DOCSLIB.ORG

Sustainable Electronics Vision Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sustainable Electronics Vision Report 1 Vision for Sustainable Electronics Page 2 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Vision for Sustainable Electronics July 2015 NOTE: This is a discussion draft (NOT YET FOR PUBLIC RELEASE), for which we are seeking comments, edits, and feedback from experts from industry, academia, government and NGO’s. Please send us any feedback by October 1, 2015, to: [email protected] Thank-you. Barbara Kyle and Ted Smith, ETBC Electronics TakeBack Coalition 4200 Park Blvd. #228, Oakland, CA 94602 www.electronicstakeback.org Vision for Sustainable Electronics Page 3 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Contents Executive Summary Page 2 Why do we need a vision for sustainable electronics? Page 4 It’s time for new strategies for sustainability in electronics Page 7 What are the current impacts from the lifecycle of electronics Page 9 - 24 products? • Hazards and harm • Destruction of communities and resources • Wasted natural resources: energy and water. • Wasteful inputs. High resource churn of virgin materials, many of which are scarce. • Wasteful outputs. • Sweatshop working conditions. • A business model that makes problems worse (that thwarts sustainability efforts) The New Vision for Sustainable Electronics Must Offer Solutions Page 24 to Current Impacts and Problems Principles for Sustainable Electronics Page 27 The Sustainability Matrix Page 29 Detailed Vision Goals Across Product Lifecycle Conclusions Page 38 Next steps Page 41 Glossary of terms Page 47 Vision for Sustainable Electronics Page 2 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Executive summary Definitely not green. In spite of all of the hype about “Clean Tech” branding, it’s easy to see that the electronics industry has a long way to go to become a “green” industry, if that’s even possible. The industry consumes enormous amounts of materials, energy and water, with a large toxic footprint that externalizes the costs of using these toxic chemicals onto the least protected communities and workers around the globe. While leading companies have made significant progress on energy efficiency, product recycling, and packaging, most have done little to effectively address the enormous churn of resources used to make their products. Perhaps even more challenging are the abysmal labor conditions in the factories where the components are made and final products are assembled. Purchasers care and are engaged. Fortunately, institutional purchasers, including the federal government, states, cities, some private companies, universities, and hospitals have shown us that they want to use their buying power to drive change. They want to buy greener and more sustainable products; they have largely turned to eco labels like EPEAT for guidance on which products are environmentally preferable. But eco labels are limited. The problem is that while these labels are a useful tool, they are still very limited in terms of driving comprehensive change. The criteria in them reflect what we consider to be some leading sustainability attributes of the products currently on the market. Some criteria address corporate level activities, but most are specific to the product. But they represent a somewhat random collection of criteria, conceived by the group of stakeholders who have time and expertise to spend two to three years (or longer) in the standards development process. We’re ignoring the most important question. What we never do is to challenge ourselves to answer this question: What is a sustainable electronic product? • What are the characteristics of a sustainable electronic product? • Under what conditions, across its lifecycle, would it be developed, used, and recycled? • Who controls the various decision points along the way that could result in more or less sustainable results? • Where are the leverage points that people can mobilize around to affect change? First we need to answer these questions; then determine how we can apply this directional knowledge to use our eco-labels, corporate CSR reports, GRI indicators, and other sustainability efforts to identify progress towards those goals. We need a vision. This report is our effort to start to answer those very complex, connected, (and somewhat daunting) questions. Our hope is that this will inform company and/or industry Electronics TakeBack Coalition July 2015 Vision for Sustainable Electronics Page 3 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ roadmaps for how the electronics sector will move from its current state towards a more sustainable industry, and help all of us – the Brands, suppliers, government regulators, academics, purchasers, advocates - identify metrics and develop tools that measure true progress along the long road toward sustainability. Electronics TakeBack Coalition July 2015 Vision for Sustainable Electronics Page 4 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Why do we need a vision for sustainable electronics? Yet our voracious appetite for new electronics Lifecycle of electronics is keeps expanding, putting more pressure on the impacted communities and the planet’s anything but green dwindling resources (including critical minerals1) without making comparable gains using safer materials, in recycling or reuse of materials or components. Recent media reports have shocked people around the world about electronics workers in China suffering from harsh working conditions, explosions, and chemical exposures, as they rush to meet a production deadline so we can have The high-tech revolution has brought us inter- the newest gadgets. These are only the latest connectedness, communication and information examples of similar problems that have been capacity unimaginable just a few years ago. well documented over the past few decades. Many of us can barely remember how we functioned before smart phones and tablets, and By the numbers we can’t wait to get the dazzling new versions of these and other beloved gadgets. 