SVTC’s Top Ten: Why Solar Companies Must Take Back & Responsibly Recycle

#9 - Mandatory recycling will allow companies to set up viable recycling financing systems.

#10 – Irresponsible companies shouldn’t get a free ride

SVTC’s report, Toward a Just and Sustainable Solar Energy Industry, came out a year ago and exposed the not-so-green side of the solar industry.  We opened a global discussion on the need for takeback and responsible recycling of solar panels.  SVTC’s history is one that examines issues in both production and the end-of-life of electronics.

As an organization that wants to see the solar industry succeed, we hope to work with solar companies to take full responsibility for the environmental and health impacts of their products. The first step is for solar companies to takeback and responsibly recycle solar panels (no export and no prison labor).

Over the next several weeks, SVTC’s executive director, Sheila Davis, will share, “SVTC’s Top 10: Why Solar Companies Must Take back & Responsibly Recycle.”

The posting of these blog entries will lead up to the release of SVTC’s Solar Scorecard, which will be released in late March. The scorecard will rank companies according to their takeback policies, supply chain monitoring, chemical use, lifecycle analysis, and willingness to be transparent.

#9 – SVTC’s Top Ten: Why Solar Companies Must Take Back & Responsibly Recycle

#9 Mandatory recycling will allow companies to set up viable recycling financing systems.

Right now, recycling solar panels isn’t profitable. Maybe it won’t be tomorrow, or the next day, but it will surely remain inefficient and costly in twenty years if laws aren’t passed  requiring solar companies to invest in recycling systems.

Mandatory recycling laws can be structured so that solar companies can take advantage of the long life cycle of their products, approximately 25 years, to develop and test recycling systems that are economically viable and environmentally sound.

Once recycling laws are in place, there will be a level playing field, and that will allow more time for the companies to “get it right” and possibly incorporate some of the recycled materials in new products and recover some of the cost of developing the recycling program.

Having these types of systems in place will help prevent dumping overseas, the use of prison labor, and will truly protect the environment & human health.

#10 – SVTC’s Top Ten: Why Solar Companies Must Take Back & Responsibly Recycle

#10 – Irresponsible companies shouldn’t get a free ride

Without mandatory laws for recycling, the companies that invest in recycling will give a “free ride” to those companies that do not set up programs. Companies lacking a takeback and recycling program will have an economic advantage since their costs will not reflect the true cost of doing business. By externalizing recycling costs, these companies   will be able to charge their customers less for their products.

It is not rocket science for these companies to figure out why there is a very real need to create a takeback and responsible recycling system for their company. The solar industry, as a whole, will suffer because of these free riders; few companies will be bearing the burden that all of the companies should be responsible for.

Responsible solar companies won’t be the only ones picking up the tab for the free riders. Companies without takeback programs will also be shifting the burden onto taxpayers and communities.

Local municipal waste management programs will have to take responsibility for the influx of solar panels that will either end up being treated as hazardous waste or sent to a landfill if takeback and recycling programs are not compulsory.  Taxpayers, who pay for these services, will be paying for the costs that the companies should have covered.

Communities located near hazardous waste facilities and landfills might pay a price when solar panels containing toxic substances, as well as substances that have an unknown effect on the environment, such as nanomaterials, are dumped in their area. The poor in the developing countries will also have to pay for the absence of proper infrastructure to recycle panels. However, they will most likely not pay a monetary price. If the treatment of electronic waste is any indicator, developed countries, such as the U.S., will dump the panels in these communities and they will end up paying with their health.

SVTC’s doesn’t believe there should be any “free riders.”

Avatar: 3-D images, 2-D message

by Lauren Ornelas     

As someone who has seen Avatar in both the 3D and non-3D, I can say without a doubt that the 3D version was much better.

