41

E-Waste: A Story of Trashing, Trading, and Valuable Resources

The rapidly growing mountains of e-waste represent both toxic threats and valuable urban mines. To increase the current low e-waste collection rates, incentives are required, and consumers need to be educated about their essential role in the life cycle of their cell phone or computer. Efforts must be made to increase Irina Oswald, Armin Reller awareness of such issues as the rare metals used in many electronics and dangerous e-waste recycling conditions in developing countries.

E-Waste: A Story of Trashing, Trading, and Valuable Resources

GAIA 20/1 (2011): 41 47 Abstract Electronic waste, or e-waste, is considered the most rapidly growing waste category, as electrical and electronic appliances continue to be essential tools of global information and communication societies. Recent literature on e-waste broaches the issue of e-waste both as hazardous waste and as so-called urban mines. End-of-life management of e-waste is more challenging than that of other waste due to the wide range of products that qualify as e-waste, their complex material composition, and their low collection and recycling rates. Collection of e-waste from consumers is difficult especially with regard to small appliances as these tend to be disposed of in solid waste containers or are stored by consumers. The article also uncovers complex aspects within the discussion on international trade of e-waste: Developing countries are frequently referred to as the e-waste dumpsites of industrialized countries; on the other hand, inexpensive access to information and communication technologies is considered an important driver for development. Keywords collection rates, electronic waste, global e-waste trade, recycling, technology metals

Contact: Dipl.-Geogr. Irina Oswald | Tel.: +49 821 5983001 | E-Mail: irina.oswald@wzu.uni-augsburg.de Prof. Dr. Armin Reller | E-Mail: armin.reller@wzu.uni-augsburg.de both: University of Augsburg | Institute of Physics | Chair of Resource Strategy | Universittsstr. 1a | 86159 Augsburg | Germany
2011 I. Oswald, A. Reller; licensee oekom verlag. This is an article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

ales of electronics and high-tech products were booming once again last December, with mobile phones, net- and notebooks, tablet personal computers (PCs), and flat screen televisions being the most popular gifts of the holiday season according to the German Association for Information Technology (BITKOM). It was estimated that 60 percent of all German citizens older than age 14 a total of 42 million people planned to purchase electronics for Christmas (BITKOM 2010 a). In 2009, only 29 million people of the same age group had included electronics on their gift list. The point of highlighting these sales figures is not to deplore the popularity of electronic gadgets, but to focus attention on the extraordinary amount of waste material that will need to be managed in the coming years, once the consumers discard the appliances (figure 1, p. 42). A study by the United Nations University suggested that the generation of waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) also called electronic waste, e-waste, or escrap added up to at least 8.3 million tons in 2005 in the European Union (EU 27)(Huisman et al. 2008). E-waste is considered the most rapidly growing waste category and involves a complex waste stream. A lack of robust estimation techniques to assess global, national, and regional e-waste arisings complicates the development of solution strategies to manage the continuously increasing amounts of e-waste (Schluep et al. 2009). The variety of products qualifying as e-waste is diverse, as are the life spans and optimal end-of-life management options for different product categories. Due to their recyclable metal content, waste electronic appliances are referred to as urban mines 1. At the same time, e-waste contains a number of highly toxic substances that require it to be collected and treated separately from other solid waste. A large number of non-governmental organizations are putting in a great effort to fight the digital divide by donating used information

>

1 The term urban mining refers to the extraction of reusable materials from urban waste.

GAIA 20/1(2011): 41 47 | www.oekom.de/gaia

42

FORSCHUNG | RESEARCH

Irina Oswald, Armin Reller

FIGURE 1: Electronic waste, or e-waste consisting of electrical and electronic appliances is considered to be the fastest-growing waste category. E-waste has a complex composition including hazardous and highly valuable substances.

Irina Oswald

and telecommunication technology (ICT) equipment to developing countries, while other organizations are promoting legislation to ban e-waste exports. The controversial and complex nature of the e-waste issue is the central topic of this paper, which is divided into three parts. First, we will provide some general background, definitions, and figures on e-waste through a review of the emerging literature. The second chapter examines the material composition of e-waste, which includes both precious metals and toxic substances. The third chapter discusses the global e-waste trade. We conclude with a number of open questions and recommendations based on the preceding discussion.

