Trashing the Third World
By Joe Lemien
When classical economists Adam Smith and David Riccardo proclaimed the great benefits of free trade, cloth, wine, invisible hands, and comparative advantage, they left out something very important. When the Portuguese have finished drinking their wine and the English have gotten tired of their clothes and have replaced them with new ones, how does the invisible hand guide the movement of the empty bottle and the threadbare shirt? Perhaps the wine bottles could be filled with another drink, and the old clothes could be taken apart and sewn into new outfits, but what about waste that is thoroughly unwanted, or even harmful? Let's update to the 1990s and the early twenty-first century, and take a look at a brand new industry whose products nearly everyone finds useful and desirable: electronics and, more specifically, computers. More importantly, let's look at the technology which becomes electronic waste after outliving its usefulness. Electronic waste, commonly called e-waste, generally includes computer hardware, monitors, and disk drives, but can be expanded to include television, microwaves, and other electronic appliances. The United States produced a vast amount of e-waste, and there is a widely unknown, widely illegal, international trade in e-waste from the first world to the third, created by free trade, producer irresponsibility, and consumer ignorance. This international e-waste market causes illness, death, and environmental degradation. The core issues concerning e-waste are the effects of its international trade, the economic and political reasons for this trade, and what can be done to change it.
According to the Basel Action Network (BAN), an offshoot of the influential NGO Greenpeace, "The electronics industry is the world’s largest and fastest growing manufacturing industry, and as a consequence of this growth... discarded electronics or E-waste, is now the fastest growing waste stream in the industrialized world."1 Many electronics, especially computers, have undergone an "increasingly rapid evolution of technology combined with rapid product obsolescence [which] has effectively rendered everything disposable."2 This rapid advancement of the information technology industry is a phenomenon which is called Moore’s Law, which describes how computers' power doubles every 18 months. Due to such meteoric increase in the processing capacity of computers, “the average computer life span has shrunk to less than two years."3 When this rapid obsolescence is combined with "the present consumer culture of increasing rates of consumption..."4 it leads to disastrous environmental consequences. E-waste, old computers in particular, contain numerous toxic substances such as lead, cadmium, and mercury.5 Lead damages the central nervous system, kidneys, and reproductive system.6 Cadmium is a toxic substance which can build up in the human body and causes irreversible health effects, and mercury causes damage to the brain and kidneys.7 Due to the presence of these toxic substances, and others, in our computers, when they outlive their ever-shortening lifespan to become e-waste, by definition this e-waste is also hazardous waste. (Basel Action Network 2005). In addition to the danger e-waste poses as hazardous waste, "e-waste represents the biggest and fastest growing manufacturing waste" (United Nations Environment Programme), meaning that we have a massive inflow of hazardous waste into the world. This paints a grim picture about what industrialized countries are doing, because neither the generation of this waste, nor the consequences of it are felt equally around the world. "Every year, according to the United Nation's Environment Program, 20 to 50 million tons of electrical and electronic equipment waste are generated worldwide",8 and OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a group composed primarily of advanced industrialized states) countries are responsible for more than 80 percent of the waste generated worldwide.9 Although North America, Japan, Australia, and Europe produce a majority of the world's e-waste, this garbage does not stay within their borders, because they are the main waste exporters.10 For the U.S. alone, "In 2002 enough e-waste was exported to create 'a pile one square acre with a height of 674 feet'-over twice as high as the Statue of Liberty..."11 Although the U.S. is not the only country to send it's e-waste to the third world, it is by far the largest offender, and for the past decade “50 to 80 percent of the electronics collected for recycling in the western half of the United States (and perhaps even more of the country) was being exported for cheap dismantling overseas, predominantly to China and Southeast Asia”.12 The destinations of e-waste cover a large portion of the world, including South East Asia, South Asia, Eastern Europe, and Africa. In 2004 there were over 315 million obsolete computers in the U.S., and by 2005 there was one obsolete computer for every new one put on the market,13 so the United States also has an increasing surplus of e-waste to fuel the already alarmingly large exports of it. To the large amount of e-waste generated by the United States we can also add the concern that "By 2009, 300 million analog TVs in the United States will also become obsolete when America's broadcast signal format changes to digital".14 By all accounts, "the United States is the most wasteful country per capita,"15 but with the United States generating outrageous amounts of waste, where does it all go? The “invisible hand” of free trade dictates a simple answer: follow the path of least economical resistance.
