Representative Mike Thompson, who helped organize yesterday’s electronic recycling day on Capitol Hill, is one of five members of Congress to sign on in support of H.R. 2595, an electronic waste recycling reform bill. This bill is the only ewaste recycling reform bill sitting before the U.S. Congress… and there is concern that even this bill is toxic and tainted.

Sadly, a great deal of the “electronic recycling” you see promoted on the walls of gadget stores is actually harmful to the environment and recyclers alike. In most programs in the United States today, old electronic gadget “ewaste” is shipped overseas to developing countries, where sweatshop workers are paid a pittance to rip apart electronic devices. Because the process isn’t regulated soundly, workers are regularly exposed to heavy metals and other dangerous toxins; the Chinese ewaste recycling community of Guiyu is saturated with dioxins to an extent unmatched anywhere else in the world. The old sweatshop-justifying canard that “these jobs give workers a better life, even if it’s a bad one” doesn’t play here: the exploited workers in this ewaste dump are likely to die early and painful deaths.

Exploited workers and poisoned communities hidden under your local store’s banner, the one that declares ewaste recycling to be “Green.” Does the prospect bring a bad taste to your mouth? Well, you’re not the only one. H.R. 2595 claims it would stem American participation in this nasty practice. If this bill is passed, then to the extent electronic waste is exported from the United States at all, it would have to be to member countries of the OECD, which are legally prevented from shunting it to these third-world dumps, or to Liechtenstein, which has adopted a strict regulatory scheme to make the recycling of electronic waste more socially responsible.

Rep. Gene Green of Texas is the principal sponsor of H.R. 2595. Along with Rep. Thompson, representatives Mary Bono Mack, Anna Eshoo and Sheila Jackson-Lee have cosponsored the legislation. If your member of the House of Representatives isn’t on this too-short list, should you find his or her contact information and make a call encouraging support for H.R. 2595?

Unfortunately, I’m not entirely sure that course of action is worthwhile. The Electronics Takeback Coalition notes the presence of a huge loophole in the legislation. Electronic waste could be dumped on third world nations in the same old toxic manner, if:

`(A) such export is to a country that the Administrator finds under subsection (e) will permit trade in such equipment or parts;

…that is, if the country receiving the parts will receive the parts…

`(B) the export is made by an original equipment manufacturer or its contractual agent, or an entity that meets an independent standard as identified by the Administrator;

… giving enough wiggle room to allow just about any entity to make the export, at the discretion of a government bureaucrat…

and

`(C) the person who exports the equipment or parts–

`(i) prior to shipment to any receiving facility, submits an annual notification to the Administrator, which includes–

`(I) a statement that the notifier plans to export used electronic equipment or parts for refurbishment or repair with the intention of subsequent reuse;

`(II) the notifier’s name, address, and Environmental Protection Agency ID number (if applicable);

`(III) the name and phone number of a contact person;

`(IV) the type of used electronic equipment or parts that will be shipped; and

`(V) the name, address, and contact information of the receiving facility; and

`(ii) keeps copies of normal business records, such as contracts, demonstrating that each shipment of exported used electronic equipment or parts is intended for repair or refurbishment and subsequent reuse, which documentation shall be retained for a period of at least 3 years after the date the used electronic equipment or parts were exported.

… meaning that all an electronic waste exporter has to do is have a document stating the intention that electronics be repaired, refurbished and resold. There’s no requirement for any documentation that the electronic waste is actually repaired, refurbished and resold, or even capable of being repaired, refurbished and resold. Under this legislation, it looks like it’s possible for the same practices to go on as before, with only the addition of a signed letter of vague intention to go along with each shipment.

Enough with the half measures. It’s time for the greenwashing to stop, and for a responsible program of electronic recycling to begin. The world deserves a better bill than this.