E-Waste as a Complex Waste Category

The term e-waste is commonly used to describe broken electrical and electronic equipment, so-called EEE. This definition implies that an obsolete electrical or electronic device that is being discarded by its owner is either no longer fully functional or com-

pletely inoperable. However, rapid innovations in technology and design, together with a fast replacement process, have resulted in considerable amounts of appliances becoming obsolete despite the fact that they are still entirely functional. Many appliances have more than one owner throughout their life span. Therefore Terazono et al. (2006) argue that secondhand electrical appliances and electronics cannot be neglected when defining e-waste. They suggest alternative terms for e-waste, such as discarded consumer electronics. Correspondingly, according to the latter definition, this paper refers to e-waste as a waste category consisting of any broken or unwanted electrical or electronic devices, regardless of whether an appliance is still functional or not. E-waste is a complex waste category in terms of the variety of items that qualify as e-waste. Simply put, any obsolete appliance with a plug or a battery can be considered as electronic waste: computers, monitors, mobile phones, game consoles, dishwashers, microwaves, large domestic appliances, televisions, radios, MP3 players, battery operated toys, power tools, and medical devices, to name just a few. These appliances substantially differ in size and material composition, as well as in the average time

www.oekom.de/gaia | GAIA 20/1(2011): 41 47

FORSCHUNG | RESEARCH

43

they are being used by the consumer. The end of the useful life of an electronic product marks the point at which the appliance turns into waste. It is challenging to determine the exact life span of a product type as it considerably depends on the product itself (quality and durability), as well as behavioral tendencies and individual decisions of the consumer (secondhand vending, stockpiling, etc.). Furthermore, the term life span is not defined consistently in literature. For consumer electronics, an average life span of seven years is widely assumed. However, studies show that 1. the life span of different consumer electronics categories is not consistent i. e., some products are disposed of faster than others , and 2. the life span of appliances such as PCs is not constant over time. Babbitt et al. (2009) discovered that over the period from 1985 to 2000, computer life span (defined as the time from sale to end of use by the last user) decreased from an average of 10.7 years in 1985 to 5.5 years in 2000. Not only are appliances replaced by the consumers; some product categories such as MP3 players have practically become useless due to the rollout of products with more advanced abilities such as smart phones that integrate computing and telecommunication features. Yet another trend that boosts the accumulation of electronic waste is the integration of microelectronic components in appliances that formerly did not carry a display or a microchip (for example, car hi-fi systems, digital home appliances, and radio-frequency identification tags). The volume of electronic components per appliance is often small, but the challenge lies in separating these hidden components from the solid waste stream. Appliances that are not perceived as electronics (for example, toys) are more likely to be disposed of into the solid waste bin by consumers. Forecasts presume that e-waste arisings will grow between 2.5 and 2.7 percent annually in the EU 27, reaching about 12.3 million tons in 2020. Specifications and data on global quantities
FIGURE 2: In 2010, a survey conducted by the German Association for Information Technology (BITKOM) revealed that the majority of consumers either store or pass on their obsolete cell phones (BITKOM 2010b). Hibernating e-waste in drawers and basements is difficult to quantify.

TABLE: Life cycle analysis of a computer shows that manufacturing including raw material extraction and processing, components production, and PC assembly accounts for the majority of greenhouse gas emissions along the entire life cycle (Apple 2010). In contrast, life cycle analysis of a washing machine shows that over 70 percent of the emissions occur within the use phase (S.A.F.E. 2006). life cycle impact (greenhouse gas emissions)(%) production transport use recycling computer washing machine 66 26,5 6 27 72,6 1 0,9

