Consumer Technology Association: Difference between revisions
Bythmusters (talk | contribs) m Added Cargo template in place of Infobox |
Added archive URLs for 1 citation(s) using CRWCitationBot |
||
| Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
While these laws are on the books in Maine, e-waste recycling faces serious issues perpetuated by many of the same industry practices which make repair difficult, and is less complete of a solution than the legislation would suggest. "Smartphones are becoming lighter and slimmer, and ''their batteries are no longer removable'', making recycling much more difficult and labour-intensive. Manual sorting requires workers to be constantly exposed to toxic substances, albeit at a low level, over a long period, while these ''difficult-to-recycle electronic devices require facilities to constantly upgrade their machines to keep up with the changing technology'', lowering the incentive for businesses to recycle e-waste that is already difficult to disassemble" (emphasis added).<ref>{{Cite web |author=Tin Lok Wu |title=What Is E-Waste Recycling and How Is it Done? |url=https://earth.org/what-is-e-waste-recycling/ |website=Earth.org |date=26 May 2022 |access-date=10 Jul 2025 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220526003215/https://earth.org/what-is-e-waste-recycling/ |archive-date=26 May 2022}}</ref> Additionally, outsourcing of e-waste recycling represents an environmental health disaster to less developed countries, leading to China banning the import of many categories of waste.<ref>{{Cite web | While these laws are on the books in Maine, e-waste recycling faces serious issues perpetuated by many of the same industry practices which make repair difficult, and is less complete of a solution than the legislation would suggest. "Smartphones are becoming lighter and slimmer, and ''their batteries are no longer removable'', making recycling much more difficult and labour-intensive. Manual sorting requires workers to be constantly exposed to toxic substances, albeit at a low level, over a long period, while these ''difficult-to-recycle electronic devices require facilities to constantly upgrade their machines to keep up with the changing technology'', lowering the incentive for businesses to recycle e-waste that is already difficult to disassemble" (emphasis added).<ref>{{Cite web |author=Tin Lok Wu |title=What Is E-Waste Recycling and How Is it Done? |url=https://earth.org/what-is-e-waste-recycling/ |website=Earth.org |date=26 May 2022 |access-date=10 Jul 2025 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220526003215/https://earth.org/what-is-e-waste-recycling/ |archive-date=26 May 2022}}</ref> Additionally, outsourcing of e-waste recycling represents an environmental health disaster to less developed countries, leading to China banning the import of many categories of waste.<ref>{{Cite web | ||
|title=Operation National Sword |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_National_Sword |website=Wikipedia |date= |access-date=10 Jul 2025 |url-status=live}}</ref> Right-to-repair stands to greatly reduce the generation of e-waste and make its recycling much more cost effective, at the expense of reducing the number of new devices purchased as replacements. Reduce, then reuse (repair or salvage parts) and then recycle. | |title=Operation National Sword |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_National_Sword |website=Wikipedia |date= |access-date=10 Jul 2025 |url-status=live |url-status=live |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260207191211/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_National_Sword |archive-date=7 Feb 2026}}</ref> Right-to-repair stands to greatly reduce the generation of e-waste and make its recycling much more cost effective, at the expense of reducing the number of new devices purchased as replacements. Reduce, then reuse (repair or salvage parts) and then recycle. | ||
More than a year after this testimony and the allegation that investments and lobbying for e-waste recycling more than makes up for anti-repair practices{{Citation needed}} (and the death of the bill in committee<ref>{{Cite web |title=Summary |url=https://legislature.maine.gov/LawMakerWeb/summary.asp?LD=1977&SessionID=13 |website=Maine.gov |date=16 Nov 2020 |access-date=10 Jul 2025 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250711042403/https://legislature.maine.gov/LawMakerWeb/summary.asp?LD=1977&SessionID=13|archive-date=11 Jul 2025}}</ref>), the ''Maine Monitor'' reported in that "Mainers are generating more electronic waste than ever. And no one knows what percentage of that waste is sent for recycling."<ref>{{Cite web | More than a year after this testimony and the allegation that investments and lobbying for e-waste recycling more than makes up for anti-repair practices{{Citation needed}} (and the death of the bill in committee<ref>{{Cite web |title=Summary |url=https://legislature.maine.gov/LawMakerWeb/summary.asp?LD=1977&SessionID=13 |website=Maine.gov |date=16 Nov 2020 |access-date=10 Jul 2025 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250711042403/https://legislature.maine.gov/LawMakerWeb/summary.asp?LD=1977&SessionID=13|archive-date=11 Jul 2025}}</ref>), the ''Maine Monitor'' reported in that "Mainers are generating more electronic waste than ever. And no one knows what percentage of that waste is sent for recycling."<ref>{{Cite web | ||