Illustrations by Kristie Beyer
Progress Built on a Wasteland: Electronic Consumerism & the Dangers of E-waste
Stepping into an Apple store is like looking at the future.
The architecture, with its glass walls and white interior, is ripped from a
twentieth-century science fiction novel, and the orderly rows of devices,
glowing with crisp retina displays and humming with soft electricity, provoke
childlike wonder. Across the globe, one can find other scenes ripped from
science fiction, but in this future, everything has gone horribly wrong. In a
quaint Chinese village, crop failures, diseased livestock, and poisonous
drinking water have forced everyone to relocate (Kaiman par. 3). In Ghana,
fires smolder and spew thick smoke across a blackened landscape littered with
shiny green circuit boards and the emptied plastic shells of laptops
(McElvaney). These scenarios seem apocalyptic, but they are real, and they are
cropping up around the world every day. Tragically, these circumstances are
brought about by humanity?s technological progress. More specifically, they are
a result of mass consumption and disposal of the byproducts said technological
progress that companies such as Apple promote. According to a United Nations
report, 41.8 million tons of e-waste was generated in 2014, a sharp rise from
33.8 million in 2010. In 2018, it is projected that 49.8 million tons will be
produced (Bald? et al. 24). The world consumes more electronics every year. The
increased consumption of electronics that is fueling ecological damage is
attributable to a consumer culture that promotes constant replacement of
devices and deemphasizes repair and longevity. Society?s obsession with newer,
faster, and better devices is creating an ecological nightmare overseas that
can only be mitigated by a massive change in cultural mindset.
A product?s
life begins with resource extraction. Computers, smartphones, and other gadgets
require a myriad of raw materials, including a class of elements known as rare
earth metals, which incidentally are the most environmentally troubling of any
resource in earth?s crust. Rare earth metals are difficult to refine because
they are naturally found in combination with several other metals and minerals.
Separating these material conglomerates requires complicated chemical reactions
that involve a wide array of dangerous substances, including strong acids. According
to a natural resource initiative from the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, typical Chinese industrial processes produce roughly seventy-five
cubic meters, or nearly 20,000 gallons, of acidic wastewater for every ton of
rare earth metal refined. This acidic water leaches into the surrounding
ecosystem and wreaks havoc on aquatic habitats, which are highly sensitive to
changes in pH (?Environmental Costs?). Ore refinement also produces radioactive
waste and carcinogenic heavy metals. Being difficult to dispose, these toxins
ultimately lie-around? in leaky storage ponds and inevitably enter the
environment. One of the largest rare earth metal mining companies, Baotou
Steel, has been dumping its byproducts in northern China since the 1950s, and the
area has gradually disintegrated into a lifeless dystopia. In a 2014 interview
with The Guardian, Wang Jiangou, a villager living near one of Baotou
Steel?s dumping pond, describes the environmental damage that has occurred
since metal production exploded in the 1990s. He recounts that his cabbage
plants have withered, his sheep have died, and the drinking water has begun to
smell foul. Furthermore, seven of Wang?s neighbors have died of cancer
(Kaiman). Accounts from other villages near Baotou Steel dumping ponds have
noted dwindling crop yields, with plants producing fewer and smaller fruits,
and high instances of diseases such as diabetes and osteoporosis among
residents (Bontron). These areas have been ruined by rare earth metal mining.
As new devices are produced to meet bottomless demand, this rare earth metal
processing and subsequent environmental degradation accelerates.
Resource
extraction only relates one half of the eco-electronic story; the other half
happens after a device is tossed. In an age of increasing environmental
consciousness, consumers tend to actively seek out e-waste recyclers and feel
satisfied dropping their gadgets in a collection bin. Unfortunately, a
strikingly high proportion of recycling services are a green cover belying a
much darker story. Electronic recycling is a difficult industry that has
recently suffered decreased demand. As the San Francisco based recycling
company Green Citizens explains, China?s recent tariffs on precious metals and
outright ban on imported recycled plastic have dramatically decreased global
demand for electronic scrap. Because of low demand and cheaper labor abroad,
the only economically viable option for many collection facilities is to ship
waste overseas to be dismantled at informal and unregulated recycling centers.