of e-waste are vague as material flows are hard to track once an electronic or electrical device has become redundant. In the situation where redundant electrical or electronic items are still operational yet obsolete, they are often being stored by consumers and remain as hibernating e-waste in drawers and basements (figure 2). Kapur and Graedel (2006) claim that hibernating waste is empirically difficult to quantify because the individual owner decides whether to discard or retain a product. A considerable amount of obsolete electronic equipment is being sold and reused as secondhand equipment. This option frequently includes refurbishing activities, which is particularly popular for computer equipment. Some e-waste is being returned to retailers or delivered to specialized waste collection points and consequently being recycled. Small appliances in particular (ICT, household appliances, etc.) are frequently disposed of in solid waste containers. Some of this e-waste can be separated from the solid waste conglomerate at the waste incineration plant; a part of it, however, is incinerated and lost for recovery of recyclable content. As for Europe, a recent study by the United Nations University estimates that only around 30 percent of the total e-waste arisings are being collected by the collection schemes implemented by the member states of the European Union. The study also indicates that collection rates for appliances lighter than one kilogram are the lowest as compared to large appliances such as refrigerators or mid-size appliances such as cathode ray tube screens (Huisman et al. 2008). The life cycle of electronic appliances includes extraction of raw materials, component and product manufacturing, distribution, product use, and end-of-life management. In order to investigate and evaluate the environmental impacts along the entire life cycle of products, a number of studies have conducted life cycle analyses (LCA) of electronics. LCA evaluates material and energy use from raw material extraction to manufacture, distribution, use and, ultimately, disposal. Assessing the energy footprint of a desktop computer, numerous investigations have found that its production, particularly parts production, takes up most of the energy used, as compared to the actual use phase (Choi et al. 2006, OConnell and Stutz 2010). According to Williams (2004), life cycle energy use of a computer is dominated by production counter to operation. This is different in many home appliances, for example, so-called white goods such as refrigerators or washing machines, where the use phase takes up most of the energy along the products life cycle (Steiner et al. 2010) (see table).

>

GAIA 20/1(2011): 41 47 | www.oekom.de/gaia

44

FORSCHUNG | RESEARCH

Irina Oswald, Armin Reller

The differences in life cycle impacts revealed by these studies underline the complexity of the electronic waste category. Life cycle impacts have to be considered when assessing environmentally and economically optimal end-of-life options for different product types. While refurbishing and reuse of computers is ecologically worth considering due to their comparatively large energy footprint at production, the energy footprint of white goods makes reuse a less favorable end-of-life option. Williams and Sasaki (2003) show that extending the life span of a PC by ten percent can reduce its life cycle impact by up to 8.6 percent, while recycling a PC only saves 0.43 percent. Despite the substantial differences in life cycle impacts, legislation in some countries and regions addresses the e-waste stream as a whole with little differentiation in sustainable and environmentally benign end-of-life options. Given the environmental impact and economic value of ewaste, the European Union implemented the Directive on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE Directive) in 2003 (EU 2003a). Other countries or regions such as Japan and California have also enacted e-waste legislation since then. The WEEE Directive obliges the European member states to develop national infrastructures for the collection and recycling of electronic waste. The national schemes must provide possibilities for consumers to return e-waste separately from other waste and free of charge. The national implementation of the directive is different in each European country, resulting in a variety of regulations and compliance schemes. The directive sets collection, recycling, and recovery targets for electronic waste across the European Union, and embraces the principle of extended producer responsibility, which makes producers liable for end-of-life management of their products. By shifting the costs to the producers, the European Union originally hoped to promote eco-design and encourage manufacturers to improve the recyclability of EEE. Over the years of implementation across the member states, the WEEE Directive received criticism from many stakeholders producers, recyclers, environmentalists, municipalities, etc. involved with e-waste recycling. Many producers claim to be unable to keep up with the paperwork and costs involved with the regulatory requirements. As the WEEE Directive is implemented differently in each European country, manufacturers that sell their products all over Europe have to register with well over 15 different producer registration systems as well as recycling schemes, including the respective specific reporting requirements. Recyclers claim that current system infrastructures do not support efficient treatment with regard to resource conservation and value recovery (see following section). The European WEEE Directive is currently undergoing a recast process. It is likely that the present e-waste collection aim of four kilograms per person per year will be increased to a more ambitious collection target that reflects the e-waste arisings or quantity of products put on the market, respectively in the member states. Moreover, the revision will presumably involve stricter rules to control export of e-waste and reuse equipment.

Toxic Threat or Urban Mine?