81% of a desktop computer’s energy use is in MAKING the computer, not using In spite of decades of efforts by advocates, most it.2 people are still unaware of the high costs of . To manufacture one computer and developing all these high tech gadgets on our monitor, it takes 530 pounds of fossil environment, health and resources. fuels, 48 pounds of chemicals, and 1.5 3 The electronics industry is materials, energy and tons of water. water intensive, with a large toxic footprint that . A single semiconductor manufacturing externalizes the costs of using these toxic plant uses between 2 to 4 million gallons chemicals onto the least protected communities of water per day – the same as a city of and workers around the globe, from extraction 40,000 or 50,000 people.4 and production through the “end-of-life” phase of these products. Electronics TakeBack Coalition July 2015 Vision for Sustainable Electronics Page 5 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Consumers ask “what can I buy that’s really green?” The honest answer is “Nothing, yet.” From Story of Electronics, by Ruben DeLuna, Free Range Studios Consumers and businesses alike want to identify efficient to use, they have a long way to go in the greenest electronics available for purchase. addressing other environmental and social We regularly receive inquiries from reporters, concerns, including energy use in manufacturing. students, or consumers asking how to identify Eco labels can identify “greener” but not “the greenest phone” or a “green laptop.” “green” The good news is that many consumers and There are some eco labels for electronics that businesses are eager to identify and purchase evaluate some electronic products against a the greenest electronics available. But the range of environmental attributes. The primary problem is that manufacturers aren’t providing labels used in the U.S. are EPEAT (computers, us with truly green options yet, despite their TVs, imaging devices, and in late 2015 or 2016, marketing claims. While they have made the servers) and UL Environment (mobile phones). most progress in making products more energy- Similar labels are used primarily outside the US, Electronics TakeBack Coalition July 2015 Vision for Sustainable Electronics Page 6 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ like Blue Angel (Germany) and TCO Certified easier to disassemble. Slightly more recycled (Sweden), EU Ecolabel (Europe). content. But these criteria amount to a random collection of metrics rather than a clear path Eco labels aren’t driving significant change towards sustainability. These eco labels can help purchasers identify Slightly better may not be the best next step products meeting some modest eco metrics, and they have encouraged some companies to If significant transformation is needed, “slightly make modest changes. But these labels have better” may not always be the right next step. not been driving the kind of significant, For example, it’s generally assumed that more wholesale change needed to eventually result in recycled plastic content in
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Oklahoma Computer Equipment Recovery Act: a Summary of the 2014 Manufacturer Annual Reports
    The Oklahoma Computer Equipment Recovery Act: A Summary of the 2014 Manufacturer Annual Reports 6/23/2015 Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality Melissa Adler-McKibben Submitted To: The Governor, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives [1] Introduction The Oklahoma Computer Equipment Recovery Act (“Act”), 27A O.S. § 2-11-601 et seq ., was signed into law on May 12, 2008 and became effective on January 1, 2009. The Act requires manufacturers, as defined in 27A O.S. § 2-11-603, to submit annual reports to the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (“DEQ”) no later than March 1 st of each year that include: 1. A summary of the recovery program implemented by the manufacturer during the previous calendar year, specifically describing the methods of recovery implemented by the manufacturer; 2. The weight of covered devices collected and recovered during the previous calendar year; 3. The location and dates of any electronic waste collection events during the previous calendar year, if any, and the location of collection sites if any; and 4. Certification that the collection and recovery of covered devices complies with the provisions of Section 9 of the Act. 1 The Act requires DEQ to summarize the recovery program in a report for the Governor, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Background The Act was created as part of an ongoing, nationwide effort, embraced and supported by the computer industry, to establish convenient and environmentally sound collection, recycling, and reuse of electronics that have reached the end of their useful lives.
