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.

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.

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!

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.

As many people know, May 1st is International Worker’s Day. It is also referred to as May Day, and when you consider the distressing treatment of workers in many countries – I feel that “May Day” could take on its other meaning and be a cry for help.

I have always advocated for worker issues – starting with the grape boycott when I was in high school. The poor living and working conditions farmworkers continue to endure to this very day, not to mention the agricultural chemicals they are exposed to, are things that I have always been aware of and continue to fight against.

However, working at SVTC I have learned even more about the very people who pick our food and make, dismantle or manage the products we buy – from computers to baby bottles – after they are at their end of life.

Somehow, workers aren’t considered ‘people.’ There is a maximum amount that people, meaning consumers, are allowed to be exposed to when it comes to toxics, but somehow that is different for workers – yup, as if their bodies somehow respond differently because they are working there.

Workers are the first to be exposed. Workers in the electronics industry learned the hard way that the chemicals they used caused cancer and birth defects in children. As famed toxics attorney Amanda Hawes states, “Every day is take your children to work day if you are a woman of child bearing age.”

All of these reasons are why SVTC feels very strongly that green jobs must truly be green for the workers – not just the environment. Manufacturing a solar panel full of toxic chemicals was not very green for the person who put it together or for the person who will have to dismantle it at the end of its life.

And, which communities are actually reaping the benefits of the panels? As reported in the Washington Post, a Chinese company that manufactures polysilicon for solar panels dumped silicon tetrachloride on farmland causing it to become infertile. As we have seen from electronics, (solar panels have a similar chemical makeup) toxic chemicals are destroying the water and air quality in the areas where these products are dismantled without proper equipment – mostly developing nations.

I hope that solar companies become leaders in the green energy movement and ensure that all workers, from production to recycling, don’t have to make the choice between having good health and welfare or having an income.

Solar has the potential to be our best solution to the energy crisis – one that gives and does not take away.

Here at SVTC we looking forward to an even brighter future with the solar industry.

lauren Ornelas
Campaign Director
Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition

Happy Earth Day everyone!

I have been trying to figure out how to write an Earth Day blog that doesn’t sound like everyone else’s and doesn’t have more clichés than you could shake a stick at, like “you should make Earth Day Everyday” (which is absolutely true!) but alas, you can’t win them all!

So I will add yet another cliché, a picture is worth a thousand words. That being said, SVTC has launched our first ever video contest to start today, Earth Day, to draw attention to the devastating impacts that e-waste has on the environment and communities. We are eager to have creative individuals who care about this issue help create awareness.

Go to: http://svtc.org/videocontest2009 to find out more.

Almost everyone in the U.S. has a computer or television, but at the end of the day, many have no idea what goes into these products or what happens to them when they are no longer useful. That’s why we need some creative minds out there to help us spread the word.

Not sure you can create a video? Well, we also hope that people will not let yet another golden opportunity slip away and will make a few clicks to help pass federal legislation that seeks to take the issue of e-waste seriously -because no man is an island.

For more information, visit our HR 1580 Page!

lauren Ornelas
Campaign Director
Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition

P.S. – Life is Tweeter when you follow us on Twitter:
http://twitter.com/svtc!

For those of you haven’t heard, 681 of the 1,800 TV channels will stop broadcasting in analog next Tuesday, despite the legislative delay for June 12th, 2008.

An article in the San Jose Mercury News called the delayed DTV switchover “a victory for the Obama administration and Democrats in Congress, who maintain that the previous administration mismanaged efforts to ensure that all consumers – particularly poor, rural and minority Americans [sic]”.

I don’t see it as a political victory, but an attempt to postpone something that will darken the TVs of millions of people in the U.S. and cause a lot of electronic waste down the road.

The FCC and Congress approved the DTV switchover in 1996 and 1997 respectively, and the DTV date was set in 2006. TV manufacturers have known the switchover was coming for 10 years, so can someone explain why they took so long to make compatible televisions? Why they kept selling TVs that would become unusable without a converter box in just a few years?

On March 1st 2007, TV manufacturers had to stop shipping to the U.S. TVs that weren’t digital-ready, but retailers could still sell the incompatible TVs they had in stock. So, a lot of people just bought a TV last year that will now need a converter box or replacement. Now, millions of consumers will have to buy new TVs or purchase converter boxes; that shouldn’t have been necessary, but will now put a heavy burden on the poor and the environment as analog TVs flood the electronic waste pipeline. Not to mention the eventual waste of the converter boxes.

SVTC’s interest in this has not only been the impact on low-income and communities of color, but the amount of e-waste that will be created. The memories of those in India dismantling e-waste still haunts me (some of these memories capture in the Citizens at Risk video, which you can preview at YouTube).

The delay doesn’t impact how we handle the e-waste, but I can only hope that people will use the extra time to think about their options a little more.

lauren Ornelas
Campaign Director
Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition

Next week, Sheila and I head out to the Good Jobs Green Jobs conference in D.C. It will be an interesting mix of environmentalists, business people and a great lineup of legislative speakers.

Not to mention this will be the first time Sheila and I go to D.C. with Obama in office!