The material composition of e-waste is heterogeneous and depends on the type of product. It also differs according to the year of manufacture as substances such as chlorofluorocarbons in refrigerators are being phased out and new technologies are being applied. Liquid crystal display (LCD), for instance, is replacing cathode ray tube (CRT) technology. Many products contain well over 30 substances, a mix of ferrous metals, glass, plastics, base metals (copper, aluminum, etc.), toxic heavy metals (mercury, lead, chromium, etc.), precious metals (gold, silver, platinum group metals), and others. ICT appliances in particular are considered urban mines as they accumulate relatively high concentrations of precious metals and special technology metals such as cobalt, gallium, tantalum, or indium. Provided that the appliances enter appropriate recycling processes, these materials can potentially be recovered. By recycling one ton of scrap information technology (IT) appliances, over 300 grams of gold, silver, palladium, and other precious metals can be recovered (Moran 2006). The concentration of gold in printed circuit boards amounts to around 250 grams per ton in PCs and to 980 grams per ton in mobile phones, whereas the gold concentration in virgin ore usually does not exceed ten grams per ton (Hagelken and Buchert 2008). As the market value of precious metals is significant, efficient recycling of ICT scrap is profitable, i. e., the value of recovered material exceeds recycling costs. The amount of energy required for recycling metals is much lower than for mining primary metals from ore. Producing one ton of primary aluminum, for instance, requires 4,700 terajoules per 100,000 tons, which is almost 20 times as much as the energy needed to recycle the same quantity from scrap (240 terajoules per 100,000 tons) (Grimes et al. 2008). Recycling of e-waste is also frequently mentioned in the context of resource efficiency and finite mineral resources. Many emerging technologies for example, renewable energy, ICT, and energy storage technologies are applying so-called technology metals such as gallium in solar panels, indium in liquid crystal displays, or rare earths in automotive catalysts. Technology metals only occur in extremely small concentrations in the Earths crust. In light of the growing importance of post-fossil energy sources, continuous development of new ICT technologies, global population growth, and a rapidly growing middle class with substantial purchasing power in countries like India and China, demand for these materials is projected to increase substantially. Not only is the geological availability an issue for many technology metals; most of them are byproducts of the mining of other metals. Indium, for instance, is extracted from zinc ore, directly linking indium production to zinc production. Moreover, mineral deposits of many technology metals are located in only a few countries such as China or South Africa, posing additional risks for import-dependent regions such as Europe. For most technology metals, substitutive materials either do not exist or compromise the functionality of the original material. In some cases,

www.oekom.de/gaia | GAIA 20/1(2011): 41 47

FORSCHUNG | RESEARCH

45

substitutive materials are also considered critical (see below), for example antimony tin oxide as a substitute for indium tin oxide in liquid crystal technology. A report issued by the European Commission in 2010 classifies antimony as one of the 14 most critical raw materials for the European Union, in addition to beryllium, cobalt, fluorspar, gallium, germanium, graphite, indium, magnesium, niobium, platinum group metals, rare earths, tantalum, and tungsten (European Commission 2010).Critical metals are metals combining characteristics like predicted demand growth, limited geological, technical, economic, and/or geopolitical availability, and constrained possibilities in recycling and substitution. E-waste holds a number of these critical technology materials. This further underlines that priority should be given to increase collection rates and efficient recycling of end-of-life electronics. Currently, however, well over 50 percent of the e-waste arisings fail to enter the recycling chain, with collection amounts being below 30 percent for some product categories (see above). Every mobile phone, computer, or DVD player ending up in a waste incineration plant or in inefficient recycling processes contributes to irretrievable dissipation of precious and critical metals, making it virtually impossible to recycle the substances into a closed loop system (Reller et al. 2009). Dissipation of precious and critical metals also occurs within the recycling process. This is particularly an issue for smallsized e-waste with a high recovery value FIGURE 3: Disassembly of a cathode ray tube (CRT) monitor. CRT glass contains significant amounts of such as mobile phones or PCs. A recent lead and other hazardous substances and has to be recycled separately from the rest of the monitor. study demonstrates that these appliances need to be channeled into specialized recycling processes that Nigeria, there is little awareness for appropriate handling of eallow for efficient value recovery. If mobile phones and PCs are waste. Thus e-waste recycling operations often present dangershredded together with low-value scrap i. e., appliances domi- ous working conditions in those countries. Mostly, obsolete EEE nated by plastics, steel, etc. , the majority of the material volume is being dismantled manually; environmental and health precaumay be recycled, but the majority of the (low volume) materials tions are either insufficient or not being taken at all. Toxic emissuch as gold or palladium that generate the value of the scrap are sions and contaminated ashes are being released into the air, soil, lost (Chancerel et al. 2009). and water, and pose severe threats to both human health and the E-waste also contains numerous toxic substances such as local environment. heavy metals or brominated flame retardants that can cause seAlthough the European Union has enacted legislation with the vere damage to the environment and human health. In many Directive on Restriction of Hazardous Substances (EU 2003b) to elimcountries, for example the United States, the release of toxic sub- inate the use of hazardous chemicals such as lead, mercury, cadstances from discarded electronic devices by landfill leakages has mium, hexavalent chromium, and brominated flame retardants become a major issue of concern (Jang and Townsend 2003). In in EEE, most appliances that are discarded today still contain sigdeveloping and emerging economies such as China, India, and nificant amounts of these substances.
Irina Oswald

