I
have a friend who gave me Webster’s Ninth CollegiateDictionary for my birthday many years ago. She reasoned something about my reading a page a day and the eloquence that might follow in years to come.
The recycling industry has presented me with more opportunities to use my defined, or should I say refined, eloquence than I ever imagined.
Webster’s defines the word "recycle" as follows (by the way, I think that Webster’s offers the cleares and most complete definition of the words we use today, so any argument as to the validity of the definition is a moot point):
Recycle (1926): 1: to pass again through a series of changes or treatments: as a: to process (as liquid body waste, glass or cans) in order to regain material for human use b: RECOVER 2: to adapt to a new use: ALTER 3: to bring back: REUSE <a light, chatty tribute that recycles a number of good anecdotes – Larry McMurtry> 4: to make ready for reuse <the plan to recycle long-vacant tenements> vi 1: to return to an earlier point in a countdown 2: to return to an original condition so that operation can begin again – used of an electronic device – recyclable (adj.) – recycler (n)
Recycle (1942): the process of recycling
It’s nice to see that it appears Homo sapiens began to contemplate the notion and need of recycling in the early 1900s.
While I don’t know who Larry is, it appears he is credited with the "light, chatty tributes" of our industry!
MORE THAN WORDS. If we could only stop there and get to work. The definition seems reasonable, complete and even includes the words, "electronic device." Perhaps it meant a radio or a light bulb consisting of more "organic" materials like wood, copper, iron, tin, lead and glass, not the complex synthetic and less organic materials that are much more difficult to recycle and that also have a half-life many times that of the simpler elements of yesterday’s products.
In the first two parts of this series, I noted that anyone having a heart to recycle, who collects, sorts and sends or delivers separated items, such as aluminum cans and computers, off to a recycling facility is in fact a recycler. There is a vast difference between one who recycles aluminum cans and one who recycles computers, or "e-waste."
There are also many forms of recycling that can be done—especially with "e-waste"—and not all "recyclers" have the same processes or, in some cases, do anything at all or actually have a facility.
A very competitive arena has risen out of the need for sound electronics recycling and the economics involved, resulting in a number of "recyclers" who fit within all or none of the definitions above. Yet they are, strangely enough, still recyclers.
The troubling part of electronics recycling is the residential consumer probably believes that every e-recycler is at the very least ultimately providing for the same kind of recycling to answer the question: Is my computer being recycled properly? Is it being kept out of a landfill, and is the recycling process doing more good than harm to our environment?
The recycling process an individual, manager, director or corporate officer will likely choose is defined by two very strong parameters—environment and economics. What divides these two is ethics. Before continuing, and because Webster’s is open, let’s quickly see what the authority says about these three words:
Economics: (1792) 1: a social science concerned chiefly with description and analysis of the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services 2: economic aspect of significance
(And to think someone once said to me, "Don’t kid yourself, Tom, it’s all about money!")
Environment: (1603) 1: the circumstances, objects or conditions by which one is surrounded 2a: the complex of physical, chemical and biotic factors (as climate, soil and living things) that act upon an organism or an ecological community and ultimately determine its form and survival b: the aggregate of social and cultural conditions that influence the life of an individual or community – environmental (adj.) environmentally (adv.)
Ethic (14c) 1: the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation 2a: a set of moral principles or values b: a theory or system of moral values <the present-day materialistic ethics> c: the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group <professional ethics>
It’s interesting to note the date of each word’s origin. I think it really wasn’t until about 100 years ago that we realized the environment was in serious trouble, yet it was defined more than 400 years ago. That person was probably burned at the stake because saving the environment probably compromised economics!
With everything, you get what you pay for. My wife bought a pair of shoes at a discount store the other day, and got a pair of aerobics shoes for free. The next day, she complained about how terrible the shoes were. I gave her one of my shoes—twice the size, mind you, and put one of hers in the other hand. My shoes weighed half as much, were superior in construction, but were nowhere near free! I only have one back and two knees. Replacement is far more expensive. Sometimes, just because you pay less, doesn’t mean you get more!
I would contend that genuine electronics recycling is NOT cheap. Anything worth doing right is never easy or cheap. If you think otherwise, you can put this article down and go do something more productive. As I described in last month’s article, electronics recycling is not a matter of crushing a can and sending it off to an aluminum smelter. There are plastics, glass, metals and other hazardous and non-hazardous materials too numerous to describe again. Disassembly is required in many cases, and even if the material is going through a shredder, very complex mechanical processes are required to separate these materials in a manner that provides for efficient recovery.
Industry standards put this processing cost at between 25 cents and 48 cents per pound on average, depending upon the amount of "contamination" or, as some would argue, what part of the country you live in. The lower cost generally is for the computer because of the greater potential for recoverable components and because most of this material is iron, aluminum and circuit boards. The higher costs are for CRT (cathode ray tube) devices, printers, copy machines, battery back-up units and the like, because of hazardous materials within or lower-value byproducts.
If you are paying a lower price, you are quite possibly compromising the environment—somewhere.
These costs are not for already separated materials, such as circuit boards, hard drives or other items. In many cases those items will have a lower cost or a recoverable metals value that is higher than the processing costs to liberate the primary metals. Bear in mind that these materials are also capable of compromising the environment if they are not properly managed.
DECISION TIME. For the sake of simplifying this piece, there are three options financially. However, they do not guarantee environmental soundness.
1. Free –
a. This may mean the equipment has decent reuse value and it is enough to cover the cost of pickup, refurbishment and resale.
b. The metals value supercedes the cost of processing.
c. Processing occurs—often offshore—with cheap labor, no insurance, no environmental protection and no employee
protection.