 However, when you hear about something called the “Avatar Effect” when discussing how some companies are looking to create 3D televisions you realize that maybe some missed the point of the movie…

The movie is about corporations who are willing to sacrifice the planet and people for a mineral buried in the Earth. Now the movie is clearly an allegory for the quest for natural resources and the harm we have caused to ourselves and to other nations in our quest, but the underlying message is how we continue to ravage our planet and its people for the almighty dollar.

With the recent switchover from analog TVs to digital TVs, a need to extract rare metals buried in the earth to make new TVs and an influx of electronic waste (e-waste) are created as people tossed out their old analog TV.  This pattern will happen again when consumers get rid of their old digital and HD TV’s and purchase new 3D TVs.

Remember, TVs and computers contain hazardous chemicals which have been known to harm communities and workers in the production phase as well as in disposal. In the summer of 2008, a number of us from SVTC traveled to India and saw first-hand what happens when e-waste from the U.S. is dumped to other countries that do not have the infrastructure to take care of it. Men, women and children dismantled products without proper tools and were exposed to lead and carcinogens such as carbon black from printers. Children were covered in it.

I was really hopeful that the strong message from Avatar would make people understand the need to protect our planet and not simply purchase a new TV.  

Although I truly enjoyed the 3D version and felt the experience was amazing,  I would, without a doubt, prefer to experience parts of the world, such as Africa, without it being mined away to make new TV components or used as our dumping ground for those same TVs after a mere 1-2 years of use.

Sunflowers and Solar Panels

Since we sent out over 200 surveys to solar companies in October, I had to visit several hundred solar websites to get companies’ addresses. Some sites were bare-bones and for others, cost was probably not an issue.

On thing I noticed while dredging through hundreds of sites was sunflowers. Beautiful sunflowers fully blossomed in the foreground and a shiny black solar panel in the background. Maybe it’s the contrast of black and yellow, but this image is everywhere.

The more I thought about which plant should be next to the solar panel, a very simple image came to mind – a potato. In my opinion, potatoes, while much less glamorous than sunflowers, do a far better job at capturing the true characteristics of solar panels.

So it doesn’t sound like I’m coming completely out of left field with this comparison, here’s a little info about a potato. While the root of the potato plant is edible, the plant itself is highly toxic. Once we have used up the root, we have toxic leftovers.

The same goes for solar panels. After they have been “used” up, that is to say the panels have reached the end of their useful life, we are left with something that contains toxic materials.

Although it’s far from being a perfect comparison, it illustrates the problem that solar panel manufacturers must face. No matter how sleek the panel might look, it will not live up to the image of a benign sunflower as long as it contains toxic chemicals.

SVTC encourages companies to try to become the image of the sunflower. Remove the toxic substances in your panel that will not harm people or the environment during manufacturing or disposal.

What Do I Really Know?: My Failed Knowledge About Electronic Recycling

Every quarter we are fortunate enough to have students from Stanford University intern here at SVTC.  In the upcoming weeks, the students will be blogging about their experiences at SVTC and their thoughts about e-waste and sustainable technology.

What Do I Really Know?: My Failed Knowledge About Electronics Recycling

It was a simple question. Frustratingly simple. And one that should have been easy.

But I didn’t know the answer.

“What do I do with this?” my roommate asked me yesterday, holding up a used printer cartridge he needed to dispose of.

As an Earth Systems major and a committed environmentalist, surely, I would be a reliable source of information on such a topic. Of course the kid who’s always reminding you to turn your lights off would know where to recycle a printer cartridge.

But when I racked my brains, I came up completely empty. The recycling that goes on in my life generally starts and ends with the blue bin beneath my bed. You sort the paper from the plastic and take it to the big green bins by the dumpster. Tell other people to follow your simple footsteps, and you can pat yourself on the back for a successful round of greenness.

But electronics recycling, gosh, how does that happen? As I lingered in my guilt, unable to address my roommate’s query, I realized the problem was deeper. I had a pile of batteries in my bottom drawer, waiting for me to get around to figuring out what to do with them. I hadn’t ever had to discard a bigger appliance like a tv or computer, but I was pretty sure such a situation would leave me equally lost.