>

GAIA 20/1(2011): 41 47 | www.oekom.de/gaia

46

FORSCHUNG | RESEARCH

Irina Oswald, Armin Reller

To account for the fact that e-waste contains toxic as well as valuable substances, it is important to handle e-waste in a way that avoids dissipation of valuable materials and exposure of toxins to the environment and to humans (figure 3). Unfortunately, these two aspects frequently intertwine in developing and newly industrializing countries. In many African and Asian countries, scrap appliances such as cathode ray tube televisions, monitors, or refrigerators are harvested for valuable parts, for example, copper and aluminum cables, printed circuit boards, and pure metal fractions (tin, aluminum, copper, etc.). The remainder is being landfilled in open spaces, which directly exposes hazardous substances (for example, lead in cathode ray tubes and polychlorinated biphenyls in plastics) to rivers, soil, and precipitation-induced washout of toxins (see below).

Exporting E-Waste Fighting the Digital Divide or Poisoning the Poor?

According to the Basel Convention 2, a treaty that came into force in 1992, international movements of hazardous waste, including e-waste, are illegal. The convention has so far been the only approach to regulate e-waste movements world-wide. It specifically aimed to respond to the dramatic environmental and social issues resulting from exports of electronic waste from Europe and the United States to developing countries and emerging economies. All the same, transnational movements of e-waste to countries such as Ghana, Nigeria, India, China, and Vietnam do exist on a large scale. It is estimated that millions of redundant electrical and electronic devices per year are shipped to Asian and African countries from ports such as Rotterdam, Antwerp, Houston, Portland, and Vancouver. In many cases containers have found to be mislabeled in order to conceal the shipment of e-waste. Containers often contain a mix of reusable equipment and scrap. Export of reuse equipment is not illegal under the Basel Convention and yields significant revenue on the markets of cities such as Lagos and Accra. Shipping a 40-foot container full of used electronics from the United States to an African port city costs an average of 5,000 US dollars. Since a used but functional Pentium III computer fetches a price of 130 US dollars on the Nigerian market, only 40 good computers equal the shipment cost of an entire container. African importers have to purchase the container as a whole, so the leftover space is being filled up with less valuable scrap (Schmidt 2006). As branded reuse equipment can be sold at higher prices in developing countries, secondhand trade is often much more financially profitable in developing countries than in the industrialized countries of origin. For instance, a secondhand notebook costs 200 to 300 US dollars in Ghana. The demand for affordable electronic equipment is large, resulting in growing domestic e-