2. You are charged a fee –
a. Your equipment is older than 6 to 10 years, or is yellowed, broken and has no reuse value.
b. Processing occurs—often offshore—with cheap labor, no insurance, no environmental protection and no employee protection.
3. You are paid for it –
a. Your equipment has significant reuse value that more than covers the aforementioned costs of pick up, refurbishment and resale.
b. The metals have value that far supercedes the cost of processing
c. Processing occurs—often offshore—with cheap labor, no insurance, no environmental protection and no employee protection.
Many "e-recyclers" operate following criteria in one of the above categories. They generally offer these three options or a blend of them to provide the best economic value. They come in all shapes and sizes and as for-profit and not-for-profit companies.
|
SHAPING THINGS APPEALS TO AUTHOR HOGYE |
|
Tom Hogye has cultivated a habit of putting himself in positions to shape policies that affect him, rather than ending up as a victim of other people’s policies. Hogye, a native of the Cleveland area who moved to California more than a decade ago, is a married father of two children, an avid bicyclist and enjoys fly fishing in northern California rivers and streams, including one that runs through his property. Fly fishing brought him into his first involvement with state policy, when he helped lead an effort to change water diversion practices to help restore the habitat for game fish in an area watershed. His familiarity with how state agencies formulate policy helped him feel comfortable stepping forward to become an active stakeholder helping the California Integrated Waste Management Board and Department of Toxic Substances Control enact California’s Senate Bill 20 (SB 20)—the mandatory recycling of obsolete computer monitors and other electronic goods. Hogye, a vice president with United Datatech/ECS Refining of Santa Clara, Calif., says he believes that he was instrumental in explaining to the state agencies the different roles of disassembly and shredding, and how each plays a part in the recycling process. What’s next? Hogye says he is very open to any process that might help the rest of the nation adopt the system created through SB 20. Before the National Electronics Product Stewardship Initiative (NEPSI) takes its next step, he believes the group wants to see how SB 20 will work. "I would certainly love to have an opportunity to provide information to NEPSI and other national framework organizers and work with them on a national recycling program," he says. He is confident NEPSI will like what it sees in California, when the SB 20 program goes into effect Jan. 1, 2005. "I think it’s a wise decision on NEPSI’s part to watch what happens in California. And we will not fail," he says. — Brian Taylor |
Some great collection events are free—generally as a means to raise awareness of a need for electronics recycling. Some receive equipment, sort through the good, refurbish it and sell it or donate it in some pretty amazingly great ways. I’ve seen schools, churches, missions and others benefit greatly by receiving technology that was maybe three or four years old at a fraction of the cost. The joy you see and letters make me wish we could donate everything that works well! Some e-recyclers pick up the equipment for "free," share the revenue with you on the good stuff and then use the proceeds to "offset the costs of recycling the e-waste."
You name it, the options are out there. As I said in last month’s article, some e-waste recyclers look great on paper, business cards and on the Internet, but in fact have no facilities at all. With SB 20 and SB 50 in California, when people heard the state would pay you to be an electronics recycler, a number of people jumped on board and hung a shingle outside the door, "Open for Business." As our nation takes steps to follow California’s lead, learning by its mistakes and successes, you can bet more of this will spread across the country.
Free is not the answer and it never will be. Even while China is going through the largest industrial revolution in history, taking every ounce of metal, glass and plastic, and when it begins building "state-of-the-art" electronics processing facilities, a cost will still be associated with truly environmentally sound recycling of these materials. Logistics, energy and the complexity of the materials dictate a need for costs. Companies will continue to need "secure" destruction of sensitive materials. Some of those materials can contain values (metals) that can offset the processing charges, but a CPU, CRT device, printer, fax, etc., will likely not achieve recoverable value. We are a very long way from equipment having the recycling value of an aluminum can. Companies are striving to get there, and industries are popping up all over, working to establish principles and practices of making everything, including electronics, friendlier to the environment.
Economies have been difficult. In January, a new term will begin for George W. Bush. Change will occur. The scale will always be economic and environmental. Some measure of ethics will hold both of these in balance. Companies have been forced to make compromises simply because the economics have been bad. It affects recyclers and the companies they work with. The only way to be sure your needs are being met is by knowing, intimately, who you are working with, being willing to pay for what is right and understanding the compromises you will make if you don’t do your due diligence.
Everyone wants to be "green." But you have to water the grass and fertilize it to keep it that way. You have to cut it, edge it, bag the trimmings and compost it properly. And, last time I checked, water, fertilizer, a mower and time aren’t free. Neither is the beer you will enjoy at the end. But the satisfaction is wonderful.
I wonder, if Webster were alive today, would his definition of "recycle" look the same?
The author is vice president and general manager of United Datatech/ECS Refining, Santa Clara, Calif. He has helped the California Integrated Waste Management Board and the Department of Toxic Substance Control implement the state’s electronics recycling law known as SB 20. He can be contacted at tmhogye@sbcglobal.net.
Explore the December 2004 Issue
Check out more from this issue and find your next story to read.
Latest from Recycling Today
- Electra names new CFO
- WM of Pennsylvania awarded RNG vehicle funding
- Nucor receives West Virginia funding assist
- Ferrous market ends 2024 in familiar rut
- Aqua Metals secures $1.5M loan, reports operational strides
- AF&PA urges veto of NY bill
- Aluminum Association includes recycling among 2025 policy priorities
- AISI applauds waterways spending bill
