Jim Mejia Vice President of Environmental Affairs

Q. How can we measure the environmental impact of our IT asset management program?

A. To measure the environmental impact, you should examine the following areas: 1) hardware selection and flexibility, 2) software selection and expandability, 3) software and hardware integration, 4) process speed and usage management, 5) IT equipment replacement and repair and 6) hardware disposition. Working together, these factors can extend computer life cycles, reduce energy consumption, and ensure IT assets do not enter the waste stream prematurely.

In terms of hardware selection, you obviously want to select hardware that is energy efficient, but you also want to make sure you are not acquiring new technology to meet needs that could be met by existing systems. Energy savings is not a particularly good rationale for early retirement of systems, either financially or environmentally. From an economic perspective, several Redemtech clients have demonstrated savings in excess of $1,000 for every asset they redeployed. That will more than offset any electricity bill savings. From an environmental perspective, the vast majority of the energy consumed by a computer throughout its life is used during the manufacturing process, so replacing computers prematurely has a negative impact.

Many organizations have been able to extend the lifecycle of their computers by managing hardware in a way that ensures sufficient computing power for current software systems without having software upgrades drive a mass refresh. Windows Vista is one example. Many companies have delayed or staged their adoption of Vista to ensure it does not force premature retirement of otherwise usable hardware. At the same time, they are selectively upgrading hardware as required to make it Vista compatible.

The manner in which computers are disposed of at the end of their lifecycle greatly impacts the environment. To protect the environment and human health, companies must select a responsible recycler that will actually recycle the unit rather than dispose of it in a landfill or shipit to a third world country. This is easier said than done and may require that you track assets through downstream processes and require reports on final disposition.

Q. It is reported that most e-waste is shipped overseas. Why is this and how is this practice allowed?

A. Some recyclers, instead of recycling computers as they are hired to do, will ship the equipment overseas to developing countries, where it is demanufactured by hand—a practice that is very unsafe for workers and the environment.

Prior to the e-waste social responsibility movement, exporting e-waste was a prevalent practice, with the scrap metal industry selling whole or pieced out electronics as early as 1986. E-waste export continues as a result of the influence exerted by political, electronic manufacturing, recycling and waste collection associations.

In response to these external influences, the EPA has taken an “eScrap” position for e-waste, which defies all written solid waste classification requirements currently written in U.S. regulations. I believe the EPA’s position results from lack of true domestic e-waste conversion process capacity.

Unfortunately, the majority of (low value) e-waste categories cost more to properly recycle domestically than the recoverable resource value they yield. So rather than paying for proper e-waste recycling, or investing in a safe domestic process, many recyclers have found it easier and profitable to ship materials overseas, despite the well-documented and serious environmental damage this practice is causing.

The Basel Convention of 1992, which was developed as an international treaty—and part of the United Nations Environmental Program—to control hazardous waste from production through final disposal, bans the practice of shipping electronic waste internationally. The United States signed the treaty, but never ratified it, so this practice still is technically legal in the U.S., even though the rest of the world prohibits it. Even with the recent increase in environmental awareness, it is estimated that 80 percent of the e-waste that is collected in the U.S. for recycling is actually exported.

Q. Are all recycling practices the same in terms of their environmental impact?

A. Definitely not. Some recyclers use incineration as a means of disposing of low value e-waste and as an alternative to segregating low metal concentrations and or other compounds. The results are dioxins, toxic metal fumes and gases that pollute the air and surrounding communities. While some states have stepped up regulations relative to e-waste recycling and disposal, many final stage e-waste toxin recyclers are grandfathered in with 1930s pollution control technology so the Clean Air Act regulations do not apply.

Refurbishing and reusing aged computer equipment is the best way to keep it out of the waste steam. But, at some point, all technology systems reach end of life and must be dealt with responsibly. Recycling is often commodity motivated since about 98 percent of the component resources used in computers and other electronics are traded on global commodity exchanges.

The environmental impact of e-waste can be minimized by working with recyclers committed to zero landfill, incineration and export. Redemtech’s recycling program processes a limited scope of e-waste, focusing on preparing e-waste into metallurgical grades. Each metal grade is sold only to U.S. domestic metal processors and smelters with best control technology.

Redemtech assesses the entire e-waste recycling support stream—especially metal (toxin) conversion facilities, the final stage, which are very crucial for green and proper e-waste management.

Q. It seems like everyone—recyclers, manufacturers, retailers, government—are sponsoring electronics take-back programs. Is this a good way to dispose of e-waste?

A. Take-back programs may be a good way to deal with unwanted electronics, and it is good to see the manufacturers taking steps to address this issue, particularly since the focus of many of these programs is getting usable technology into the hands of charities.

It is essential, however, for the “collector” to disclose its recycling methods; it is not enough to disclose a recycling company or non-profit partnership. It is also important to provide specific e-waste-to-resource conversion capabilities and all down streams.

Understanding a “green” versus “dirty” process can pose a challenge to the average electronics consumer. The burden, therefore, lies with the collector or e-waste consolidator to obtain professional advice and seek the best processes for the various e-waste types.

Selecting a recycler or non-profit company without a comprehensive safe e-waste process and management system could lead to future environmental liability. You would not, for example, send printers, keyboards and scanners to e-waste treatment companies that have only CRT processing equipment. It is important for each recycling company to provide its process capability, whether it is PCs, CRTs, printers, low-value e-waste categories, mercury-containing displays, batteries, etc.