waste quantities in Africa and Asia (Prakash and Manhart 2010). Processing of e-waste in these countries often involves primitive manual techniques such as open burning of wires to recover copper, cracking of monitors to remove copper chokes, desoldering of printed circuit boards over coal fire grills, and chemical leaching of printed circuit boards to liberate precious metals. In many cases, workers do not wear any protective equipment or clothing. Men and women working in the informal recycling business are constantly exposed to contaminated air and soil and toxic fumes. However, the exposure to toxins originating from e-waste goes even further than that: Inexpensive jewelry sold in the United States, often imported from China, has been found to contain significant amounts of lead, which has been proven to stem from recycled circuit board solders (Weidenhamer and Clement 2007). However, as opposed to recycling, collection of e-waste is relatively efficient in developing countries, with door-to-door collection very common and general awareness for reusable material value well established. The controversy and complexity associated with e-waste also pertains to international e-waste trade. Many non-governmental organizations actively encourage the donation of cell phones and other ICT equipment to developing countries. These activities are founded on the widely accepted understanding that access to communication technologies supports development, creates opportunities for local entrepreneurs, and promotes employment. Many studies validate that economic growth accelerates as mobile phone penetration rates increase. Any discussion on international e-waste trade should consider the importance of access to electronics, particularly ICT technologies, in developing countries, and the urgent need to raise awareness for safe handling of e-waste. Furthermore, recycling infrastructures tailored to the conditions in these countries need to be developed in collaboration with the existing informal sector engaged in e-waste recycling.

Conclusion
The preceding discussions underline that the context of the ewaste issue is diverse, which requires a more sophisticated argument than that of rich countries dumping e-waste in poor countries and the performance of a recycling system depends on the mass that is being recycled. Low collection rates of e-waste are a major concern. The question remains how to increase consumer willingness to dispose of obsolete appliances in a way that allows safe and efficient recycling processes. There is a lack of strategies that aim at increasing collection rates in industrialized countries, where the largest percentage of the global e-waste arisings currently occur. Will economic incentives help solve the problem? Will disposal of electronics in solid waste be fined? And can these measures help to increase collection rates, particularly of small-sized e-waste? There are different strategies that have already been tested, for example, a depositrefund system for refrigerating appliances which was implemented in Austria in 1993 and existed until 2005. However, deposits

2 Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal: www.basel.int/text/17Jun2010-conv-e.pdf.

www.oekom.de/gaia | GAIA 20/1(2011): 41 47

FORSCHUNG | RESEARCH

47

seem to be unsuitable for EEE as its life span is much longer than that of items such as beverage containers. The deposit policy in Austria revealed unmanageable administrative burdens. Buyback or trade-in of obsolete appliances is also common among retailers but is often driven by short-term profit making and not likely to influence consumer behavior in the long term. We argue that a sustainable and long-term change in consumer behavior cannot be accomplished exclusively by the implementation of incentivizing measures. To increase e-waste collection rates in the long term, efforts need to be made with regard to education in order to help consumers understand that they play an essential role within the life cycle of their cell phone or computer. There is currently little awareness among consumers for intricate issues such as technology metals in mobile phones, and distant problems such as e-waste recycling in Africa. Raising consumer awareness for the e-waste problem may be a first step to increase collection rates of obsolete electronic equipment and contribute to a more sustainable global information and communication society.

References
Apple. 2010. 15-inch MacBook Pro: Environmental report. http://images.apple.com/ environment/reports/docs/MacBook-Pro-15-inch-Environmental-Report_ April2010.pdf (accessed December 9, 2010). Babbitt, C. W., R. Kahhat, E. Williams, G. A. Babbitt. 2009. Evolution of product lifespan and implications for environmental assessment and management: A case study of personal computers in higher education. Environmental Science & Technology 43/13: 51065112. BITKOM (Bundesverband Informationswirtschaft, Telekommunikation und neue Medien e.V.). 2010a. 42 Millionen kaufen Hightech zu Weihnachten. www.bitkom. org/de/markt_statistik/64086_66115.aspx (accessed January 14, 2011). BITKOM. 2010b. Die meisten Handy-Besitzer entsorgen Gerte umweltgerecht. www.bitkom.org/de/presse/66442_62348.aspx (accessed February 16, 2011). Chancerel, P., C. E. M. Meskers, C. Hagelken, V. S. Rotter. 2009. Assessment of precious metal flows during preprocessing of waste electrical and electronic equipment. Journal of Industrial Ecology 13/5: 791810. Choi, B.-C., H.-S. Shin, S.-Y. Lee, T. Hur. 2006. Life cycle assessment of a personal computer and its effective recycling rate. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 11/2: 122128. EU (European Union). 2003a. Directive 2002/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE). Official Journal of the European Union L 37: 2438. EU. 2003b. Directive 2002/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment. Official Journal of the European Union L 37: 1923. European Commission. 2010. Critical raw materials for the EU. Report of the ad-hoc working group on defining critical raw materials. Brussels: European Commission, DG Enterprise and Industry. Grimes, S., J. Donaldson, G. C. Gomez. 2008. Report on the environmental benefits of recycling. London: Bureau of International Recycling (BIR). Hagelken, C., M. Buchert. 2008. The mine above ground Opportunities and challenges to recover scarce and valuable metals from EOL electronic devices. Paper presented at the 7 th International Electronics Recycling Congress. Salzburg, January 1618. Huisman, J., F. Magalini, R. Kuehr, C. Maurer. 2008. Review of Directive 2002/96 on waste electrical and electronic equipmen (WEEE). Bonn: United Nations University.

