Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

China is Our E-Waste Dumping Ground

By Terry J. Allen, In These Times. Posted January 5, 2008.


The United States sends up to 80 percent of its toxic electronic waste to China, all while turning a profit, too.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Also in Top Stories

America's Frightening Alzheimer's Epidemic
Rebecca Hyman, AlterNet

CNN's Lou Dobbs Is Clueless When It Comes to the Drug War
Tony Newman, AlterNet

U.S. Sergeant Refuses to Go to Iraq: "This Occupation is Unconstitutional and Illegal"
Karin Zeitvogel, Middle East Online

Election 08: Misogyny I Will Not Miss
Marie Cocco, Washington Post Writers Group

Dire Consequences with a McCain Supreme Court?
Robert Parry, Consortium News

California Gay Marriage Ban Overturned
Huffington Post

Three Things That Won't Help End the Foreclosure Crisis
Dean Baker, Liz Chimienti, Center for Economic and Policy Research

More stories by Terry J. Allen

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

The highway of poisoned products that runs from China to the United States is not a one-way street. America ships China up to 80 percent of U.S. electronic waste -- discarded computers, cell phones, TVs, etc. Last year alone, the United States exported enough e-waste to cover a football field and rise a mile into the sky.

So while the media ride their new lead-painted hobbyhorse -- the danger of Chinese wares -- spare a thought for Chinese workers dying to dispose of millions of tons of our toxic crap.

Most of the junk ends up in the small port city of Guiyu, a one-industry town four hours from Hong Kong that reeks of acid fumes and burning plastic. Its narrow streets are lined with 5,500 small-scale scavenger enterprises euphemistically called "recyclers." They employ 80 percent of the town's families -- more than 30,000 people -- who recover copper, gold and other valuable materials from 15 million tons of e-waste.

Unmasked and ungloved, Guiyu's workers dip motherboards into acid baths, shred and grind plastic casings from monitors, and grill components over open coal fires. They expose themselves to brain-damaging, lung-burning, carcinogenic, birth-defect- inducing toxins such as lead, mercury, cadmium and bromated flame retardants (the subject of last month's column), as well as to dioxin at levels up to 56 times World Health Organization standards. Some 82 percent of children under 6 around Guiyu have lead poisoning.

While workers reap $1 to $3 a day and an early death, the "recycling" industry -- in both the United States and China -- harvests substantial profits. U.S. exporters not only avoid the cost of environmentally sound disposal at home, but they also turn a buck from selling the waste abroad. After disassembly, one ton of computer scrap yields more gold than 17 tons of gold ore, and circuit boards can be 40 times richer in copper than copper ore. In Guiyu alone, workers extract 5 tons of gold, 1 ton of silver and an estimated $150 million a year.

Many U.S. exporters pose as recyclers rather than dumpers. But a 2005 Government Accountability Office report found that "it is difficult to verify that exported used electronics are actually destined for reuse, or that they are ultimately managed responsibly once they leave U.S. shores."

This dumping of toxic waste by developed countries onto developing ones is illegal under the Basel Convention, a 1992 international treaty that was ratified by every industrialized nation -- except the United States.

Unhindered by international law and unmonitored by Washington, U.S. brokers simply label e-waste "recyclable" and ship it somewhere with lax environmental laws, corrupt officials and desperately poor workers. China has all three. And a packing case with a 100-dollar bill taped to it slips as easily as an eel through Guiyu's ports.

E-waste fills a neat niche in the U.S.-China trade. America's insatiable appetite for cheap Chinese goods has created a trade deficit that topped $233 billion last year. While e-waste does little to redress the financial disparity, it helps ensure that the container vessels carrying merchandise to Wal-Mart's shelves do not return empty to China.

In the 19th century, England faced a similarly massive deficit with China until a different kind of junk -- opium -- allowed it to complete the lucrative England-India-China trade triangle.

