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 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...
Even though electronic waste contributes one percent of waste as discussed earlier, it poses a significant threat to the environment. “RCRA does not, however, cover electronic waste except CRTs, nor does it regulate electronic devices donated for educational or charitable reuse.” The RCRA should implement rules to govern e-waste because e-waste not only affects lives in the United States, It affects everyone globally. E-waste typically finds its ways out of the United States and ends up in developing countries like
In addition, individuals dispose off their electronic waste wrongly, and it ends up in the incinerators, where toxic gases are produced.
About a month ago I attended a dinner with some close friends. As we all sat in the restaurant waiting for drink orders to be taken, I looked around the table and what I saw made me feel more than a little annoyed considering I had not seen some of these people (or spoken to some of them) in over a month. Everyone at the table had sat down and immediately took out their phone. After reading the article “Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation?”, by Jean M. Twenge, the feelings experienced that evening at dinner were validated and broadened by the depth and scope of the article. Jean Twenge was persuasive because of the statistical data in her article.
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
E-waste is an enormous problem around the world and according to the “United Nation Environment Program 20 to 50 million tons of E-waste is generated worldwide annually (Ford)”. In fact, “ten thousand cell phones wind up in a landfill every day (Weston)”. When electronic waste is improperly dispose of it can cause problems to the environment and human health. Human health could be affected by toxic materials leaking into the drinking water or food supply. The materials in cell phones “contain lead, cadmium, and mercury that can potentially leak contaminant into the soil and groundwater (Mosieur)”. “Lead exposure to humans will damage to the nervous system, blood and kidneys and mercury exposure will cause brain damage (e-Catcher)”.
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
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.
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.
A leading force is today’s technology driven world and that if the latest device is not in your possession then it is in sense a wrong doing. This is not as much of a major concern, the concern is the lack of personal sufficiency when without your device for the smallest amount of time. In the survey...
...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.