The people of the waste-producing first world countries suffer from a “Not in my Backyard” mentality, despite their creation of, use of, and therefore responsibility for their own e-waste, which provides a strong domestic push to move the waste elsewhere. As communities became more aware of the vast amount of waste that they produced, they became increasingly vocal against the prospect of storing that waste in the place where they live. As an example, "in the United States landfill costs for dumping hazardous waste rose from U.S.$15 per ton in 1980 to U.S.$250 per ton in 1988."16 This domestic push to move the waste elsewhere, combines with the international pull of cheaper disposal, recycling, and storage costs in the global south to provide powerful economic incentives for the export of such waste to the global south. For instance, “in the late 1980s the average disposal cost for one tonne of hazardous waste in Africa was between $US2.50 and $US50, while in the OECD [countries] it ranged from $US100 to $US2000”.17 Such minimal waste disposal fees were commonly found in countries with few, if any, environmental protection laws, which further "encouraged the movement of waste across borders from rich to poor countries."18 In addition, cheap storage space and lax environmental protection laws in countries such as Nigeria, India, Pakistan, and China, "Another reason for international transfers of hazardous waste is their potential value as secondary raw materials to be recovered, reused, or recycled".19 Using China as an example, "...the import of every 10,000 tons of waste material provides 1,000 jobs in China, saves 1.2 million tons of raw materials and 10 million watts of electricity, and creates 100 million yuan (US$12.8 million) worth of production...".20 Given these clear incentives, one U.S. American recycler stated the situation well from an his own business viewpoint when when he asked "...Why would a good business person allow spending 3 to 4 dollars to disassemble and handle material domestically when the same material can be sold offshore for 3 bucks?".21 A U.S. EPA program found "...that it was 10 times cheaper to ship CRT monitors to China than it was to recycle them in the U.S.",22 so according to the doctrine of free trade and market liberalization then, we should export our garbage to the third world, because that is where the trash flows naturally if left to market forces. If market forces are left unregulated, “...toxic waste will always run downhill on an economic path of least resistance. If left unchecked, the toxic effluent of the affluent will flood towards the world's poorest countries where labor is cheap and occupational and environmental protections are inadequate."23 But is giving a fair deal, paying hard currency in exchange for the use of their land as storage space, or selling to them at cheap prices products that they can earn a living off of, such a terrible concept? After all, although some of the first world's toxic e-waste is sent for storage, many of the computers sent to China, and the cellular phones sent to Nigeria are taken apart to gain access to valuable metals inside, which can then be sold for profit; so we are not just trashing third world countries, but we are also providing them with valuable raw materials. An old computer, for example, has many components that are still of value, such as metals and plastics inside the unit and around the wiring which can amount to several U.S. dollars per computer.24 Although to a North American individual, four or five dollars is not a great amount of money, for a person living in rural India or China, this money could buy much needed food and other necessities. But the delivery of European and North American e-waste does more than provide people with jobs.
