Lauren Adkins

Adkins 1

Mr. Winters
PHI 3640.005
December 3, 2014
E-Waste: A Hazard Found Around the World
I.

Introduction

The issue I am addressing deals with environmental racism; more specifically, the recycling of
electronic waste, or e-waste, in China. The ethical dilemma lies in the fact that the toxic
chemicals found in e-waste are negatively impacting the environment, and therefore, public
health in China (Pelley). Not only is shipping e-waste overseas illegal, but the sheer volume of ewaste that is being shipped to China from overseas is substantial. It is estimated that 1.53.3
million tons of e-waste are imported to China in illegal ways each year (Li et. al. 1059). I
decided to write my essay on this topic after seeing a segment about it on 60 Minutes and
researching different experiments and research on the matter. I think this is an important topic of
discussion because it deals with human health and life. The specific area in China studied,
Guiyu, was found to have the highest levels of cancer-causing dioxins in the world, .
.pregnancies are six times more likely to end in miscarriage, and . . .seven out of ten kids have
too much lead in their blood (Pelley). When certain companies take the easy way out and send
the toxic e-waste overseas, it is jeopardizing the health of the poor civilians who live and work in
the area. Given that e-waste that is being shipped to China causes pollution and subsequent
health problems in the recycling process, I think it is unfair that Chinese people have to
disproportionally carry that burden. Therefore, I dont think e-waste should be shipped overseas.
The main reason I am arguing this is for exposure, I hope to inform people about this problem. I

Adkins 2
hope that after my argument is considered, people will want to look into the recycling facilities
they use when throwing out e-waste to ensure that they are doing everything they can do to
ensure the health of their employees and to be environmentally-friendly.
II.

Argument

Electronic waste contains many chemicals that are toxic to humans. E-waste being shipped to
China causes pollution and threatens public health. People in the U.S. throw out about 130,000
computers a day that contain toxic materials like lead, cadmium, mercury, chromium, and
polyvinyl chlorides (Pelley). Also, polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE) is a flame retardant
found in electronic waste (Li et. al. 1059). When burned, they cause some of the most toxic
compounds known on earth (Pelley). PBDEs have been linked to health and environmental
degradation and all production and use has been banned in Europe and some types are banned in
North America as well (Li et. al. 1059). All of these chemicals found in e-waste, paired with
archaic methods of extraction cause a lot of destruction to the environment and subsequently,
public health. The chemicals in computers are known to cause health problems like brain
damage, kidney disease, mutations, and cancers (Pelley). Many of the people described that their
throats hurt, it was hard to breathe, and they sustained injuries from burning the hazardous
material (Pelley).The primitive practices used when recycling e-waste includes manual
disassembling, open incineration, and acid dripping (Li et. al. 1059). Also, heating circuit
boards over a coal fire, pulling out chips and pouring off the lead solder and using a medieval
acid recipe to extract gold are examples of unsafe working conditions in China (Pelley).This
deadly combination of new-age toxins being recycled in an ancient setting wreaks havoc on the

Adkins 3
surrounding environment. The town has been destroyed by pollution, the rivers have ash in them
(fresh water has to be imported from elsewhere), and the soils contain the highest levels of
cancer-causing dioxins in the world (Pelley). Clearly, the environment and health of the people
are being threatened by e-waste.
Environmental racism and threatening human life is inherently wrong. Environmental
racism takes place when some people have to carry the burden of environmental degradation, in
this case, toxic e-waste and pollution, which others dont. When Americans ship their e-waste to
China, they are placing those hazards on innocent people while simultaneously ridding
themselves of the burden. The people working with the toxic materials only make eight dollars a
day so they are clearly disenfranchised. Brian Barry argues for distributive justice of
environmental hazards; he claims that it is established that all humans should have fundamental
equality (110). Fundamental equality includes equal prima facie civil and political rights, people
are responsible for what they choose to do, and everyone is allowed the same means to satisfy
their vital interests (Barry 111). Given this definition, the people responsible for recycling ewaste material are not receiving fundamental equality. Since recycling e-waste causes a plethora
of health problems and the workers dont receive decent compensation for the dangerous work
they are doing, their civil and political rights are being jeopardized. The e-waste that is being
recycled comes mostly from illegal importing overseas as well as domestic dumping (Pelley).
Either way, the people who suffer the burden are not the ones using the state-of-the-art
technology so they should not be held responsible for breaking it down while others dont have
to worry about it at all. Given that clean water has to trucked into the town and a lot of
pregnancy ends in miscarriage, it is clear that vital interests are being endangered (Pelley). I

Adkins 4
think the vital interests principle of Barrys four principles of fundamental equality is the one
being most threatened in this situation. Barry explains vital interests as certain objective
requirements for human beings to be able to live healthy lives, raise families, work at full
capacity, and take a part in social and political life (111). The people breaking down e-waste in
China are certainly not entitled to like healthy lives or raise families. I really think that the
recycling of e-waste in China is taking away fundamental equality from disenfranchised people.
III.