Britain, after destroying India's indigenous textile industry and impoverishing local weavers, flooded its colony with English textiles carried on English ships. The British East India Company fleet then traveled to China to buy tea, silk and other commodities to sate Europe's appetites for "exotic" luxuries. But since there was little the Chinese wanted from either India or Europe, the ships traveled light and profitless on the India-China side of the triangle. That is, until England forced Indian peasants to grow opium and, in the process, precipitate mass starvation by diverting cultivable land.

The trade fleet then filled up with opium and pushed it to China through the port of Canton. Since opium was illegal in China, Britain started a war in 1839 to force Peking to accept the drug. By 1905, more than a quarter of China's male population was addicted.

Now it is Americans who are addicted to Chinese junk. And our own government policies and corporations are the ones stoking the jones. Slick marketing and consumer fetishism push Americans to buy the latest, lightest, biggest, smallest, fastest, trendiest items. And even if you are not hooked on the latest gadgets, repairs or upgrades are impractical. The half billion computers we trashed in the last decade have to go somewhere, and shipping them to China and other poor nations is a win-win solution for Chinese and U.S. industry.

As for the populations of both countries, we can feast on the irony that the same ships that carry toxic toys and food ingredients to Americans return bearing deadly e-waste for the Chinese.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: e-waste, china, toxic, toys

Terry J. Allen is a senior editor of In These Times. Her work has appeared in Harper's, The Nation, New Scientist and other publications.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
IDOECON
Posted by: ehensley on Jan 5, 2008 4:38 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank God this article will never appear in mainstream media. The reaction of the average reader would be "Great. I'm sure glad to hear those toxic items are not staying here. How can we do more of this?" NIMBY would be the lesson from this report to the average American, I fear. It is uphill all the way to make us care for those in another country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: IDOECON Posted by: dmmaze6
otto
Posted by: otto on Jan 5, 2008 5:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wow! Thanks! This is something that I have never heard of before...a new dimension of the
problem.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thanks for the insight.....
Posted by: Smiggsy on Jan 5, 2008 5:39 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I really appreciate this kind of journalism on the web. Educational. There is always something important regarding global trade that I was not aware of previously. Thank god for America.

Now I despise the politics & the corporate machinations of the good ole' USA even more (if that were possible).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

But where did it come from in the first place?
Posted by: Celtaban on Jan 5, 2008 8:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm willing to bet that the point of origin of almost all of that junk is China. Yes, we're shipping e-waste to China for disposal, and reaping the profits, and that's wrong. But you can't get around the fact that virtually all of that toxic stuff originally came to us from China.

By throwing its population headlong into the race to produce ever-cheaper goods, Chinese policymakers have made this bed for their own people, and they can unmake it readily, if they choose. Both the front and back ends of the process must be regulated in China if their workers are to benefit. The U.S. might ban waste exports (and should), but the whole world won't. The only way it will stop is if the Chinese refuse to take it. And if they don't want to do that, they can mitigate the ill effects by using production methods that generate less waste and toxins in the end.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Better Sources Elsewhere
Posted by: InsertNameHere on Jan 5, 2008 9:12 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The latest issue of National Geographic has a much more well rounded and better informed article on E-Waste.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In all fairness, they are retaliating...
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Jan 5, 2008 9:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They send us leadgo's building blocks for junior, euthanAsia brand puppy chow, tube after tube* of toothwaste, and they are helping to keep the planet comfortably hot by building three new coal-fired plants...what, every week, was it? All the nasty stuff can't flow in one direction, the principle of diffusion prevents it!

We have to send them something marginally useful besides our increasingly worthless IOU's/t-bills in exchange for all the worthless-to-marginally useless crap they send to us, don't we?

Hello...parity? If not parity, again, simple diffusion?

*k, I don't think we actually got any of the poison toothpaste in my local supermarket, but the potential is still somewhat frightful.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» turn off your computer then... Posted by: ABetterFuture
There's more to it than that.
Posted by: KeepsonTickn on Jan 5, 2008 11:54 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't know how that mile high football field stacks up to our imports of Chinese electronics, but I would guess that it is a miniscule fraction, and a lot of empty containers are returned to China.