In 2016, environmental activist Jim Puckett placed GPS trackers inside old
devices to determine where collection services sent their e-waste. He
personally followed several devices to a remote warehouse in Hong Kong. When he
arrived, he found workers haphazardly dismantling a mountain of discarded
printers, admittedly salvaging small bits of metal but also filling the air
with irritating toner and littering the ground with shards of
mercury-containing LCD fluorescent tubes. A short distance from the warehouse,
his team found an overgrown field containing pieces of flat-screen monitors,
piles of camcorders, keyboards and old lead-filled CRT computer monitors? that
had been discarded there with no prospect of being recycled. Operations like
this are common. Of the two hundred devices tracked by Puckett, sixty-five of
them were tracked outside of the United States, including to China, Pakistan,
Kenya, and Mexico (Christensen and Campbell). E-waste is shipped to developing countries,
where disadvantaged workers use rudimentary techniques to extract what is
easily reclaimable. The trouble is that these recycling methods do not consider
environmental damage and leave much of the material unrecovered. A common
method is burning the plastic covers and coatings off devices and cords to
access the metal inside. Burning plastic releases a dangerous class of
compounds known as dioxins (Minter). The technology to reclaim this material in
an environmentally sustainable manner is simply too slow and too costly to
handle all the e-waste being produced in the world. It may seem that this
ecological damage can be slowed by simply purchasing and trashing fewer
devices, but consumer culture practically ensures that an endless glut of
electronics is always being purchased.
Marketing
strategies within the tech industry are a key driver of excessive electronic
consumption. Smartphones are among the worst offenders, with the world?s two
largest brands, iPhone and Samsung, creating a perpetual feeling of
obsolescence?and a rush to purchase new devices?by releasing at least one brand
new phone each year. From the launch of the first iPhone in 2007 to the release
of the iPhone 6S in 2016, Apple has released a new smart phone roughly every
year. Since then, the company has shortened the time between releases, churning
out the iPhone SE just six months after the 6S and the iPhone 7 another six
months after that. After releasing the iPhone 7, Apple waited an entire year to
unveil the iPhone 8 in September 2017, but it quickly swept it aside to promote
the iPhone X in November. Despite having been available for less than one year,
the iPhone X has already been pulled from the market to make way for two new
models, the XS and the XR (?iPhone?). Apple uses similar tactics with their
tablets, notably with the iPad Pro, which was originally released in November
2015 and then released as a smaller model four months later (?iPad?).
Meanwhile, Samsung heightens this never-ending release strategy by producing
and marketing multiple series of smartphones a year, including its flagship
brands, the Galaxy Note and Galaxy S. For the past eight years, Samsung has
released a new Galaxy S device in the winter or spring and a Galaxy Note in the
Fall (?Samsung Galaxy?). These brands have grown to rely on constant
replacement of devices, and they perpetually release new versions to keep
consumers purchasing their products, and by extension, discarding them.
In addition
to the sheer number of available upgrades, the tech industry also markets its
new products as cutting-edge technology that will drastically improve daily
life. This creates a perception that each new product is a must-have, but new
devices typically have capabilities for which the average consumer has no need.
Repair expert Adam Sanderson explains that surfing the Internet and checking
email?the bulk of everyday computer usage?requires only around 5-10 percent of
the processing power of a typical computer (Tugend par. 7). Consumers can
easily pass on most upgrades. This practice of boosting sales by pushing
unnecessary services is best exemplified by the gimmick-fraught smart phone
industry. The iPhone 4S, released in 2011, had nearly all the capabilities that
are now associated with the modern smart phone; it could connect to the
Internet through both Wi-Fi and cellular data, download apps from third party
developers, make video calls with its front-facing cameras, and use voice
command. Since then, most releases from iPhone and competitor Samsung have
contributed little to the overall capability of the smart phone. They have,
however, introduced plenty of trivial features that merely exist to garner
media attention and public interest. The iPhone 5 was branded as a chic new
design, but it was merely a flattened 4S with a reshaped charging port. The
fifth generation also saw two rehashes: the 5C, which came in multiple colors
(which are irrelevant to anyone who uses a case); and the 5S, which came with a
frankly unnecessary fingerprint scanner (Vincent). Meanwhile, Samsung began
pushing its curved display, edge-lighting, and as of November 2018, its
foldable phones (Kelly; Samsung Galaxy?). Both companies have abandoned the
home-button in favor of 3D touch.? As a bonus, Apple has altered its charging
ports and headphone jacks, forcing many loyal users to discard their perfectly
functional cables and headphones. Each new generation brings cosmetic changes,
faster processors, and better cameras, but offers no meaningful change to the
core capabilities of the smart phone. Recognizing and supporting genuine
innovation rather than succumbing to marketing ploys is a vital step in
reducing electronic consumption.