Counterargument

One counterargument I thought of was that some people assume that their electronics will be
recycled safely in America. Since America has labor laws with a minimum wage, state-of-the-art
e-waste recycling facilities, it would make sense for people to feel safe about recycling their ewaste in America. A lot of people just arent aware that e-waste is shipped overseas to be
recycled in such an unsafe and unjust way. This counter argument is significant because even
companies who claim they safely recycle e-waste are often found shipping it overseas (Pelley).
So even when citizens think theyre doing the right thing by recycling, they are often doing more
harm to people than good. I think it is useful to look at Shrader-Frechettes responsibility
argument. When people participate in or benefit from. . .institutions that promote or allow lifethreatening environmental justice, then these people should bear partial responsibility and
should work to stop it (Shrader-Frechette 123). Because people have the finances to purchase
electronics like computers and cell phones and then recycle their old ones, they should partially
bear the responsibility of the dangers that come from this act, especially when the people who
take on the burden more than likely do not use any of these types of electronics. The first

Adkins 5
premise to the responsibility argument regards pollution threats to human rights (ShraderFrechette 124). As I argued previously, pollution clearly jeopardizes fundamental equality. The
second premise, citizen responsibility for pollution and environmental justice states that
polluters arent the only ones responsible for the pollution (Shrader-Frechette 127). Since
consumers constantly demand newer and better technology, they are the ones throwing out their
older electronics. In this case, people who are recycling their electronics with untrustworthy
companies that ship it overseas are partially responsible for the environmental injustice that
occurs. The third premise, duties based on responsibility for harm states that citizens are
responsible for injustice to the extent that they have benefitted from it (Shrader-Frechette 136).
The recycling companies may tell people that they are recycling their e-waste in America in safe
institutions, but it is still the duty of the citizen to research where they are recycling electronics to
ensure that environmental injustice isnt occurring. Just because one is ignorant about injustice
occurring doesnt mean they are without blame (Shrader-Frechette 137). The fourth premise,
excuses for environmentally unjust institutions claims that one must either defend an
institution or compensate from their benefits (Shrader-Frechette 137). Being that the injustice
was certainly caused by humans, the workers arent being compensated, and there are better
alternatives, then one cannot rightfully defend the way e-waste is being illegally recycled
(Shrader-Frechette 137).
IV.

Conclusion

Given that e-waste being shipped to China cause pollution and subsequent health problems to
the people living and working in the area and environmental racism and threatening human life is

Adkins 6
inherently wrong, then e-waste should not be shipped overseas. I think I was successful in
defending my claim because shipping e-waste to China causes a lot of environmental and public
health problems and clearly jeopardizes fundamental equality as explained by Barry. According
to Shrader-Frechettes responsibility argument, theres really no reason for people to send ewaste overseas due to the threats to human rights and citizens duties to prevent environmental
injustice. The objection considered was that some citizens may not even be aware that their ewaste is causing so many injustices overseas, but since citizens have a prima facie duty to try and
stop it. Further consideration may be given to why some recycling companies ship overseas in
the first place and what can be done to deter them from doing so. Recycling with trustworthy
companies may lessen the impact in China, but it is important to reform the current institutions
as well (Shrader-Frechette 137).

Adkins 7
Works Cited
Barry, Brian. [From] Sustainability and Intergenerational Justice. Reflecting on Nature:
Readings in Environmental Ethics and Philosophy. Ed. Lori Gruen, Dale
Jamieson, Christopher Schlottmann. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013.
110-111. Print.
Li, Y, et al. "Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers In E-Waste: Level And Transfer In A Typical EWaste Recycling Site In Shanghai, Eastern China." Waste Management 34.6
(n.d.): 1059-1065. Science Citation Index. Web. 27 Nov. 2014.
Pelley, Scott. Following the Trail of Toxic E-waste. 60 Minutes. CBS News, 9 Nov 2008. Web.
28 Nov 2014.
Shrader-Frechette, Kristin. Taking Action, Saving Lives: Our Duties to Protect Environmental
and Public Health. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Print.