Because of the poisonous chemicals contained within e-waste, disposal in a landfill allows leeching into local soil and water supplies, and "...incineration or recycling poses significant threats to the environment".25 These threats to the local environment and, by extension, to the local people's health include "...high rates of cancer and reproductive problems, soil contamination resulting in lower agricultural productivity of the land, contamination of the food chain and of groundwater, as well as harm to wildlife and biodiversity".26 Since 2000, water samples taken from a River near Guiyu, one of the most prominent e-waste processing towns in China showed levels of lead 2,400 times higher than that considered safe,27 samples taken from Guiyu's wastewater channels found the levels of hazardous metals to be 400 to 600 times higher than is considered safe,28 and more than 80 per cent of local children suffer from lead poisoning.29 "Poisonous chemical effluents stream into their [the local Chinese workers'] water supply, turning it black or lurid red, and studies by Greenpeace show that acid rain is the norm in this region. Children are prone to fevers and coughs. Their skin is often disfigured by the toxic plastic waste they have to process."30 These health problems are not a side-effect of storage of e-waste, but rather are a direct result of resource recovery from old computers, and the "process of resource recovery is very polluting."31 When the awareness of such disastrous health effects are combined with the knowledge that the amount of e-waste imported into China for recycling increased “from 10.68 million tons of solid waste in 1999 to 38.95 million tons in 2006",32 some of the trade in e-waste starts to look like a very serious problem. Some individuals call it “toxic terrorism,” or “toxic colonialism.” China is certainly not the only victim of this toxic colonialism. In one month "...there is a reported case of import of 30 metric tones (MT) of e-waste at Ahmedabad port in India",33 and outside of Asia “Nigera... imports roughly 400,000 computers and monitors each month, as much as 75% of which is junk and not repairable or resaleable.”34 To make matters even worse, the workers who are involved in the dismantling and recycling of e-waste normally do not have any kind of protection, are unaware of the danger that the e-waste poses to them, and do their work through relatively straightforward methods like using hammers, open fire pits, and submersion in acid baths. All of these methods are “fraught with occupational health risks to workers as well as people living in surrounding areas..."35 and "all stages in the processing of electrical and electronic wastes have the potential to release substantial quantities of toxic heavy metals and organic compounds to the workplace environment and... also to surrounding soils and water courses".36 Computers in particular pose health problems, since the lead, mercury, and other toxic chemicals. Once all valuable, extractable parts have been removed from e-waste, the remaining, unsalvageable parts are usually just dumped into pits, river, and backyards. The trouble with the proper disposal of e-waste is in large part the same troubles that are posed with recycling it: e-waste "contains over 1,000 different substances, many of which are toxic, and creates serious pollution upon disposal."37 Such a free trade in hazardous waste “leaves the poorer peoples of the world with an untenable choice between poverty and poison: a choice that nobody should have to make.”38 With all of these harmful effects of e-waste recycling, disposal, and storage, some people have taken notice and have attempted to enact international legal restrictions on the trade in hazardous wastes. The outcome of this effort was the Basel Convention.
The Basel Convention was an international treaty which entered into force in 1992, and “calls for all countries of the world to become self-sufficient in waste management and to minimize all transboundary movements of hazardous wastes. The Basel Ban Amendment [adopted in 1995] forbids the export of hazardous wastes from Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to non-OECD countries."39 Since this treaty's inception, a majority of the world's countries have signed and ratified it, including China, India, Nigeria, and all the countries of Europe. The Basel Convention, bans countries from exporting hazardous wastes across state boundaries to other countries and disposing of them.40 The United States never ratified the treaty though, so despite international law banning trade in hazardous waste, the Unites States continues to export it.41 So "While the United States talks a good talk about the principle of Environmental Justice at home for their own population, they work actively on the global stage in direct opposition to it."42 Although the countries that the U.S. standardly exports hazardous waste to have all ratified the Basel Convention, making their importation of such waste a violation of international law, there are several