Showing posts with label recycle. Show all posts
Showing posts with label recycle. Show all posts

Saturday, December 29, 2012

How companies keep us buying new stuff, and how to recycle the rest

When was the last time a broken DVD player lead to a trip to the repair shop? If you can even find a repair shop near you, the odds are good the cost to fix your DVD player will be more than the price of a new one. The reality is we don't fix electronics anymore, we replace them.

Post-Xmas is when most old gear gets tossed, feeding what experts call a growing throw-away electronics culture. While tech company's benefit from shorter products lifecycles by encouraging the sale of replacement gear, the byproduct can be harmful to household budgets and the planet.

Barbara Kyle, national coordinator for the Electronics TakeBack Coalition in San Francisco, says the drive for smaller thinner products with increasingly harder to replace components, is partly to blame. But also, companies making delicate electronics with short warranty periods are pushing people to trash their digital gear, not fix it.

“It’s almost always cheaper to buy a new printer than to fix the old one, if you can even find a place to make the repairs,” Kyle says. The end result is electronics - that contain toxic substances, including lead, nickel, cadmium, mercury, brominated ?ame retardants - ending up in landfills around the world. The environmental group called E-Stewards estimates only 11 to 14 percent of e-waste is sent to recyclers — the rest ends up in landfills or is burned resulting in soil, water, and air pollution.

To find a list of places to recycle your old tech gear near you, find free recycle-by-mail programs, or how to easily sell your used gear online, skip to the end of this article.

Hard to fix gadget trend

“We are seeing more (electronics) parts being glued into place, like the touchscreens on many smartphones, or the batteries on ultra-thin notebooks," says Kyle. For example, Apple was criticized by some earlier this year for gluing its lithium polymer battery cells directly to the aluminum unibody shell of the Retina MacBook Pro in order to reduce its size. Teardown site iFixit blasted Apple saying the design made repairs nearly impossible and battery replacements would cost 54 percent more than other MacBooks. While some recyclers said the glued-in battery made it harder to recycle, other recyclers disagreed.

iFixitThe lithium polymer battery cells glued to unibody shell of the Retina MacBook Pro cost 54 percent more to replace than other MacBook Pro models.

When it comes to tablet and smartphone owners, according to Best Buy Geek Squad agent Derek Meister, these gadget owners are more likely to buy new gear rather than mess with a repair. “Our most common requested repair for tablets and smartphones is cracked screens and battery replacements," he says. But when it comes to actually fixing gear, if the warranty or service plan has expired, consumers just upgrade, says Meister.

Kyle calls this type of product manufacturing, that make product repairs costly “designing for the dump.”

The cost to repair the original Kindle Fire's screen is $110, at the repair service site IFixYouri.com, compared to the $160 price tag of a new Kindle Fire from Amazon. IFixYouri charges $280 to repair an Samsung Glalaxy Tab 10.1's glass and LCD screen, and the same model costs $350 new at Best Buy.

Gear to garbage in record time

storyofstuff.org

Experts like Kyle say inexpensive gadgets are increasingly showing up in discount, grocery, and drug stores at prices people can’t resist. “It’s a printer for $22 or a $30 camcorder, how can I pass that up?” Kyle says when electronics are priced to be impulse buys too often gadgets don't meet consumer expectations, or break, and end up in the trash. (See related: What's cheaper: Replacement ink, or a new printer?)

Instead of mindless buying and chucking, people should have greater reverence for stuff, believes Annie Leonard, founder of The Story of Stuff Project, a consumer awareness campaign promoting sensible gadget consumption. In Leonard's 2010 Story of Electronics video, she points to a possible solution where manufacturers shoulder the responsibility for recycling their gear in an environmentally responsible way.

" Making companies deal with their e-waste is called Extended Producer Responsibility or Product Takeback . If all these old gadgets were their problem, it would be cheaper for them to just design longer lasting, less toxic, and more recyclable products in the first place. They could even make them modular, so that when one part broke, they could just send us a new piece, instead of taking back the whole broken mess. "

There is no federal legislation pending to establish a federal e-waste take back program by consumer electronics companies, however 25 states have passed legislation mandating statewide e-waste recycling, according to the Electronics TakeBack Coalition.


View the original article here

Sunday, December 23, 2012

E-waste firm convicted of falsely promising to recycle in the US

Electronic waste recycling firm Executive Recycling has been convicted of multiple crimes, including environmental violations related to illegal disposal of e-waste overseas, mail and wire fraud, and smuggling and obstruction, the U.S. Department of Justice announced.

Brandon Richter, 38, of Highlands Ranch, Colorado, who was the company’s owner and CEO, and Tor Olson, 37, of Parker, Colorado, former vice president of operations, were convicted Friday along with the Colorado company following an 11-day trial in U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.

The company told customers it disposed of CRTs (cathode ray tubes) and other e-waste in an environmentally friendly manner and did not send the e-waste overseas. However, the company shipped CRTs and other waste to China and other countries, the DOJ said in a press release.

Executive Recycling was the subject of a 2010 60 Minutes story about e-waste being recycled in crude conditions overseas.

The defendants falsely advertised to customers that they would dispose of electronic waste in compliance with all local, state and federal laws and regulations, the DOJ said. It was part of the scheme that the defendants falsely represented that they would dispose of all electronic waste, whether hazardous or not, in an environmentally friendly manner.

The defendants falsely represented that the company recycled electronic waste “properly, right here in the U.S.,” the DOJ said.

From February 2005 to January 2009, the defendants used “false and fraudulent pretenses” to defraud businesses and government entities that wanted to dispose of e-waste, the DOJ said. The company, on a website, said it had “extensive knowledge” of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency requirements.

Executive Recycling appeared as the exporter of record in more than 300 exports from the U.S. between 2005 and 2008, the DOJ said. Approximately 160 of these exported cargo containers contained CRTs, the agency said.

The defendants are scheduled to be sentenced in April. Richter’s lawyer wasn’t immediately available for comment.

“The improper disposal of electronic waste not only hurts our environment, it also leaves a legacy of environmental hazards for our children and our children’s children,” U.S. Attorney John Walsh of the district of Colorado said in a statement.

The company induced customers to enter into contracts or agreements with the defendants for electronic waste disposal, the DOJ said. Each customer paid the company to recycle their electronic waste in accordance with the representations made by the defendants.

Executive Recycling faces a US$500,000 fine per count for seven wire fraud counts, or twice the gross gain or loss. The company faces a conviction for one count of failure to file notification of intent to export hazardous waste, which carries a penalty of a $50,000 fine per day of violation, or twice the gross gain or loss. The company also faces one count of exportation contrary to law, which carries a penalty $500,000 fine or twice the gross gain or loss.

Richter and Olson each face seven counts of wire fraud, each count of which carries a penalty of up to 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. They face one count of exportation contrary to law, which carries a penalty of up to 10 years in prison, and $250,000 fine or twice the gross gain or loss.

Richter also faces one count of destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in federal investigations and bankruptcy, which carries a penalty of up to 20 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000.


View the original article here

 

© 2013 PC Tech World. All rights resevered. Designed by Templateism

Back To Top