Jang, Y.-C., T. G. Townsend. 2003. Leaching of lead from computer printed wire boards and cathode ray tubes by municipal solid waste landfill leachates. Environmental Science & Technology 37/20: 4778 4784. Kapur, A., T. E. Graedel. 2006. Copper mines above and below the ground. Environmental Science & Technology 40/10: 31353141. Moran, S. 2006. Panning e-waste for gold. New York Times, May 17, 2006: 8. OConnell, S., M. Stutz. 2010. Product carbon footprint (PCF) assessment of Dell laptop Results and recommendations. Paper presented at the 2010 IEEE International Symposium on Sustainable Systems and Technology. Washington, D. C., May 1619. Prakash, S., A. Manhart. 2010. Socio-economic assessment and feasibility study on sustainable e-waste management in Ghana. Freiburg im Breisgau: ko-Institut e.V. Reller, A., T. Bublies, T. Staudinger, I. Oswald, S. Meissner, M. Allen. 2009. The mobile phone: Powerful communicator and potential metal dissipator. GAIA 18/2: 127135. S.A.F.E. (Swiss Agency for Efficient Energy Use). 2006. Altgerte Ersetzen oder reparieren? http://assets.wwf.ch/downloads/altergraete_flyer_a4_ printversion.pdf (accessed February 16, 2011). Schluep, M. et al. 2009. Recycling From e-waste to resources. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Schmidt, C. W. 2006. Unfair trade: E-waste in Africa. Environmental Health Perspectives 114/4: 232235. Steiner, R., M. Faist Emmenegger, N. Jungbluth, R. Frischknecht. 2010. Timely replacement of white goods Investigation of modern appliances in a LCA. www.esu-services.ch/fileadmin/download/Steiner-2005-Timely Replacement.pdf (accessed January 14, 2011). Terazono, A. et al. 2006. Current status and research on e-waste issues in Asia. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management 8/1: 112. Weidenhamer, J. D., M. L. Clement. 2007. Leaded electronic waste is a possible source material for lead-contaminated jewelry. Chemosphere 69/7: 11111115. Williams, E. 2004. Energy intensity of computer manufacturing: Hybrid assessment combining process and economic input-output methods. Environmental Science & Technology 38/22: 61666174. Williams, E. D., Y. Sasaki. 2003. Energy analysis of end-of-life options for personal computers: Resell, upgrade, recycle. Paper presented at the 2003 IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment. Boston, MA: May 1923.

Submitted October 20, 2010; revised version accepted February 9, 2011.

Irina Oswald Born 1984 in Landshut, Germany. Studies in physical geography. Research associate and PhD student at the Chair of Resource Strategy of the University of Augsburg, Germany. Research focus: recycling of e-waste, recovery of metals, potentially critical metals, and corporate performance metrics to assess end-of-life product take-back and recycling programs. Armin Reller Born 1952 in Winterthur, Switzerland. Studies and PhD in solid state chemistry. 1992 to 1998 professor for applied chemistry at the University of Hamburg, Germany. Since 1999 professor at the Chair of Solid State Chemistry, chairman of the Environmental Science Center, and since 2009, holder of the newly established Chair for Resource Strategy, all at the University of Augsburg, Germany. 1988 to 2006 coordinator of the programme Solar Chemistry/Hydrogen/Regenerative Energy Carriers funded by the Swiss Federal Office of Energy, Berne, Switzerland. Editor-inChief of Progress in Solid State Chemistry. Member of GAIAs Editorial Board.

GAIA 20/1(2011): 41 47 | www.oekom.de/gaia

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.