factors that allow the U.S. to continue to send toxic e-waste abroad. First, there are structural loopholes in the Basel Convention itself. Much of the e-waste exported by the United States is not designated for storage, rather it is designated for recycling, but while "Wastes designated for recycling operations are technically covered by the Basel Convention... there is a loophole: when wastes are not labeled as wastes for recycling, they are difficult to regulate".43 This means that by merely labeling the e-waste differently, toxic American exports can avoid the restrictions of the Basel Convention. Furthermore, definitions within the convention itself allow it's restrictions to be avoided. A primary instance of this is how "used electronic equipment that is functioning and is intended for direct re-use is not considered to be a waste, regardless of whether is it hazardous or not,"44 which allows developed countries to send old, functional computers to the third world in order to avoid the hassle of dealing with the inevitable e-waste themselves. Much of this old e-scrap "...does not function upon arrival, is too obsolete for resale, or has a very short life,"45 making the exportation of old electronics little better than the exportation of e-waste. Beyond North American efforts and problematic definitions in the convention itself, there are individuals in the third world who make a living of off the trade in e-waste, and would hate to see it come to and end. These individuals "are oblivious or unconcerned with its [e-waste's] adverse consequences."46 For instance, although China has passed domestic laws against the importation of e-waste, "of the 80 percent of the world’s e-waste that pours into Asia every year, 90 percent is dumped in China",47 much of it due to how individual scrap dealers “smuggle or associate with overseas organizations and illegally bring foreign garbage to China, endangering public health and the environment...".48 In order to aid Chinese businessmen in their illegal importation of North American e-waste, "US brokers of electronic waste routinely tape $100 bills inside of shipping containers in order to get past customs officials in Chinese ports",49 and even while Chinese law prohibits the “import of foreign solid waste, a vague exception permits the entry of recyclable waste material."50 This combination of loopholes, special exceptions, and illegal smuggling allow a massive amount of e-waste to flow into China, which, "already laden with domestic pollution, is rapidly becoming the planet’s largest garbage dump..."51 "It is not known whether this widespread flouting of the national law [in China, which bans the import of hazardous substances] is due to a lack of enforcement will or infrastructure. Likely it has to do with both – a lack of will on the part of local officials and a lack of infrastructure on the part of the central government."52
Although the Basel Convention is in place, it is clear that it is not enough to eliminate the dangers of e-waste. Without any trade in hazardous waste, the massive piles toxic garbage would just be in different locations. There are definitely some positives to focus on, though. Primarily, the fact that "the income elasticity of waste generation is less than one- a doubling of living standards does not produce double the concomitant waste,"53 is a very hopeful outlook. However, this still leaves us with a massive amount of e-waste to dispose of. One of the most commonly recommended solutions is to recycle it, which, although it is often used as a code word for 'send to abroad for cheap dismantling,' it has to potential to be very beneficial when used genuinely and put into effect domestically. Most e-waste, and especially "Computers[,] are highly recyclable... with 90 percent of the average machine made of reclaimable copper, aluminum, iron, steel, and plastics."54 Individuals and corporations could do much more recycling then is currently being practiced. For instance "In India only one percent of e-waste is collected for authorized recycling,"55 and in 2006, although "more than one billion mobile phones were shipped worldwide, ...Nokia (the market leader) recycles just 2 percent of the phones it sells."56 "In the US there is very little regulation of e-waste. Less than 20 percent of US e-waste is recovered for recycling,"57 and "Even in the European Union... Of the estimated 8.7 million tonnes of e-waste created annually in the EU a massive 6.6 million tonnes of e-waste is not recycled."58 Clearly there is an overwhelming amount of recycling which is not occurring. By recycling old products rather than discarding them we can massively reduce the amount of damage to people and the environment. But recycling is not as a good of a solution as we could hope for. Because of the valuable parts inside of computers, people in need of money will still want to dismantle old or broken computers, those people will still suffer from the toxicity of the e-waste, as well as inflicting damage on the environment around themselves. Precisely