E-Waste
Capitalism in its purest form is all about maximizing profit at whatever the cost to the workers, economy or environment. In this light capitalism can be viewed as a double-edged sword, in which a company in a capitalistic economy will avoid extra cost at any chance possible even if that means the illegal disposal of harmful secondhand electronics avoiding all the rules and regulations that would make disposal cost extra called E-Waste, to impoverished countries such as China and Ghana. But this in turn hurts the very people that make the system work, which is the second contradiction of capitalism; with the improper disposal of waste that in turns make the workers sick, they then work less or potentially die, but a workers death in
…show more content…
This comes as a contradiction, to the entire fundamentals of capitalism, in which an over accumulation of resources “This tends to lead to a concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands” (Robbins et al. 2010, 102). So the rich keep getting richer causing a gap between the classes, and less money to go around so the very people who are creating the goods are not able to purchase them. In order for companies to lower prices they could overproduce and create more of the product. In doing this the company would create a surplus of goods, those that go unsold would find its way back to the environment in the from of solid waste in a landfill or toxic smoke like the burning of electronics to get the more valuable pieces in Ghana. Its not just an exploitation of resources but the workers for the company as well “If workers are paid the full value of their labor or natural systems are reinvigorated at the same rate they are drawn down, there is little or nothing left for the capitalist” (Robbins et al. 2010, 99). Many workers wind up being poisoned in these places that work to take the electronics apart and wind up with a range of illnesses, potentially life …show more content…
Another reason they would do this is spatial fix, which is looking for other geographic locations where companies can dump waste, or look for new sites of production to completely avoid having to ship waste. More people favor this approach because they would rather it happen some where other than their house and the mindset of “Not in MY Back Yard-ism” (Robbins et al. 2010, 112). Many companies and charities, such as the one showcased in “60 Minutes”, which ship their E-Waste off to countries that have not yet put laws into place to prohibit the importation of electronics to their country. But laws are not always effective in stopping the transportation of E-Waste, in both China and the United States it is illegal to ship Electronics into and out of the country. In the United States “In 2009, approximately 25 percent of TVs, computer products, and cell phones that were ready for end-of-life management were collected for recycling. Cell phones were recycled at a rate of approximately 8 percent.” (EPA). That would mean that a total 75 percent of used electronics were recycled improperly and thrown into landfills or exported out to someplace like “Under-populated countries in Africa are vastly UNDER-populated”
The e-waste trade is an exploitative industry in which electronics, circuit boards, old TV’s and desktops that are of no more value, get dumped into third world countries such as Ghana, Vietnam, Malaysia, Pakistan, Hong Kong, and many others. The people of these third world countries than burn the electronics in order to collect the remains and scraps of copper and iron that can be sold for money. The smell and burning smolder of plastic from the computers and old TV’s are incredibly toxic, slowly killing the children, women, and men that burn these e-waste remains in order to create a living for themselves. Adam Smith, Karl Marx, and Emile Durkheim all have theories that can be applied and related to this trade of e-waste. Adam Smith’s theory
...ion even more. We tend to shop for more products that we want because we are never contented on what we have. This results into an increase amount of electronic waste products that often end up in our landfills, or are being burned in incinerators, all to which are the cause of air, land, and water pollution.
Daily consumers are confronted with advertising campaigns trying to lure their slightly used electronic devices into retirement by being swayed into upgrading to the most recent model. A 2007 study conduct in the United States revealed “500 million used cell phones that are stockpiled in closets and drawers will eventually end up in landfills as electronic waste (E-Waste).” As E-Waste continues to spread across the globe it is growing faster than leaves can grow on trees and it is posing a threat to human health and the environment (E-Cycle).” Consumers recycling cell phones to reuse materials is environmentally and socially beneficial in reducing E-Waste.
In America it is more common for a nine year old child to own the latest cell phone than it is for them to own a book. Americans are obsessed with the “labor-savers and gadgets that [they] have become addicted too” (Berry). Americans take upgrading to a whole new level; in America one could go and buy a fancy new cell phone and in just a few short months that phone is out dated and old because there is a brand new one already out. It has also become a competition of who has the best or the latest in technology.
The United States, as well as the world, is more and more dependent on electronics. Everything around us runs on electricity; from the cars we drive, our dependency on mobile electronics we use, all the way down to the cappuccino machines that make our favorite beverages. We love our electronics. Last year alone “retail sales of consumer electronics fell just short of $1 trillion in 2011,” reports John Laposky of TWICE magazine, and those sales “are predicted to hit $1.04 trillion in 201...