Another
factor that drives consumers to seek out new devices is the frustrating
slowness of previous-generation devices. Each year, millions of users are led
to believe that their devices, despite having all the desired features, are
obsolete because they slow down. New operating systems plague old electronics
because the process of updating software on a device with existing apps, files,
and settings is far too complex to happen seamlessly. Tech companies tend to
release new operating systems and devices simultaneously, so users who are
suddenly faced with a slow computer are tempted to replace it with the newly available
version (Chen par. 6-7). Another issue is that devices are eventually no longer
supported by operating systems. Apple?s iOS 11 supports phones dating back to
the iPhone 5S, released in 2013, and this five-year period of support is the
longest Apple has ever provided (?iOS Support Matrix?). Android is even worse,
with the new 2018 software only supporting the Samsung Galaxy S8 and S9, both
released since 2017 (Hildenbrand and Maring par. 18). Additionally, there is
growing speculation that tech companies purposefully slow down old devices to
incentivize the purchase of new devices. Although some of these accusations are
conspiratorial, Apple released a statement in December 2017 that it included a
feature in smartphones to occasionally decrease their processing power to
prevent crashes when battery life is low. Brian X. Chen, the head consumer
technology writer for The New York Times, explains that crashes occur in
older cell phones because lithium-ion batteries lose capacity overtime
(Chokshi). Regardless of whether this was a nefarious tactic or a
well-intentioned gesture, it suggests that devices are not manufactured with
longevity in mind.
The lack of
emphasis that manufacturers place on longevity is corroborated by their
unwillingness to facilitate repairs. Many devices are difficult to repair
because the parts and design information necessary to make fixes are tightly
guarded company secrets. For example, according to the independent video game
repair shop VideoGamesNewYork, a broken Nintendo Switch joystick cannot be
replaced because Nintendo has ensured that no replacement joysticks are found
on the market (Deleon par. 13-15). The only solution for a broken joystick is a
brand-new controller. Apple devices are also notoriously difficult to repair,
often requiring a trip to their store. For residents of rural states, a trip
the Apple store is often a road trip away. Eleven states have only one Apple
location, and five states have zero. Vermont is one state that does not have an
Apple store, and it severely hinders consumers? ability to repair their
devices. For example, a Vermont state senator, Christopher Pearson, was told by
a local Best Buy that his broken iPhone camera could not be replaced in house
and had to be shipped out, taking five to seven days to return. Because Pearson
uses the camera on his smart phone to scan documents for his small business,
this repair difficulty forced him to choose between buying a new device
immediately or losing a week?s worth of work (Deleon par. 18-19). To end this
ceaseless trashing of devices, consumers must support repair efforts and not
support manufacturers who attempt to halt repairs. Under enough market
pressure, tech giants will have to change their ways and make electronics more
repairable.
Technology
is rightly hailed as one of humanity?s crowning achievements. From allowing
people to connect across the globe to providing more access to critical
information, these electronic devices have a tremendous ability to improve and
enhance lives. However, this shining future of progress is being built on a
smoldering wasteland. There is an incredible irony in humanity?s quest for
progress: the technology that billions of people use to improve their lives is
ruining many others. In many ways, computers and smart phones are miracles, and
they should be treated as such. These incredible devices cannot be treated as
disposable or else the wasteland will only grow. Fortunately, this ecological
damage can be halted by a change in consumer culture. By valuing genuine
innovation over marketing gimmicks, using products for their full life span,
and actively seeking to repair devices while supporting a technological
industry that encourages repair and longevity, society can effectively slow the
growth of the wasteland.
Author: Ben Schlusser
As someone who has always been
interested in environmental protection, I was thrilled that Professor Lowell
Duckert chose to focus my English 110 course on the environmental humanities. I
also appreciated that he allowed students to explore any environmental subject
of interest for the final paper. While brainstorming potential topics, I kept
returning to zero-waste,? a movement of people who strive to live without
producing any garbage. I had discovered the zero-waste movement a few years
earlier and was fascinated by people?s ability to live entirely with reusable,
recyclable, or compostable products. Because of this prior interest, I decided
that waste management would be the focus of my essay. The difficult part was
determining what captivating argument I could make based on the premise that we
throw away a lot of stuff.