because "a wide range of hazardous chemicals are, or have in the past been, used in components of electrical and electronic devices, and these subsequently create substantial problems with regard to handling, recycling and disposal of obsolete products,"59 we cannot rely on recycling. We must instead remedy this problem at the beginning of a computer's life cycle, before it becomes e-waste: therefore "The ultimate answer is to minimize the generation of hazardous wastes, not recycle them."60 Taking this into account implies that the solution to the problem of e-waste is the reduction of the production of e-waste. As stated earlier, toxic e-waste is produced in such high numbers due to the obsolescence that the rapid technological advancement causes. Consumers needs to acquire a new computer once an old one is outdated, and due to the hazardous nature of the individual components used to construct computers, more toxic e-waste will still be created. This information recommends a solution of reduction in the obsolescence rate of computers, reduction in the desire for consumers to acquire new computers, and the reduction or elimination of hazardous components in computer construction. In a competitive, capitalist society, no computer producer would willingly slow down the advancement and improvement of their product, and it is highly unlikely that in such a capitalist democratic society that any such legislation could be enacted. What could be done though, is for computer producers to design their computers to be upgraded rather than thrown away. Profit margins could still be kept high due to the rapid obsolescence inherent in the computer industry, but the destruction of the environment and of human life would be drastically decreased. This sustainable design of computers could temper the consumer's desire to purchase new computers, since upgrade could be easier and more cost-effective. In addition to designing computers to have longer lives despite their rapid technological advancement, computer designers, with the help of governments, could also research ways to build computers without so many toxic chemicals. These two efforts, when combined, would massively increase the length of time a computer can be used effectively before it is thrown away, and when it is thrown away, the damage to the environment and to the people working with the e-waste would be far less. These industry changes, when combined, with the recycling, would reduce the stream of e-waste to the third world to a mere trickle of what it was before. Still, although there would be less toxic colonialism, it would likely still be present. The final solution would be to combine the industrial changes and recycling with a stricter Basel Convention. The upgraded Basel convention would have to clearly define what items are banned from being imported and exported, and it would require international enforcement. Countries like the United States must ratify such an agreement, otherwise a massive amount of e-waste will continue to flow into the developing world. Without international agreement and effort, such e-waste will continue to be produced in every-increasing numbers, and overwhelming amounts of it will continue to destroy life in third world countries.
Notes:
1 Basel Action Network (BAN), Exporting Harm – The High Tech Trashing of Asia. Basel Action Network (BAN). 2002.
2 Ibid
3 Toxics Link, Scrapping The Hi-Tech Myth: Computer Waste in India. Toxics Link. 2003.
4 Ibid
5 Basel Action Network (BAN), Exporting Harm – The High Tech Trashing of Asia. Basel Action Network (BAN). 2002.
6 Ibid
7 Ibid
8 Basel Action Network, The Digital Dump: Exporting Re-use and Abuse to Africa. Basel Action Network. 2005.
9 Krueger, Jonathan (2001), ‘The Basel Convention and the International Trade in Hazardous Wastes’, in Olav Schram Stokke and Øystein B. Thommessen (eds.), Yearbook of International Co-operation on Environment and Development 2001/2002 (London: Earthscan Publications), 43–51.
10 Jialing, Zhang. “A China Environmental Health Project Research Brief - The Management of Imported Solid Waste in China” Woodrow Wilson Internationl Center for Scholars. http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?topic_id=1421&fuseaction=topics.item&news_id=241138
11 Grossman, Elizabeth. High Tech Trash. (Island Press, 2006), 189.
12 Grossman, Elizabeth. High Tech Trash. (Island Press, 2006), 189.
13 Toxics Link, Scrapping The Hi-Tech Myth: Computer Waste in India. Toxics Link. 2003.
14 Slade, Giles. “iWaste” Mother Jones. http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2007/03/iwaste.html
15 Basel Action Network, The Digital Dump: Exporting Re-use and Abuse to Africa. Basel Action Network. 2005.
16 Clapp, Jennifer. Toxic Exports. (Cornell University Press, 2001), 23.
17 Krueger, Jonathan (2001), ‘The Basel Convention and the International Trade in Hazardous Wastes’, in Olav Schram Stokke and Øystein B. Thommessen (eds.), Yearbook of International Co-operation on Environment and Development 2001/2002 (London: Earthscan Publications), 43–51.