And I call myself an environmentalist.

Thus, my printer cartridge encounter served to highlight my own ignorance and consequently validate the mission of SVTC. Electronics waste builds everywhere all the time, yet few people seem to know what to do with it. While paper and plastic can be recycled around every corner and in every dorm room, recycling any sort of technology takes far more initiative and effort. So much so that it is difficult to imagine the average person making that effort, even if it would mean avoiding toxic waste pollution.

What’s ironic is that the process was really easy after all. As it turns out, a few clicks on Google was all it took to find the locations of both battery and printer cartridge recycling on the first floor of my dorm building. For bigger items, the website also included links to the Santa Clara County’s “List of Approved Collectors of Covered Electronic Waste. To ensure these collectors engaged in responsible recycling, all it took was visiting SVTC’s webpage http://www.computertakeback.com/recycling/find_a_resp onsible_recycler.htm.

My cartridge and batteries now rest safely in those locations, sparing the world of their toxicity. I really should have been a lot more used to that process.

Ishan Nath

Written by Ishan Nath, a sophomore at Stanford studying Earth Systems and Economics.

Mike Anane Interview

Ghanaian journalist, Mike Anane, began corresponding with SVTC in late 2008 about ewaste dumping in Accra. In our spring newsletter, Lauren Ornelas, our campaign director, interviewed Anane on the e-waste being shipped to Ghana under the guise of charity. Earlier this month, ABC TV visited the Agbogbloshie dumpsite in Ghana with Mr. Anane to document the very conditions Mr. Anane had described to lauren. 

We are happy to post Lauren’s interview with Mr. Anane in its entirety below. 

LO: What do you do in Ghana? 

MA: I am currently campaigning to stop the shipments of electronic waste from the industrialized countries to Ghana. Professionally I am an independent environmental Journalist. 

LO: How long have you noticed the problem with e-waste? 

MA: I noticed the problem some six years ago but it was intermittent but these days several containers loaded with e- waste arrive in the country daily from these countries including the US and I am talking of between 250 to 300 containers full of toxic end of life computers and television sets. 

Mike Anana standing next to a pile of e-waste. (Credit: Mike Anana)

 

These discarded electronic items are not functional. They are junk and toxic. Nobody wants them in their backyard because of the health and environmental implications but they are sent to Ghana and dumped all over the place. But in Ghana, there are no mechanisms in place to properly dispose of the e-waste or recycle them. 

LO: Where does most of the e-waste come from? (what countries?) 

MA: Majority of the e-waste come from the US, UK, Holland Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Italy, France etc 

It is easy to tell their country of origin because some of the e-waste still bears their ownership labels and addresses. 

LO: What types of e-waste is most common? (computers, TVs,) 

MA: They are mainly computers and television sets. 

LO: Is there a particular company that you see a lot of e-waste from? (Example HP, Dell?) 

MA: All the companies including Apple, Dell Toshiba, HP, Philips, Panasonic have their e-waste sent here to Ghana. 

LO: What is done with the e-waste? 

MA: Usually the e-waste is shipped into Ghana from the US under the guise of second hand reusable items. When they arrive at the port of Tema in Ghana, Ghanaian businessmen hoping to find working computers and TVs go to the port where they buy these items untested, the rest of the e-waste is then sent to the e-waste dump at Agbogbloshie where they are dumped at the open air dumps. 

Ghana dumpsite with burning computer wires. (Credit: Mike Anana)

 

Majority of the e-waste bought by Ghanaian businessmen from the port here also ends up at the dumpsite as they simply do not work and cannot be refurbished since they are obsolete with some parts broken. 

LO: Who handles the e-waste? (adults, children, men, women) 

MA: At the e-waste dumps children some as young as 5 years can be seen daily breaking and dismantling the e-waste -computers and TV sets. The children wear no protective gear and they are exposed daily to the toxic elements in the e-waste. They then burn the wires and other parts to extract the copper. 