The idea to write about electronic
waste occurred to me unexpectedly one day when, after being unable to login to
my Microsoft account, my computer crashed and then rebooted, leaving me unable
to open certain apps. I became infuriated with technology and wanted to write
about all the ways the gadgets we rely on so regularly fail us. When I began
researching, I came across an article from Vice about overseas
electronic dumping grounds. This article introduced me to the failure of the
recycling industry and how most e-waste from the United States ends up in
polluted dumping grounds overseas. After learning about the infeasibility of
electronic recycling, I began to contemplate other solutions to the e-waste
problem. Since the waste cannot be recycled, it must be cut off at the source.
This led me to question the consumerist, throw-away culture that surrounds
technology. Through my subsequent research, I decided that my essay would
explore the factors, including big tech marketing and repair difficulty, that
contribute to society?s excessive purchase and disposal of electronic devices.
Instructor: Dr. Lowell Duckert
How is writing about? nature ? the animal, climate change,
or pollution ? also writing with? it? The environmental humanities,
interdisciplinary at their root, analyze the knotted relationships between
place and the imagination. All matter,? as Serenella Iovino and Serpil
Oppermann (2015) argue, is storied matter.? The field has burgeoned over
roughly two decades; what is more, its relevance to modern environmental health
and justice movements means that its stories? must be told ? and urgently,
at that. But how is storied matter? written, what ecological work does it do
(or fail to do), and what is the human author?s role in the compositional
process? In this writing seminar, we read the work of prominent environmental
humanists representing ecofeminism, media studies, postcolonial ecocriticism,
and queer ecology (to name a few). Students practiced, revised and crafted their
writing as well as considered the rhetorical importance of environmental
writing for varied audiences. Through in- and outdoor experiential learning
opportunities and creative, placed-based writing assignments (such as
?eco-journals?), students drew connections between human/nonhuman,
nature/culture, and local/global (amongst others); in doing so, they worked to
understand how writing theorizes ecology as much as ecological theory informs writing,
ultimately advancing their own strategies for storying ? and even altering ?
environmental issues at present.
Works Cited
Works Cited
Bald?, C.P. et al. Global E-waste Monitor 2014:
Quantities, flows and resources. United
Nations
University ? IAS, 2014, i.unu.edu/media/ias.unu.edu-en/news/7916/Global-E- waste-Monitor-2014-small.pdf
Bontron, Cecile. Rare-earth mining in China comes at a
heavy cost for local villages.? The Guardian,
20 March 2014, www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/aug/07/china-rare- earth-village-pollution.
Chen, Brian X. A New Phone Comes Out. Yours Slows Down. A
Conspiracy? No.? The New ? York Times,
15 Nov 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/11/15/technology/personaltech/new-iphones-slow-tech- myth.html?rref=collection%2Fbyline%2Fbrian-x.- chen&action=click&contentCollection=undefined®ion=stream&module=inline&versi on=latest&contentPlacement=5&pgtype=collection.
Christensen, Ken, and Katie Campbell. The US is still
dumping some of its toxic e-waste overseas.?
PRI, 2 June 2016, www.pri.org/stories/2016-06-02/us-still-dumping-some-its- toxic-e-waste-overseas.
Chokshi, Niraj. Is Apple Slowing Down Old iPhones?
Questions and Answers.? The New York Times,
21 Dec 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/12/21/technology/iphone-battery-problem- slow.html
Deleon, Nicholas. Right-to-Repair Laws Could Make It Easier
to Get a Phone or Laptop
Fixed.? Consumer
Reports, 29 March 2018, www.consumerreports.org/consumer- protection/right-to-repair-laws-could-make-it-easier-to-get-a-phone-or-laptop-fixed/.
?4 Reasons Why
Electronic Recycling Costs are Skyrocketing.? GreenCitizen, 29 Aug 2018,
www.greencitizen.com/electronic-recycling-costs-skyrocketing/.
Environmental Costs of Refineries.? Mission 2016: The
Future of Strategic Natural Resources,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2016/finalwebsite/problems/refining.html.