We’ll be at the conference to garner more support from the people working in the solar field for the lifecycle thinking of solar. We need industry and political decision-makers to ensure the entire lifecycle of solar panels is just and sustainable; from fair labor practices for the workers (many in China) to responsible recycling (no prison labor, no export) of solar panels.

The opportunity to make a meaningful and immediate difference on the environmental impact of solar manufacturing, recycling, and labor conditions is really exciting. The solar crowd is full of people with good intentions for the environment and a genuine interest in the issues. We’ve started a lot of productive conversations since we announced the solar report.

Solar has the potential to be one of the best ways for us to get energy with little impact on the planet and its inhabitants – and we are on the cusp of making it green and sustainable.

Unfortunately, I can’t be as optimistic about the Digital TV Transition, which will put a lot of analog TVs into the waste system. The senate voted to delay the DTV switch, but the House voted not to. I hope that Obama or others in the house can delay the transition on behalf of the people.

lauren Ornelas
Campaign Director
Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition

As an African American, I am still reeling from the inauguration of President Barack Obama. Three days later I wake up and still can’t believe we have a black president. Obama taking office gives inspiration that this country can change and that all things are possible.

So now, let’s get down to work.

Last week SVTC’s white paper, Towards a Just and Sustainable Solar Energy Industry, was received surprisingly well by policymakers, environmental groups and solar companies. So now it’s just a matter of putting the report recommendations into action, and that means letting go of a lot of baggage that pits environmental protection against profitability. In his inauguration speech, Obama said, “Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age.”

These disparaging words were cast on financial institutions, the health care industry, and the US public agencies and institutions responsible for protecting the environment. Despite phenomenal advancements in science and technology, this country has not had the political will to profoundly change environmental policies since Richard Nixon signed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) into law almost 30 years ago.

So, now we have to make up for lost time as we prepare the nation for a new age in renewable energy. There are several immediate actions that we can take to ensure growth in the solar sector and at the same time protect public health, workers and the environment – and we don’t have to look at these things as conflicting goals.

Significant long-term economic and technological support will be needed to find new ways to create solar panels without toxins, implement proper testing of new and emerging materials, and expand recycling technology and product design, but there are some things that can happen right now:

1) Companies can setup takeback and recycling programs to make it easy for consumers to return solar panels to the manufacturers. This is a very doable action for solar companies over the next year. Companies like First Solar (http://www.firstsolar.com/) and Solar World (http://www.solarworld-usa.com/) already have takeback and recycling programs. Other companies have expressed interest in working with SVTC to develop programs.

2) Securing federal funding to reduce the environmental and health impacts of the solar industry should be a “no brainer.” The federal government will spend an estimated $54 -100 billion (depending on whose counting) for renewable energy investments. Since congress allocates funding to develop new, innovative solar technology it only makes sensible that they invest in R&D to determine the lifecycle impacts and ensure long term environmental sustainability of solar and the public’s investment in renewables.

SVTC is inviting solar companies, environmental and social justice advocacy groups, and policy makers to work with us (collectively) to explore possible steps toward long term sustainability in solar. We hope this two year project will find new ways to incentivize sustainable practices so that new environmental policies are integral to the competitive market (that supports green jobs, addresses climate change), and solar companies won’t have to make real, or perceived, hard choices between profitability and protecting the environment.

Sheila Davis
Executive Director
Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition

Solar energy may be one of the most important technologies in the 21st century, but the rapid pace of technology innovation has us often moving on to the next thing without a glance at what’s been left behind.

New advancements in clean technology can offer extraordinary possibilities, but often at unpredictable costs.

Less than one year ago, we published a report about the lack of regulations on nanotechnology which can contaminate air and water causing unknown impacts on human health and the environment.

Today, we publish a comprehensive look at another burgeoning clean technology – one that increasingly features nanotechnology – solar panels.

Solar is considered green, because during its “use-phase” it passively collects energy from the sun instead of burning fossil fuel. Solar installation and maintenance will potentially create green jobs that offer living wage, entry level positions and opportunities for advancement.

But solar isn’t so clean or green throughout its lifecycle. The solar manufacturing processes use many of the same chemicals as the electronics industry which still mars Silicon Valley with 29 superfund sites. Also, solar manufacturing can be inefficient and wasteful.

And what will happen to today’s solar panels at the end of their usefulness, which is estimated at 25 years or more? Not only do solar PV products contain many of the same materials as electronic waste (e-waste), but they also contain a growing number of new and emerging materials like nanotechnology that present complex recycling challenges.

This is an important time for solar, because the industry is still in its infancy and the patterns of behavior that develop today will become the status quo of tomorrow. Solar offers an important green alternative to burning fossil fuel, but if companies are not committed to finding ways to reduce chemicals used in manufacturing, design solar panels for recycling, and improve environmental performance throughout the products lifecycle, solar will be more of a trade-off than a green alternative.

The report, “Toward a Just and Sustainable Solar Energy Industry,” offers a plethora of supporting data and detailed information on how solar manufacturing works, what toxins are used, and steps that can be taken to reduce waste.

We would like to urge people to read the report and join us in taking action to build a safe, sustainable, and just solar energy industry.