LO: Have you noticed any types of health problems associated with the e-waste?  

MA:  The children and others who work at the dumpsite complain of persistent headaches, respiratory problems, chest pains and headache. One of the children told me that he could not run as he used to so he is not able to play and run around with other kids. 

I have also been informed that a 28 year old man who worked at the e-waste dump has been diagnosed with cancer after he complained that when he coughs or spits he finds blood in his sputum. His brother who also works at the e-waste dumpsite disclosed this to me. 

LO: Have you noticed any types of environmental problems due to the e-waste? 

MA: With regards to the environmental problems they are many. For instance two water bodies run through the dumpsite, a lagoon and a river, both are now biologically dead and e-waste dumping in the area is a major contributoring factor as some of the e-waste is dumped directly into the lagoon and the river. 

Further, each time it rains the toxic substances at the dumpsite and the banks of the river are flushed into the lagoon and the river both then empty the cocktail of poisons into the sea not far from the area. The lagoon and the river contain no fishes or other living organisms. 

The breaking of the computers and TV sets release so much lead from the CRT’s into the soil and ground water. The burning of the plastics, wires and other parts of the computers also releases toxic fumes laden with cadmium, brominated flame retardants and others into the soil as well and into the atmosphere. The shipments of e-waste from the US and others certainly have immense implications for the health and environment of the country. 

Over the years I have been collecting and filming e waste shipped into the country from US, the photos of e-waste in Ghana, some still bearing their ownership labels of institutions in the US, go a long way in proving that the US is shipping used electronic devices containing toxic substances to Ghana with little regulation and enforcement to protect people and the environment here. 

In Ghana, we do not have any mechanisms to recycle or properly dispose of e-waste that is shipped here, rather children some as young as 5 years troop to the e -waste dump in Accra daily to break CRT monitors and also burn the wires in these end-of-life computers and television sets to extract copper. 

This method is not only crude and inefficient but it has virtually no human health or environmental protection. 

Really the question is whether there are rules and regulations in the US covering shipment of e-waste overseas, does the US Environmental Protection Agency  care? If they do then they should initiate investigations into the shipments of e-waste to Ghana from the US.  The ownership labels the e-waste that I have collected could provide some clues. 

Computer found at Ghana dumpsite. (Credit: Mike Anane)

 

The cost to the environment in Ghana and the health of people here is increasingly becoming obvious and unbearable and the US EPA cannot be absolved from blame, indeed the US EPA is complicit in these environmental crimes. America can’t continue to ship its toxic electronic waste to Ghana and pretend that all is well. The relevant regulatory institutions and concerned organizations and individuals in the US need to act fast in the face of the increasing shipments of hazardous waste to Ghana. This is my humble appeal. 

Make sure that your e-waste doesn’t get exported. Find a responsible recycler near you.

Video Contest 2009

When Sheila, our executive director, told me that we wanted to have a video contest on e-waste I was so excited and couldn’t wait to start putting everything together. But then it occurred to me that I didn’t know where to start.

The videos had to be short and about e-waste – that I knew.  How does someone explain all the problems that are created by e-waste? There are the chemicals found electronics, the ever-growing heap of e-waste that is being sent to developing countries, the use of prison labor to recycle e-waste and the need to get better takeback programs. That sentence alone leaves me winded. Images of the  consequences that e-waste has on the environmental and communities often impact us more than just words .

But we also knew that we didn’t want people to feel hopeless. We wanted these videos to empower people and let them know that the first step in solving many of these problems is merely picking a recycler from the right list.

It seemed like a challenge, but we knew that there were people out there who were up for the challenge. With a little bit of guidance our contestants, some with little or no knowledge of the e-waste, produced great videos and learned about the issues. Michael’s video, the 1^st place winner from Texas, used clean and simple graphics to create his call to action.