We live in a society where we have to keep up with technology by buying latest products such as $300 iPhone that make few adjustments each year. According to Apple, they "sold more than 13 million new iPhone 6s and iPhone 6s Plus models, a new record, just three days after launch". That 's only on the first launch, imagine how many cellphones are sold in a year and how
Tommy Jones begged, pleaded, and hoped beyond hope for that new touch screen phone that would immediately move him up the social ranks at his school. His wish was granted on Christmas morning. He was rewarded with that sleek, black phone with 4G capabilities. Two months later the next phone in that series is out, an exact clone of the orginal with the most moderate changes, and suddenly Tommy’s phone is obsolete. There was no great improvement when compared to the old model, no; the corporation knows that it will sell, no matter how small the improvement. This model of constant obsolescence has become the norm in the economy today; companies reap profits with mediocre products, completely uncaring of the consumers. To put the economy back in the hands of the consumers, a system of deregulation must be enacted to allow the marketplace to be run once again by consumer interest.
Also recycling as spoiled societies in well developed regions. I Believe we consume way more then we need because we know it 's will be reused for a good cause but all that waste is generating more working for recyclers which in way is counterbalancing the environmental benefit. In Junkyard Planet by Adam Minter he spoke on a study that was done at the university where they observed the paper towel usage in a men 's restroom over a period of time. First with just a trash can and then the second time the recycling bin included the study found that that people used about half a hand towel more where there was a recycling bin (pg 266). “The increasing consumption found is partially due to the fact that consumers are well aware that recycling is beneficial for the environment: however the costs of recycling are less salient”(Minter 267). I believe the reason why recycling isn 't technically working is because we consumer see recycling as a first option when it 's actually should be sacred process that should be used in rarity. We as consumers need to think conserve instead of
In addition, individuals dispose off their electronic waste wrongly, and it ends up in the incinerators, where toxic gases are produced.
Electronic waste, or e-waste, refers to all consumer electronic products that are ready to be discarded into the waste stream. Once these devices are deposited into landfills, toxic substances leach into the earth and into the water supply. According to a recent study from the Government Accountability Office, 50 million computers become outdated each year, and studies suggest that between 315 and 600 million desktop and laptop computers will soon be obsolete.
It is inevitable to deny that we are currently living in a world where technology plays a prominent part of our lives, and that this technology is ever-quickly transforming. Like all marketable consumer products, electronic products are continuously improved, altered, and designed to appeal to targeted consumers. Many of us are familiar with the struggle of having to catch up to current trends of consumer electronic devices. The useful lives of these products are relatively short, and in a year or two, it is almost expected that a new product with more capabilities and enhanced features will be in the market that would replace the old one. This ineffective process may be blamed on the all too Western mindset that better, newer things will essentially make us happier. As a society, we cause a stir every time a new i-Phone hits the market. Whether the rapid consumption and disposal cycle is driven by consumer demand or producer planned obsolescence does not matter; it is safe to assume that this mindset is going to be difficult to change. What should change – quickly – is the management of these e-waste disposals, the lack of awareness and concern among ill-informed consumers about how to safely discard of their electronic products to undermine how the significant amounts of electronic waste will directly impact the environment and human health.
...es in the world have an e-Stewards label on their products, where is visible to consumers as well as locations where people can recycle their e-waste. One possible way is that I think in the future, scientist should come up with a new way to make electronics equipments that contains less chemical substances.
Boudier, F. & Bensebaa, F. (2011). Hazardous Waste Management and Corporate Social Responsibility: Illegal Trade of Electrical and Electronic Waste. Business and Society Review, 116, 29–53.
As humanity develops new technology, the magnitude and severity of waste increases. When computers were developed, it widely was believed that the need for paper would be eliminated. On the contrary this was widely proven false and we are now utilizing more paper than ever. Canada is not an exception as the typical Canadian generates an average of three pounds of solid waste each day1. This alone shows what a careless species we have become- using and disposing materials without even considering the damage we are causing. With half a trillion tones of waste around the world, only 25% may be reused for a second or third time and less than 5% can be renewed limitlessly1. These facts are true only in developed countries. Since these traditional waste reduction methods have been proven inefficient, we must endorse new innovative technology to arrive at a solution.
Preserving the environment is very important. One way that would be possible is by recycling. Recycling is the recovery and reprocessing of waste materials for use in new products. There are important environmental and economic benefits connected with recycling. Common materials that are recycled consist of aluminum cans, glass, paper, wood, and plastic (“Recycling”). Cleveland, Ohio joined the ranks of requiring recycling and also fines the homeowners for not disposing of waste correctly or leaving cans out too early or too long (McElroy 1). Michele McCay says that recycling is one of the easiest, most tangible ways of taking action for the planet (par. 1). If that is the case, why is it not required in all states? Recycling should be mandatory because it saves natural resources, it conserves energy, and it reduces pollution.