    [Show full text]
  • It Is Smart Only If It Sustainable
    IT IS SMART ONLY IF IT IS SUSTAINABLE Environmentally Friendly Business Strategies as a Source of Creating Bigger Value Pool and Reducing Negative Environmental Impacts By Mohammad Tashfeen Khan July 24, 2016 A Major Paper submitted to the Faculty of Environmental Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master in Environmental Studies, York University, Toronto Ontario, Canada Dr. Ellie Perkins (Superviser) __________________________________________ Mohammad Tashfeen Khan (MES Candidate) ___________________________________________ IT IS SMART ONLY IF IT IS SUSTAINABLE IT IS SMART ONLY IF IT IS SUSTAINABLE “We have met the enemy and he is us”. Walt Kelly “We cannot “Modern command technology owes Nature except ecology an by obeying her.” apology.” Francis Bacon Alan M. Eddison “Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's needs, but not every man's greed.” Mahatma Gandhi Major Paper MES 2016 Mohammad Tashfeen Khan (212984142) i IT IS SMART ONLY IF IT IS SUSTAINABLE Contents Chapter 1: Introduction: Starting with a Concluding Point ............................................................................................. 1 1.1 Environmental Sustainability ................................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 The Smartphone Dilemma .................................................................................................................................... 3 Chapter 2: Methodological Approach ............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Smartphone Sustainability Assessment Using Multi-Criteria Analysis and Consumer Survey
    DEGREE PROJECT IN ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, SECOND CYCLE, 30 CREDITS STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN 2017 Smartphone sustainability assessment using multi-criteria analysis and consumer survey JANIS GEDUSEVS KTH ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT DEGREE PROJECT IN THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT, SECOND CYCLE, 30 CREDITS STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN 2017 Smartphone sustainability assessment using multi-criteria analysis and consumer survey JANIS GEDUSEVS Supervisor PhD.Rajib Sinha Examiner Monika Olsson Supervisor at Tech Buddy AB Tahero Nori Degree Project in Environmental Engineering KTH Royal Institute of Technology School of Architecture and Built Environment Department of Sustainable Development, Environmental Science and Engineering SE-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden Acknowledgements I would like to thank Tahero Nori for hosting and supervising my graduation internship at Techbuddy AB. Also I would like to express my gratitude to PhD. Rajib Sinha and Monika Olsson for supervising and counselling my graduation internship. Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to all of my friends and family for support during my studies at KTH Royal Institute of Technology Stockholm. 1 Abstract Sustainability is a fairly new emerging business concept for manufacturing industry and this this thesis will specifically focus on smartphone sustainability. In 2015 there were 1.86 billion smartphone users and it is estimated to increase to 2.87 billion in 2020. Currently the average lifetime of a smartphone is 21 months and according to Consumer Technology Association the technical life expectancy of a smartphone is 4.7 years. The European Commission approximated that from 17–20 kg of electronic waste is produced per person per year and that smartphones are contributors for increase of electronic waste.
    [Show full text]
  • Sustainable Electronics Roadmap
    EPA/600/R-13/285 | November 2013 www.epa.gov Sustainable Electronics Roadmap Office of Research and Development National Risk Management Research Laboratory Sustainable Technology Division Cincinnati, OH 45268 i EPA/600/R-13/285 November 2013 Sustainable Electronics Roadmap Sustainable Electronics Forum October 15-18, 2012 The Johnson Foundation at Wingspread Racine, WI by Jennifer McCulley, PhD. Scientific Consulting Group, Inc. Endalkachew Sahle-Demessie, Ph.D. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency National Risk Management Research Laboratory Cincinnati, Ohio 45268 Sustainable Technology Division National Risk Management Research Laboratory Office of Research and Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Cincinnati, OH 45268 Disclaimer The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), through the Office of Research and Development, in collaboration with the Green Electronics Council and The Johnson Foundation at Wingspread organized the Sustainable Electronics Forum that was facilitated by the Scientific Consulting Group, Inc. EPA Contract number EP-W-07-078. This document has been subjected to the Agency’s peer and administrative review and has been approved for publication. Any opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and forum participants, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Agency; therefore, no official endorsement should be inferred. Any mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. iii Acknowledgement The Organizing Committee wishes to acknowledge everyone who participated in this Forum, especially our sponsoring organizations and facilitators. The committee also wishes to express its appreciation to Jennifer McCulley and Susie Warner of Scientific Consultant Group, Inc., who were Work Assignment and Project Officers for organizing the Forum through the EPA Contract number EP-W-07-078.