Our 2nd place winner went a slightly different route and chose to submit a live action video. Clearly showing that a laptop isn’t “rubbish” the light-hearted video reminds us that advocacy isn’t about doom and gloom.

The 3^rd place contestants (yes, there was a tie) entered vastly different but equally effective videos. “Do your part, Recycle” was able to give a simple message in just over 30 seconds, and the “TV ZONE” produced a nostalgic smile on the faces of SVTC staff.

As of this morning (Monday) 641 people have watched our videos. We can’t wait for the 2010 contest.

Polluter Pays

The state of California is in a financial crisis. We are $24 billion in the hole and lawmakers are squabbling over where to cut the budget and putting vital safety nets such as child welfare, schools and health care on the chopping block.

Environmental programs, such as the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, have been slated to be cut entirely, and programs like DTSC (responsible for the Green Chemistry Initiative) are possibly going to be folded into other agencies. Activists, scientists and academics are mobilizing to save these vital state environmental programs, but that won’t solve the problem. We will be confronted by the same issues next year unless we take bold steps to cut cost and generate revenue.

So, why not address the true cost that pollution is causing taxpayers and make polluters pay?

This type of crisis is the perfect time for real change. And that means looking at who is really getting a free ride at the tax payers’ expense. Worker and child exposures to toxic chemicals and pollution costs Californians approximately $2.6 billion in 2004, and the U.S. government is spending $190.7 million from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 to clean up leaking underground storage tanks.

Despite several attempts to regulate toxic chemicals, such as California passing Prop 65 in 1986 and the U.S. joining the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), more than 80,000 untested chemicals are on the market and approximately 700 new untested chemicals enter the market each year. State and federal governments are picking up the cost of health care from air pollution, worker compensation claims for people who have been exposed to hazardous chemicals on the job as well as cleaning up the spill sites.

The environmental and health damages and the total costs to the State associated with environmental remediation and health care remain unknown. These costs are not calculated because it is currently profitable to pollute.

Why not charge a fee for all of the polluting activities that cost the state of California money?

The offending company should pay fees that help fund programs that clean-up the environment and takes care of impacted workers and communities.

The fees should be used to reform state environmental policies and to move us toward a green economy. Not only could fees offset the state’s cost of environmental and health services, but could also help state agencies be proactive in addressing problems, not reactive by fining polluters. The pollution fees could also be used to help state agencies proactively address the problem of pollution by supporting companies that are already located in CA and those that are interested in moving to the state with engineering techniques that reduce workers and community exposure to toxic chemicals. The state can take the lead in developing green technologies by using the fees collected to help support state agencies and universities to develop alternatives to hazardous materials and waste.

Some people say we can’t move toward a green economy during an economic crisis, but after more than 40 years of leveling fines on end-of-the-pipe pollution, the evidence is all around us. The current environmental protection system doesn’t work and polluters have contributed to this economic crisis.

Our static environmental regulatory system has not kept up with the state’s growth or the introduction of new chemicals or new technologies. Nor has it rewarded companies that are aggressively investing in improving their environmental performance.

I don’t have all of the answers of how to reduce state and local government cost for handling hazardous waste, paying for asthma attacks from air pollution, paying for injured workers who were exposed to untested chemicals, or cleaning up toxics spills. But I think this conversation should be started.

So, here are my top 5 ideas for polluter fees that could help reduce state deficits and pollution. Let’s make “polluters pay.”

Here are SVTC’s top choices of polluters who should have to pay fees:

• Producers who use untested chemicals in their products. The rush to get new products on the market has led to an influx of untested chemicals, including nanomaterials that are on our store shelves. Some of these chemicals have been found to cause learning disabilities, cancer, thyroid disease, asthma, diabetes and premature puberty in girls.

• Producers and users of chemicals that are listed under prop 65. These chemicals are known to be hazardous and should be phased out. We should not keep picking up the tab for companies who insist on using chemicals in their products that are known to cause environmental damage and to make people sick.

