Introduction / Synopsis

Many articles have been presented by several experts on the problems of e-waste and their management. Some experts argue that the root cause of concern for human health and the
Environment is not because of the chemical and components used rather it is the severe mismanagement of e-waste in several developing countries. Others turn the attentions to the fact that the United States and European countries have no laws prohibiting the export of toxic waste. Rapid technology change, low initial cost, and even planned obsolescence have resulted in the fastest growth of the electrical and electronic equipment products and simultaneously resulted in the rapid development of e-waste around the globe due to enhanced rate of discarding the products after their end-of-life (EOL). (Bandyopadhyay). However, it is also worthwhile noting that in contrast, Waste Electronics and Electrical Equipment (WEEE) can offer a tremendous business opportunity if it would be treated in proper manner. Such is the emerging technology that support of the green computing and building our recycling infrastructure which is said to be woefully inadequate.
Whichever ways these environmental issues are viewed, it is obvious in my opinion that the Waste Electronics and Electrical Equipment (WEEE) is problematic because of the vast array of chemicals and components used to manufacture EEE. The decision by all the stakeholders to act on mitigation of these problems is vital. This is a global issue accompanied by major ethical dilemma across all culture and it is also a problem which has created the cause for a common solution.

Regulations & Guidelines

Even though a national strategy is under consideration by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), historically States have developed separate initiatives. In the State of Florida for example, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), Division of Waste Management has been involved with the issue of end-of -life (EOF) of electronics since 1988 (Townsend).
California is also known for the technological innovation and environmental leadership. (Raphael). According to an estimate of the European Commission, the total amount of e-waste in Europe is expected to increase by 45% between 1995 and 2010. This forecast has led to the development of European waste strategy based on three categories – waste prevention, recycling and reuse and environmental sound disposal. (Bandyopadhyay).
State agencies here in the United States generally have non-uniform regulations covering WEEE disposal but some have established a “voluntary certification” program many electronic recyclers have to adhere to. Such certification programs are including ISO 14001, E-Stewards and Response Recycle Practices (R2).

E-waste Regulations issues and the ethical dilemma
EPA Regulations could undoubtedly play a much bigger role in resolving e-waste management issues. Barbara Kyle, in her article “EPA’s voluntary program for “safe management of used electronics” won’t prevent unsafe e-waste exports to developing countries”, stated that EPA announced its new “Sustainable Materials Management Electronic Challenge,” a voluntary program to encourage electronics manufacturers and retailers to launch or improve their take-back/recycling programs for used electronics, and in particular to send more of their e-waste to certified recyclers. Good intention, not necessarily good results. (Kyle). E-stewards and R2 certifications for e-waste recyclers provide standards that prohibit the export of toxic e-waste, but R2 standard does allow export of e-waste to developing countries while e-stewards standard does not. EPA, under different leadership, helped convene the R2 standard stakeholder process, so for political reasons, the EPA seems to be unable to favor the clearly stronger e-Steward standard. So far, this type of action is a clear case of ethical dilemma on the part of EPA in its decision making process.
Improperly disposed e-waste is a global ethical problem of which each individual who uses electronics is a stakeholder. In China, Guiya is an area which houses a major electronic recycling facility, wherein residents – including children– are employed to break down old cell phones, computers, and other electronics into their component parts often by burning them or placing them in nitric hydrochloric acids to remove their precious metals. But in the process, the destabilized chemicals are released and wreak havoc on those who are exposed. Guiya is reported as having the highest number of cancer causing toxins in the world; the river which runs through it contains up to 2,400 times the World Health Organization’s acceptable threshold for lead. The residents face high rates of risk of miscarriage, respiratory problems and lead poisoning. (The TechCitizen). This catastrophe is not just taking place overseas. Here in the United States, even landfills, which are technically supposed to be more contained and safe, are bastions of risk. These are examples of ethical issues across the globe of which both the developing and developed countries are major players.

Summary and Conclusion

More actions are needed by all the stakeholders especially the environmental agencies of governments around the world to combat the unethical behaviors which are detrimental to the health of the citizens and destructive to the environment.
The United States can play a major role by considering the following three (3) factors in its actions on e-waste global impact: 1. Foster Producer Responsibility – Manufacturers will continue to embark on building the vision of “green PC” when they know that the take-back/recycling programs for used electronics will eventually return like boomerangs. 2. Reward the good players - Take-back laws should offer incentives to companies to compete on grounds of environmental quality. 3. Make change from the bottom up - Some in industry say wait until a national e-waste dialogue solves the problem. But national talks have gone slowly, and local taxpayers and Asian villagers can't wait. It's up to the states to build momentum for federal action. (Raphael)
In conclusion, EPA should aggressively propose laws which would prohibit EEE manufacturers from exporting products after their EOF from the United Sates to developing countries, unless such products are properly inspected for usefulness in such countries and are being sold to the buyers at the equitable prices.

REFERENCES

1. Amitava Bandyopadhyay (2010). Electronics waste management: Indian practices and guidelines http://www.ijee.ieefoundation.org/vol1/issue5/IJEE_05_v1n5.pdf http://www.ijee.ieefoundation.org/

2. Barbara Kyle (2012). EPA’s voluntary program for “safe management of used electronics” won’t prevent unsafe e-waste exports to developing countries http://www.electronicstakeback.com/2012/09/20/epas-voluntary-program-for-safe-management-of-used-electronics-wont-prevent-unsafe-e-waste-exports-to-developing-countries/ 3. Chad Raphael (2002). Taking Responsibility for E-Waste http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/ethicalperspectives/raphael.html 4. The Tech Citizen, “Technology and Society” (05/17/2010). Ethics and Electronic Waste, Part 1 http://thetechnologicalcitizen.com/?p=2991 5. Townsend TG. (2011). J Air Waste Management Assoc. 2011 Jun; 61(6):587-610.
Environmental issues and management strategies for waste electronic and electrical equipment.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21751577#