to 10-12 hours of toxic fume inhalation daily for about 5-6$ pay. They are exposed to industrial acids to melt and break down e-Waste. Their soil and water are polluted beyond use, and even the children in local kindergartens had higher levels of lead in their blood than normal. Here is a preview of this documentary's harrowing look at the harsh realities of e-Waste:

This film highlights the problem in one Chinese community, but it is important to recognize that the problem is worldwide. In environmental justice and other environmental studies, what is often encountered is a sort of commodity fetishism in which people are unaware of the materials, labor, and other inputs that go into the creation of a certain commodity. They are often equally as unaware as to where it ends up once it is discarded. This is a problem that the environmental justice movement has highlighted. The "Not In My Backyard" philosophies that often lead to placement of landfills and toxic waste sites near low-income/people of color communities are applicable on a global scale. Nobody stops to think about what will happen to the computer monitor they just "recycled": They never actually see where it winds up or the disparate impact of its dismantlement/treatment on poor communities in developing nations.

For wealthier communities in the developed world, it can be far too easy to think that waste disappears after it is hauled away by a disposal service. Individuals in these communities are fortunate enough not to live near landfills, incinerators, etc. nor do they have to suffer the disparate impact and compounded risks associated with being in close proximity to such sites. In the case of e-Waste, what most people do not know is that their discarded material often ends up overseas:

Note that the nations receiving the trash in large quantities are some of the poorest in the world. Hardly anyone who throws out an iPod thinks its parts will end up in India. Here is an interactive e-Waste map detailing where it ends up and where it comes from, courtesy of Greenpeace.

What is the connection to laws and legislation?

There is something to be said about the effects of globalization. The cost of shipping e-Waste overseas for processing is about ten times cheaper than having it dismantled and handled domestically. This economic incentive pushes e-Waste management and associated industries to look abroad, especially in developing nations where environmental, health, and safety regulations are lax enough not to incur high production costs, labor costs are extraordinarily low, and labor laws are lenient at most. The developing condition of these nations allows industries in a wealthier nation to exploit the desperate and dire situations of millions of members of the world's most vulnerable communities, exposing them to devastatingly hazardous and unhealthy workplace conditions. However, appealing to morality is not nearly as strong of a force as the money saved by sending e-Waste abroad. One way to counter this mighty force is through the use of legislation. Only by strong, specific laws can expect to even somewhat overcome the pull of cheap labor overseas.

So why hasn't this been done yet? One reason is that it directly violates the best interests of the industries who benefit from "free-market" capitalism and who tout the advantages of globalization. Political pressure from these large interests as well as some government agencies themselves helps foster and maintain a favorable political climate for globalization and limits the appeal of laws and legislation that appears to go against free trade. Perhaps this is what has effectively kept the U.S. from ratifying a piece of legislation known as the Basel Convention, describing itself as follows:

The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal is the most comprehensive global environmental agreement on hazardous and other wastes.

Read more from the Basel Convention's gloriously thorough website here.

This kind of legislation would be a huge step forward for environmental justice on a global scale. However, the refusal of the United States to ratify it still allows for countless incidences of environmental injustice to occur at the expense of developing nations. The U.S. is the only developed nation that refuses to ratify thi

s international agreement. According to the EPA, they disagree with the definition of hazardous waste as outlined by the document. The following shows a map of nations that have signed and ratified the Basel Convention, as well as nations that have signed, but not ratified it:

The United States sticks out as the only large, industrialized nation that doesn't seem to be on board with this agreement. The failure to abide by the terms of this agreement exemplifies a case where protection is systematically denied to certain people: it is a worldwide example of structural violence. Hopefully, we will soon realize the potential effectiveness of a largely-agreed-upon international agreement on curbing the devastating effects of hazardous wastes on the world's most susceptible people and take on some legislative responsibility.