18 Clapp, Jennifer. Toxic Exports. (Cornell University Press, 2001), 23.
19 Krueger, Jonathan (2001), ‘The Basel Convention and the International Trade in Hazardous Wastes’, in Olav Schram Stokke and Øystein B. Thommessen (eds.), Yearbook of International Co-operation on Environment and Development 2001/2002 (London: Earthscan Publications), 43–51.
20 Wang, Jiaquan. “Imported Pollution Adds to China’s Environmental Woes” Worldwatch Institute. http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4986
21 Basel Action Network (BAN), Exporting Harm – The High Tech Trashing of Asia. Basel Action Network (BAN). 2002.
22Ibid
23Ibid
24Ibid
25 Toxics Link, Scrapping The Hi-Tech Myth: Computer Waste in India. Toxics Link. 2003.
26 Clapp, Jennifer. Toxic Exports. (Cornell University Press, 2001), 38.
27 Grossman, Elizabeth. High Tech Trash. (Island Press, 2006), 185.
28 Grossman, Elizabeth. High Tech Trash. (Island Press, 2006), 188.
29 Coonan, Clifford. “Made in Britain, Dumped in China” The Independent. January 26, 2007, Environment section. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/made-in-britain-dumped-in-china-433731.html
30Ibid
31 Toxics Link, Scrapping The Hi-Tech Myth: Computer Waste in India. Toxics Link. 2003.
32 Jialing, Zhang. “A China Environmental Health Project Research Brief - The Management of Imported Solid Waste in China” Woodrow Wilson Internationl Center for Scholars. http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?topic_id=1421&fuseaction=topics.item&news_id=241138
33 Toxics Link, Scrapping The Hi-Tech Myth: Computer Waste in India. Toxics Link. 2003.
34 Basel Action Network, The Digital Dump: Exporting Re-use and Abuse to Africa. Basel Action Network. 2005.
35 Toxics Link, Scrapping The Hi-Tech Myth: Computer Waste in India. Toxics Link. 2003.
36 Greenpeace, Recycling of Electronic Waste in India & China. Greenpeace International. 2005.
37 Basel Action Network (BAN), Exporting Harm – The High Tech Trashing of Asia. Basel Action Network (BAN). 2002.
38Ibid
39Ibid
40 CRIEnglish. “China A Major E-Waste Dumping Ground: Scientist” CRIENGLISH.com. http://www.crinordic.com/2946/2007/01/09/189@182958.htm
41 Basel Action Network (BAN), Exporting Harm – The High Tech Trashing of Asia. Basel Action Network (BAN). 2002.
42Ibid
43 Clapp, Jennifer. Toxic Exports. (Cornell University Press, 2001), 3.
44 Basel Action Network, The Digital Dump: Exporting Re-use and Abuse to Africa. Basel Action Network. 2005.
45Ibid
46Ibid
47 Wang, Jiaquan. “Imported Pollution Adds to China’s Environmental Woes” Worldwatch Institute. http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4986
48 Xinhua. “China Set to Curb Foreign Waste Imports” China's Foreign Economic Cooperation. http://fec2.mofcom.gov.cn/aarticle/news/200701/20070104311568.html
49 Westervelt, Sarah and Puckett, Jim. “how the West's obsession with new technology is poisoning China” Human Rights in China. http://www.hrichina.org/public/contents/article?revision%5Fid=2932&item%5Fid=2931
50 Wang, Jiaquan. “Imported Pollution Adds to China’s Environmental Woes” Worldwatch Institute. http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4986
