Accueil

BAN responds to new BC E-waste plan

The Basel Action Network (B.A.N) has released an open letter to the editor, responding to an article recently published in the Richmond Review.

The article discusses the new provincial e-waste program that will come into effect Aug. 1st. B.A.N. asserts that their position was "misrepresented."

Sarah Westervelt, the author of the letter, will be coming to Vancouver on Aug. 2 to give a talk at SFU Harbour centre. [MORE INFO]

Below is the letter in its entirety:

 

Dear Editor,

Your July 14, 2007 article, Is new e-waste recycling program green enough? unfortunately misrepresented some of our thoughts and concerns about BCs new electronic waste program, while not properly explaining them. We are a Seattle-based global environmental group working to prevent the trade in toxic wastes to developing countries, and have become very active regarding e-waste recycling due to the massive amounts that are irresponsibly exported off-shore.


We applaud British Columbias efforts to collect and responsibly recycle electronic waste. This difficult waste stream is complex and full of toxins, and many countries simply export it to developing countries, where it is having horrific impacts on human health and the environment, in many cases. Our understanding of the BC program is that it will not allow these toxic materials to be exported, which we whole-heartedly support.

However, there are other ways to be irresponsible, and we are concerned that equipment collected by the program will not be made available for reuse, refurbishment, and re-purposing, and furthermore, the entire e-waste stream may possibly go straight to metal smelters. This latter practice is not supportable as it fails to maximize the longevity of used electronics, and also fails to reclaim the maximum amount of recyclable plastics. At the same time, highly toxic dioxins and furans can be created as a result of burning the plastics, not to mention the greenhouse gases exacerbating climate change.

Instead, as a first priority, unwanted electronics should be directed to the reuse market, and remarketed after diligent repair, testing and labeling. Then the remaining end-of-life equipment that cannot be repaired or reused should be manually or mechanically separated into the various recyclable fractions, instead of simply throwing whole equipment directly into a smelter. Smelters are absolutely necessary for the recovery of metals but it is not appropriate to throw plastics in the mix simply because one can, even when energy is recovered. The argument that the plastics help supply fuel for the smelter does not justify this practice given the very low heat value from this source combined with the emissions of toxic substances and green-house gases. Even though most toxic emissions are captured in modern facilities, there are always hazardous waste residues remaining when processing toxic materials.

Finally, British Columbia has chosen a financing mechanism, an advanced recycling fee, which will provide funding to properly manage the e-waste, but unfortunately will not place the responsibility primarily on electronic manufacturers for the impacts of the entire life cycle of their products, as is now practiced in Europe. Thus, the BC system will not provide manufacturers with an economic incentive to phase out toxins and design their products for easy recycling. The ultimate solution to this problematic waste stream is to redesign products with safer materials, and manufacturers are best positioned to accomplish this if they have to own their products when they become waste! We hope this clarifies our position regarding our concerns over the BC Electronic waste recycling legislation.


Sarah Westervelt
e-Waste Project Coordinator
Basel Action Network
122 S. Jackson St., Suite 320
Seattle, WA 98104
206 652-5555
www.ban.org