• Producers and users of chemicals that cause frequent worker compensation claims. Workers compensation in California is expensive. Why should all of companies and workers be stuck with high worker compensation insurance for companies who continue to use solvents that we know damage to workers’ health.

• Products and operations that create hazardous waste. Currently, companies that generate less than 5 tons of hazardous waste a year do not have to pay a fee. Although waste is being generated, revenue to properly handle the waste isn’t.

• Tax autos that pollute and cause asthma.

Do you have ideas on polluters who should pay to clean up THEIR mess? Send us your ideas!

Green Jobs Platform

Why is the Green Jobs Platform for Solar important?

SVTC has high hopes for the solar energy industry. We hope the solar industry will expand, and help solve the climate change problem. We hope that solar will help lead the way for a new green economy. At SVTC we have seen the impact of high-tech manufacturing on workers and communities globally.

We hope that by getting solar companies to adopt and incorporate the Green Jobs Platform for Solar into their business model early, the solar industry can become a beacon of sustainability by protecting its workers and the planet, rather than a throw-back to the dark manufacturing practices that have dominated the high-tech sector. We’ve already seen unfortunate spills in China.

What’s a green job?
With 18 superfund sites in Santa Clara County caused by chemical spills from electronics and high-tech manufacturing, we’ve learned that just because something looks clean when you use it, or even if you can’t see or smell the chemicals, it doesn’t mean it’s clean or good for the environment.

The same can be said for solar panels that provide a clean source of energy in their “use phase” but share many of the hazardous chemicals used in the microchip manufacturing process—its sister technology. It’s a disservice to ourselves, workers, and communities globally to call U.S. solar installation jobs “green” if we aren’t applying the same green jobs standards to workers who make the panels and to those who will recycle or dispose of them. Solar panel technology is rapidly evolving. Silicon based panels use hundreds of chemicals in their production, and thin film uses new materials, such as nanomaterials, which have not been fully tested and have been shone, in certain cases, to be toxic to humans and the environment.

We want companies to strive to phase out toxic chemicals and operate with full transparency-in the light of day-so that workers, communities and consumers know that the panels are safe and the companies are responsible.

If solar is as successful as we all hope and panels proliferate on the roofs of government buildings, schools, corporations and homes, then companies should take measures to guarantee that recycling the panels creates green jobs – not a toxic waste problem. As we have seen with computers, entire villages in China, India and Africa are contaminating their soil and water and workers are poisoning themselves for pennies a day recycling high-tech computer trash from the wealthiest and most privileged nations.

There is no reason for solar companies to repeat mistakes from other high-tech sectors. The stakes are too high. We need solar to succeed. The Green Jobs Platform for Solar is a set of principles that we hope the solar companies will adopt quickly and apply throughout their global supply chain and throughout the panel’s lifecycle.

Why should you care if the jobs are Green in other countries?
Supporting the Green Jobs for Solar Principles has a two-fold benefit: (1) It will protect the workers’ health and safety in other countries; and (2) it will also level the playing field for workers in the global worker force. If the solar industry adopts the Green Jobs platform as a standard that all companies apply throughout the supply chain, they won’t be able to flee to regions where the governments don’t enforce labor or environmental laws and human rights are violated.

Who should sign-on to the Green Jobs Platform for Solar?
In order for solar industry to be safe and sustainable, we need to get it to act now. If you or your local government, school, or business is purchasing solar panels ask the manufacturer of the panels if they have agreed to adopt the Green Jobs Principles for Solar and incorporate them into their business practices.

If you are part of an environmental organization, social justice or environmental health organization that supports sustainability or a labor group that supports workers rights, we invite you to sign the Green Jobs Platform for Solar.

We recognize that the Platform cannot be implemented overnight, but we need to act quickly to get the solar companies to lead the green industry. Improvement is not only defined by driving down the cost of the panels or creating more efficient panels, but also by improving the quality of life of workers and the communities in which they operate.

Join us in protecting workers, communities and the environment.