51Ibid
52 Basel Action Network (BAN), Exporting Harm – The High Tech Trashing of Asia. Basel Action Network (BAN). 2002.
53 Porter, Richard. The Economics of Waste. (Resources for the Future, 2002), 1.
54 Liu, Yingling. “China's E-Waste Problem: Facing Up to the Challenge” Worldwatch Institute. http://www.worldwatch.org/node/3921
55 Greenpeace International. “Where does all the e-waste go?” Greenpeace International. http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/e-waste-toxic-not-in-our-backyard210208
56Ibid
57Ibid
58Ibid
59 Greenpeace, Recycling of Electronic Waste in India & China. Greenpeace International. 2005.
60 Westervelt, Sarah and Puckett, Jim. “how the West's obsession with new technology is poisoning China” Human Rights in China. http://www.hrichina.org/public/contents/article?revision%5Fid=2932&item%5Fid=2931
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Basel Action Network (BAN), Exporting Harm – The High Tech Trashing of Asia. Basel Action Network (BAN). 2002.
Basel Action Network, The Digital Dump: Exporting Re-use and Abuse to Africa. Basel Action Network. 2005.
Coonan, Clifford. “Made in Britain, Dumped in China” The Independent. January 26, 2007, Environment section. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/made-in-britain-dumped-in-china-433731.html (Accessed May 23, 2008)
Clapp, Jennifer. Toxic Exports. Cornell University Press. 2001.
CRIEnglish. “China A Major E-Waste Dumping Ground: Scientist” CRIENGLISH.com. http://www.crinordic.com/2946/2007/01/09/189@182958.htm (accessed May 23, 2008).
Faison, Seth. “Conspiracy Theories; China's Garbage War” The New York Times. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E04E3D81639F93AA35755C0A960958260&scp=1&sq=+Conspiracy+Theories%3BChina%27s+Garbage+War&st=nyt (accessed May 23, 2008).
Greenpeace International. “Where does all the e-waste go?” Greenpeace International. http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/e-waste-toxic-not-in-our-backyard210208 (accessed May 23, 2008).
Greenpeace, Recycling of Electronic Waste in India & China. Greenpeace International. 2005.
Grossman, Elizabeth. High Tech Trash. Island Press. 2006.
Jialing, Zhang. “A China Environmental Health Project Research Brief - The Management of Imported Solid Waste in China” Woodrow Wilson Internationl Center for Scholars. http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?topic_id=1421&fuseaction=topics.item&news_id=241138 (Accessed May 23, 2008).
Krueger, Jonathan (2001), ‘The Basel Convention and the International Trade in Hazardous Wastes’, in Olav Schram Stokke and Øystein B. Thommessen (eds.), Yearbook of International Co-operation on Environment and Development 2001/2002 (London: Earthscan Publications), 43–51.
Liu, Yingling. “China's E-Waste Problem: Facing Up to the Challenge” Worldwatch Institute. http://www.worldwatch.org/node/3921 (accessed May 23, 2008).
Porter, Richard. The Economics of Waste. Resources for the Future. 2002.
Slade, Giles. “iWaste” Mother Jones. http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2007/03/iwaste.html (accessed May 23, 2008).
Toxics Link, Scrapping The Hi-Tech Myth: Computer Waste in India. Toxics Link. 2003.
United Nations Environment Programme. “The Great E-Waste Recycling Debate” United Nations Environment Programme. http://www.grid.unep.ch/waste/html_file/36-37_ewaste.html (accessed May 23, 2008).
Westervelt, Sarah and Puckett, Jim. “how the West's obsession with new technology is poisoning China” Human Rights in China. http://www.hrichina.org/public/contents/article?revision%5Fid=2932&item%5Fid=2931 (accessed May 23, 2008).
Wang, Jiaquan. “Imported Pollution Adds to China’s Environmental Woes” Worldwatch Institute. http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4986 (accessed May 23, 2008).
Xinhua. “China Set to Curb Foreign Waste Imports” China's Foreign Economic Cooperation. http://fec2.mofcom.gov.cn/aarticle/news/200701/20070104311568.html (accessed May 23, 2008).