Hildenbrand, Jerry and Joe Maring. Will my phone get
Android Pie Android Central, 18 Oct 2018,
www.androidcentral.com/will-my-phone-get-android-p.
iOS Support Matrix, iOS Support Matrix, 2018,
iossupportmatrix.com
iPad.? Wikipedia, 3 Nov 2018,
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPad.
iPhone.? Wikipedia, 1 Nov 2018,
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone.
Kaiman, Jonathan. Rare earth mining in China: the bleak
social and environmental costs.? The Guardian,
7 Aug 2014, www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/rare-earth-mining- china-social-environmental-costs.
Kelly, Gordon. Samsung CEO Explains Folding Galaxy F Design.?
Forbes, 14 Oct 2018, www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2018/10/14/samsung-galaxy-f-elease-date-cost-price- galaxy-s10-s9-note9-note10/#5d85fc6b1fbf.
McElvaney, Kevin, photographer. Agbogbloshie: the world’s
largest e-waste dump ? in pictures.?
The Guardian, 27 Feb 2014, www.theguardian.com/environment/gallery/2014/feb/27/agbogbloshie-worlds-largest-e- waste-dump-in-pictures.
Minter, Adam. The Burning Truth Behind an E-Waste Dump in
Africa.? Smithsonian, 13 Jan 2016,
www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/burning-truth-behind-e-waste- dumpafrica-180957597/
Samsung Galaxy.? Wikipedia, 2 Nov 2018, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Galaxy.
Tugend, Alina. Repair Options for Ailing Electronics.? The
New York Times, 11 Sep 2009, www.nytimes.com/2009/09/12/technology/12shortcuts.html.
Vincent, James. The iPhone turns 10: a visual history of
Apple?s most important product.? The
Verge, 9 Jan 2017, www.theverge.com/2017/1/9/14211558/iphone-10-year-anniversary-in-pictures
Paper Prompt
English 110
Seminar in Composition
Midterm Essay Assignment [1]
Proposal and Annotated Bibliography
“I was, gloriously, swallowed by research.”
(Sean Prentiss, “A World Larger than Ourselves,” 119)
1. One goal of this course is to consider writing’s potential to re/shape contemporary environmental issues. But how can words contribute to place-based debates at present and help imagine, even bring about, worlds more flourishing and just? Your midterm essay invites you to explore these questions via an ecological subject of your choice.
2. The research process starts with a one-page, double-spaced proposal. When considering your argument, select one environmental matter from anywhere in the world that has occurred within the last five years. Recall the fundamentals of argumentation discussed in Chapter 8, “The Art of Activism,” especially the various techniques tabulated on p. 114. Reviewing the various branches of environmental writing might also be useful; refresh your memory on pp. 34-5 of Chapter 2, “A Short History of Nature and Environmental Writing.” (If you are having trouble identifying an issue, I can point you in possible directions.) Keep these questions in mind as you prepare:
Do you identify an issue and articulate its importance for environmental thinking? Why should we consider this human-nonhuman relationship in light of this event? What’s at stake? What can come of it
3. After you have staked your claim, compile an annotated bibliography of five sources according to MLA guidelines. For each entry, follow the three-part sample provided by Purdue’s Online Writing Lab (OWL): “a summary, an evaluation of the text, and a reflection on its applicability to [your] own research.” Aim for about 50-75 words in every section (for a total of approximately 150-225 words per entry). Determining the advantages of certain sources will be challenging; the sheer number of sources available to you might seem hard to “swallo[w]” at first. I advise returning to the types of research methods catalogued in Chapter 9, “The World Larger than Ourselves,” pp. 120-2. I highly recommend consulting the “Library Research Strategies: Evaluating Sources” webpage as well. One question in particular should help narrow down your list:
“When was the source published or last updated? What does this mean for your topic?” I would also add: what does the source itself mean for your topic? How does it advance your argument? If it does not seem essential to your strategy for storying an environmental issue, in other words, keep searching.
4. “Research helps us see the world from a multitude of perspectives. It complicates our ideas. It builds up our credibility. And it excites the reader” (123). This is an experimental, open-ended, and invitational stage of the writing process. Be creative and take risks. The proposal and annotated bibliography together will be worth 10 points.
Upload your assignment to Canvas (under “Assignments”) before class on M 10/15.