Most of the electronic refuse winds up in our landfills, where the toxins leech into our water supply. Trying to find appropriate recycling options for a given product is much more difficult than tossing it in the nearest dumpster. Serious recycling would require government mandate, because it would cost businesses and consumers money and inconvenience.

Like our profligate waste of oil resources and subsequent poisoning of the atmosphere and the oceans, this is a "tragedy of the commons," in which short term profits are allowed to trump the needs our children will face in a world that is likely to outlast Exxon Mobile and Walmart.

Recycling is certainly a necessity, but the article does not address that need. If the law dictated ecologically sound and worker-friendly recycling of all toxic waste, the added cost would certainly lead us to rethink some of our gadget purchases, and might even bring back the concept of the repair shop.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: There's more to it than that. Posted by: Smartcookie
The communist gov't
Posted by: Joe on Jan 5, 2008 6:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
of China does what is in the best interest of it's people. A government doing what it thinks is best for it's people rousing anger from similar minded (gov't doing what's best for the people) people is kind of ironic.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Other Sources
Posted by: tjc.cjt@gmail.com on Jan 5, 2008 6:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is a very good article about the exact dump site in Vice Magazine. A journalist goes there herself and documents the harmful damage to the water and air supply of the region. Everyone should check it out. Vice Mag. deserves more props for their work. That article even came out over two months ago.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

THE SOLUTION
Posted by: gellero on Jan 5, 2008 7:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I say we go back to Colonialism so the rest of the world does things the way we say it should be.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: THE SOLUTION Posted by: A. Servant
Factory chickens come home to roost
Posted by: beeden on Jan 6, 2008 9:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"U.S. exporters not only avoid the cost of environmentally sound disposal at home, but they also turn a buck from selling the waste abroad."

Let's not forget that most, if not all, of these burgeoning industries in China were established because Western Business Corporations decided it was better to reduce costs by paying cheap wages ( rather than pay a living wage in the West) and building out of date factories ( refusing to invest and upgrade equipment in the West) in China.

The "benefits" of this mindless profiteering mentality have now come home to haunt not just Western society but the whole globe, with increasing pollution/carbon emissions/lack of factory jobs in the West/ cardboard wasteland/ landfill toxification etc. etc.

So what actual savings have been made? Sure the Corporations and their subsidiaries involved have been amply/over-zealously rewarded, but the general public bunny has once again been asked to pick up the tab for this new era of garbagization of human and environmental well-being. The massive devastation of water tables, cloud forests, farmlands, for an ever-increasing miasma of toxins and human injustices so that Big Corporation and its shareholders can buy up at the "big end" of town. What a calamitous approach to sound business management by government that refrains from connecting the dots of all the issues involved with a sustainable global lifestyle.

Until Big Corporations and their subsidiaries are held economically accountable for all areas of economic impact as regards product production, from inception to deconstruction, the prevailing forces of production will manufacture a never-ending chain of garbage that will keep hostage all those outside the Corporation decision making process, but threaten the very essentials reliant upon a normal life. The continued, persistent poisoning of vital water supplies, through Big Corporation's deliberate neglect, has to be one of the most serious crimes against global communities of the moment.

It is time to make Global Business Corporations accountable for the waste their products/manufacture actively create, and to stop passing the buck from management and shareholders to the non-decisionmaking general public purse. Enough of Industry Self Regulation, national and international laws need to be put in place by governments to hold Big Corporations and their subsidiaries accountable, not tomorrow, today.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Future of China
Posted by: PaulK on Jan 6, 2008 5:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
China will be fantastically rich for the connected, and most of the other people will be sick, dead, sterile or brain-damaged. Eventually the Chinese robber barons will move their enormous wealth offshore to Singapore. In the meantime the poor will be treated to circuses like the Olympics and dreams of conquering the moon.

Remember this the next time you hear that China will conquer the U.S.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cheap Decomposing
Posted by: Roger Ritthaler on Jan 7, 2008 2:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who did we think was decomposing those computers? The worms? Nope. It required CHEEEEEAP labor.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]