    [Show full text]
  • A One Year Follow up Study Final
    High Tech - No Rights? A One Year Follow Up Report on the Working Conditions in the Electronic Hardware Sector in China May 2008 High Tech - No Rights? A One Year Follow Up Report on the Working Conditions in the Electronic Hardware Sector in China By Jenny Chan, the research team from Students and Scholars Against Corporate Misbehavior (SACOM) and Chantal Peyer (Bread for All) May 2008 Address Students and Scholars Against Corporate Misbehavior (SACOM) P.O. Box No. 79583, Mongkok Post Office HONG KONG Bread for All Avenue du Grammont 9 1007 Lausanne Switzerland CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Research Objectives.................................................................................................... 5 1.2 Supply Chain Labor Responsibility .............................................................................. 5 1.3 Organization of Chapters............................................................................................. 5 1.4 Growing Global Personal Computer Market................................................................. 6 1.5 China’s Electronic and Information Technology Industry.............................................. 6 CHAPTER 2 ONE YEAR AFTER : FIELD RESEARCH IN COMPUTER MANUFACTURING FACTORIES ...... 8 2.1 Geography and Methodology of Research..................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding Practices of Stakeholder Engagement and Mineral Supply Chain Due Diligence in the Electronics Industry
    Sustainable Mineral Sourcing Understanding corporate practices of stakeholder engagement and mineral supply chain due diligence in the Electronics Industry. Richard Evans August 2020 Utrecht University MSc Sustainable Development Evans R. (2020) Sustainable mineral sourcing Sustainable Mineral Sourcing Research on understanding practices of stakeholder engagement and mineral supply chain due diligence in the Electronics Industry. Sustainable Development Masters Thesis Earth Systems Governance (GEO4-2321) 45 Credits (EC) Richard Charles Olson Evans 5834171 [email protected] Utrecht University Faculty of Geosciences August 2020 I certify that this dissertation is entirely my work and no part of it has been submitted for an alternative degree or other qualification in this or another institution. I also certify that I have not collected data nor shared data with another candidate at Utrecht University or elsewhere without specific authorisation. Cover photo: from ‘Responsible Mining: Conflict minerals’ (2010) by GoodElectronics and SOMO, supplied by Sasha Lezhnev / Enough Project. Page 1 Evans R. (2020) Sustainable mineral sourcing Table of contents Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................ 4 List of abbreviations ............................................................................................................... 5 Foreword ...............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Facilitating Trade Along Circular Electronics Value Chains
    Facilitating Trade Along Circular Electronics Value Chains WHITE PAPER SEPTEMBER 2020 Cover: Getty images/Ladislav Kubeš Inside: Getty images/baranozdemir; Unsplash/Magnus Engo; Getty images/tunart; Getty images/AvigatorPhotographer; Unsplash/Nasa; Getty images/Garsya; Getty images/Urupong; Getty images/Grigorev Vladimir; Getty images/vgajic; Getty images/ martin dm; Getty images/fizkes; Contents 3 Executive Summary 5 1. Introduction 8 2. Purpose and Scope 10 3. The Trade Landscape 14 4. Reverse Supply Chain Challenges 15 4.1 Classification 16 4.2 Transaction costs 16 4.3 Permitting process 17 5. Scoping Solutions 18 5.1 Border measures 19 5,2 Internal measures 20 5.3 Transparency 20 5.4 Policy action a. International trade instruments b. Regulatory cooperation 22 6. Conclusion 24 Appendix 28 Acknowledgements 29 Endnotes © 2020 World Economic Forum. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying and recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system. Briefing Note: Facilitating Trade Along Circular Electronics Value Chains 2 September 2020 Facilitating Trade Along Circular Electronics Value Chains Executive Summary Circular electronics rely on reverse supply chains, yet firms across the value chain highlight significant challenges to running these. Electronics are a critical part of our economies and step of metals extraction after processing and place societies. That has become even more the case these back on international markets. Repair and in response to the COVID‑19 pandemic when remanufacturing are also typically done in regional electronics have helped workers stay connected or global sites since economies of scale keep highly and ensured digital services delivery.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Program
    INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS SEPT 7 – 9, 2016 | BERLIN, GERMANY Final Program GOING Green – A COOPERATION OF THE World’S LEADING CONFERENCES: CARE Innovation EcoDesign ISSST Austria Japan USA Electronics Goes Green Emerging Green Germany USA ORGANIZED BY Fraunhofer Institute for Reliability and Microintegration IZM, Berlin IN COOPERATION WITH Technische Universität Berlin WWW.ELECTRONICSGOESGREEN.ORG DOWNLOAD OUR CONFERENCE APP • Browse the program for free! • Receive all the latest updates • Create your individual schedule • Find all important information • Have all contacts at a glance • Floor plans What do you think about the app? Please leave your opinion in the app stores. SPONSORED BY ORGANIZED BY Fraunhofer Institute for Reliability and Microintegration IZM, Berlin IN COOPERATION WITH Technische Universität Berlin, Research Center for Microperipheric Technologies CONTENT Welcome 1 International Board 2 Programm at a Glance 4 Sponsors 6 Keynote Speakers 8 Conference Hall Plan 10 Pre-conference program Tuesday, Sep 06 11 Plenary • Wednesday, Sep 07 12 Session 1 • Wednesday, Sep 07 13 Session 2 • Wednesday, Sep 07 14 Session 3 • Wednesday, Sep 07 16 Session 4 • Thursday, Sep 08 18 Session 5 • Thursday, Sep 08 20 Session 6 • Thursday, Sep 08 22 Session 7 • Thursday, Sep 08 24 Session 8 • Friday, Sep 09 26 Session 9 • Friday, Sep 09 28 Session 10 • Friday, Sep 09 30 Poster Session 32 Teardown On-Site 35 General Information 36 Electronics Goes Green – A truly green event! 38 Supporter 39 Evening Program 40 Catalyst Award 41 Thursday Evening Tours 42 Art Goes Green 46 Notes 48 Imprint 50 ation RM O F N I ENCE R E WELCOME F ON It is my pleasure to welcome you to the fifth Electronics Goes Green C conference! Organized by Fraunhofer IZM with support from the Technical University of Berlin and many other partners, this year’s Electronics Goes Green conference has again received outstanding submissions from around the world.
    [Show full text]
  • ASSESSING GLOBAL PRODUCT SUSTAINABILITY of CONSUMER ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS •Fi DEVELOPMENT of an INTEGRATED APPROACH
    University of Rhode Island DigitalCommons@URI Open Access Master's Theses 2014 ASSESSING GLOBAL PRODUCT SUSTAINABILITY OF CONSUMER ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS – DEVELOPMENT OF AN INTEGRATED APPROACH Richard Poenitz University of Rhode Island, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/theses Recommended Citation Poenitz, Richard, "ASSESSING GLOBAL PRODUCT SUSTAINABILITY OF CONSUMER ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS – DEVELOPMENT OF AN INTEGRATED APPROACH" (2014). Open Access Master's Theses. Paper 366. https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/theses/366 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@URI. It has been accepted for inclusion in Open Access Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@URI. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ASSESSING GLOBAL PRODUCT SUSTAINABILITY OF CONSUMER ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS – DEVELOPMENT OF AN INTEGRATED APPROACH BY RICHARD POENITZ A MASTER’S THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN INDUSTRIAL AND SYSTEMS ENGINEERING UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND 2014 MASTER OF SCIENCE THESIS OF RICHARD POENITZ APPROVED: Thesis Committee: Major Professor Manbir Sodhi David Taggart Mercedes Rivero-Hudec Geoff Bothun Nasser H. Zawia DEAN OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND 2014 ABSTRACT This Thesis will develop – on the basis of an extensively conducted literature review – a concept with which it shall be possible to better measure, assess and examine sustainability in general and sustainability impacts of (electronic) products. Against this background, the main goals of this thesis are threefold. The first key objective is to conduct a thorough literature review that will help create a solid foundation to this and all subsequent work dealing with assessing a product’s impacts in its various life cycle stages.
