Activists set up camp on container of e-waste in Hong Kong harbour.
We urged the Hong Kong authorities to take action by refusing
the entry of the container and to send it back to the US. Banners
made our message clear: 'Toxic waste not welcomed here.' The
captain of the ship agreed not to offload the container until the
Hong Kong authorities investigate the legality.
Earlier this year, we asked the question, "
Where does all the e-waste go?". On this occasion, we were able
to find out exactly where it was going - but this is only the tip
of an enormous e-waste mountain, regularly and illegally entering
mainland China "thanks" to loopholes in Hong Kong's
When workers in the so-called "informal" recycling centres break electronic
devices up so they can recover valuable metals, they are exposed to
the hazardous chemical substances contained in most electronic
equipment. This toxic cocktail not only threatens human health; it
also pollutes the water, soil and air of the surrounding
Electronics are increasingly becoming part of the "throw away"
culture in many developed countries. Few electronic devices are
designed to be upgradeable, and because they are made with
hazardous materials - including toxic heavy metals, phthalates,
polyvinyl chloride and brominated flame retardants - recycling is
not always a safe and easy option.
Every year, some 20 to 50 million tonnes of dangerous e-waste
are generated worldwide. While some can be accounted for in general
household waste or landfills, some end up - often illegally, as is
the case here - in the scrap yards and dumping grounds of
developing countries in Asia and Africa.
In the US it is still legal to export collected e-waste to Asia
and Africa. In the European Union, e-waste is regulated by EU and
national law. But, even in countries with regulations there is a
surprisingly large amount of e-waste that is not captured by
producer responsibility programmes or take-back schemes.
To maintain our independence, Greenpeace doesn't accept any donations from corporations or governments. We rely entirely on support from millions of people like you.
Ultimately, the principle of producer responsibility is key to
solving this problem. This principle requires that the
manufacturers of electronics devices take the financial and
management responsibilities for what happens to their own
end-of-life products. Companies like Sony, Samsung and Nokia have
introduced take-back schemes, but there are many other major
companies that still need to follow this example.
Some maintain that it is their customers' responsibility to pay
for the costs of recycling e-waste.
And, by phasing-out the use of toxic chemicals in electronics
devices at the design stage of a product's life, manufacturers make
it safer to recycle e-waste and reduce their own costs for dealing
with their end-of-life products. What greater incentive could they
Manufacturers need to implement toxic-free design and bring
green electronics onto the markets, and introduce take-back schemes to
responsibly recycle or dispose of their products when they reach
the end of their life. For as long as electronics manufacturers
fail to live up to their responsibilities, e-waste will continue to
flow to places like China.