    [Show full text]
  • GEF-7 REQUEST for CEO ENDORSEMENT / APPROVAL CHILD PROJECT – MSP ONE-STEP PROJECT TYPE: Medium-Sized Project (One-Step) TYPE of TRUST FUND:GEF Trust Fund
    GEF-7 REQUEST FOR CEO ENDORSEMENT / APPROVAL CHILD PROJECT – MSP ONE-STEP PROJECT TYPE: Medium-sized Project (one-step) TYPE OF TRUST FUND:GEF Trust Fund PART I: PROJECT INFORMATION Project Title: Circular Economy approaches for the electronics sector in Nigeria Country(ies): Nigeria GEF Project ID: GEF Agency(ies): UNEP GEF Agency Project ID: 01689 Project Executing Entity(s): National Environmental Standards Submission Date: 30 January 2019 and Regulations Enforcement Agency of Nigeria (NESREA) GEF Focal Area (s): Chemicals and Wastes Expected Implementation Start March 2019 Expected Completion Date March 2022 Name of Parent Program Parent Program ID: A. Focal/Non-Focal Area Elements (in $) Programming Trust GEF Confirmed Focal Area Outcomes Directions Fund Project Co- Financing financing (select) CW-1-1 Strengthen the sound management of industrial GEFTF 2,000,000 13,086,582 chemicals and their waste through better control, and reduction and/or elimination Total project costs 2,000,000 13,086,582 B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY Project Objective: Nigeria adopts a financially self-sustaining circular economy approach for electronics Trus (in $) Project Project t GEF Confirmed Components/ Component Type Project Outputs Outcomes Fun Project Co- Programs d Financing financing Component 1: Technical Assistance The electronics Output 1: The Government of GEFTF 1,689,000 13,086,58 Circular sector recovers Nigeria and Producers jointly 2 electronics and implement the Extended management reintroduces Producer Responsibility (EPR) usable materials legislation for the electronics into the value sector chain and disposes of Output 2: 300 tonnes of e- hazardous waste waste are collected through streams in an formalized collection channels environmentally that minimize environmental sound manner.
    [Show full text]
  • Ensuring Sustainability and Reducing E-Waste: Networked Solutions for the Electronics Industry
    EnsURING SUSTAINABILITY AND ReDUCING E-WASTE: Networked Solutions for the Electronics Industry Mary Milner Global Solution Networks Fellow The consumer electronics industry is faced with an unsustainable dependence on non-renewable resources; and an inability to manage and recycle increasing volumes of electronic waste. While policy makers, civil society, and industry work to address these problems they remain unsolved. Global Solution Networks offer the potential overcome the persistent obstacles that prevent further progress on these issues—by strengthening collaboration between and amongst organizations working on these issues and by establishing multi-stakeholder groups dedicated to producing sustainable knowledge, delivering alternative products, advocating to the consumer, providing coordination, facilitating policy discussions, establishing standards and identifying laggards. © Global Solution Networks 2015 Ensuring Sustainability and Reducing E-Waste Networked Solutions for the Electronics Industry i Table of Contents Idea in Brief 1 Defining the Problems: Unsustainable Production and E-Waste 2 A Life-Cycle Assessment of Electronics 5 Developing Solutions 13 Ensuring Sustainability: Collaborating to Produce Innovation 13 Knowledge Producers: Mobilizing Information for Sustainability 14 New Modes of Operation and Delivery: Realizing Innovation 16 Advocates: Voices that Influence Market Demands 19 Conclusions on Ensuring Sustainability 21 Reducing Waste: Collaborating Towards a Circular Industry 22 Innovative Institutions: Orchestrating
    [Show full text]
  • Moving Sustainable Electronics Forward
    MOVING SUSTAINABLE ELECTRONICS FORWARD: An Update to the National Strategy for Electronics Stewardship Interagency Task Force on Electronics Stewardship August 2014 Co-Chairs: White House Council on Environmental Quality Environmental Protection Agency General Services Administration This page is intentionally blank. 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary The Rise of Electronics and a Call to Action Goals and Key Accomplishments Goal 1: Build Incentives for Design of Greener Electronics, and Enhance Science, Research and Technology Development in the United States Goal 2: Ensure that the Federal Government Leads By Example Goal 3: Increase Safe and Effective Management and Handling of Used Electronics in the United States Goal 4: Reduce Harm from US Exports of E-Waste and Improve Safe Handling of Used Electronics in Developing Countries Complementary Electronics Efforts Evolving and Expanding Electronics Stewardship Abbreviations Resources 2 Executive Summary Electronic devices and technologies continue to advance and increase in number. It is likely that our society will continue to incorporate these devices into our daily activities and that the number of electronic devices in our homes and offices will increase. Our growing reliance on electronics highlights the need to take a long-term sustainable approach towards electronics stewardship, both at work and at home. With the prevalence of electronics in mind, the federal government is committed to being a responsible consumer of electronics and a leader of electronics stewardship in the US. Highlighting the progress accomplished on establishing a truly sustainable electronics stewardship strategy under the 2011 National Strategy for Electronics Stewardship (NSES), this report serves to increase the awareness of the importance of electronics stewardship and recognize the opportunities and challenges created by the exponential growth of electronics in the US.
    [Show full text]