Cell Phone Toxic Waste

Lot of toxic waste for our convenience - from The New York Times -

May 4, 2013

Where Do Old Cellphones Go to Die?

By LEYLA ACAROGLU

AMERICANS replace their cellphones every 22 months, junking some 150 million old phones in 2010 alone. Ever wondered what happens to all these old phones? The answer isn’t pretty.

In far-flung, mostly impoverished places like Agbogbloshie, Ghana; Delhi, India; and Guiyu, China, children pile e-waste into giant mountains and burn it so they can extract the metals — copper wires, gold and silver threads — inside, which they sell to recycling merchants for only a few dollars. In India, young boys smash computer batteries with mallets to recover cadmium, toxic flecks of which cover their hands and feet as they work. Women spend their days bent over baths of hot lead, “cooking” circuit boards so they can remove slivers of gold inside. Greenpeace, the Basel Action Network and others have posted YouTube videos of young children inhaling the smoke that rises from burned phone casings as they identify and separate different kinds of plastics for recyclers. It is hard to imagine that good health is a by-product of their unregulated industry.

Indeed, most scientists agree that exposure poses serious health risks, especially to pregnant women and children. The World Health Organization reports that even a low level of exposure to lead, cadmium and mercury (all of which can be found in old phones) can cause irreversible neurological damage and threaten the development of a child.

The growing toxic nightmare that is e-waste is not confined to third world outposts. It also poses health problems in the United States where, for several years, the Federal Bureau of Prisons has kept inmates busy processing e-waste. There are concrete steps the government, manufacturers and consumers could take to better dispose of electronic trash and to help prevent the pileup of more e-waste and the hazards e-waste processing poses.

The United States, for example, remains the only industrialized country that has not ratified the Basel Convention, an international treaty that makes it illegal to export or traffic in toxic e-waste. Fully implementing the treaty would be a step toward joining global efforts to contain toxic waste troubles.

The Responsible Electronics Recycling Act, introduced in Congress in 2011, would have made it illegal to export toxic waste from the United States to countries that don’t belong to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The aim was to stop dumping e-waste on the world’s poorest nations and thus to provide an incentive for safer waste management in our own country. The bill had bipartisan support but was never put to a vote.

The European Union provides a model for industrial regulation that would shift the burden of safe product disposal back to the manufacturers that produce electronic goods. Its Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive requires electronic sellers to accept, free of charge, any of their used products brought in by customers for recycling. The goal is to have properly recycled 85 percent of the European Union’s e-waste by 2019. Similarly, Japan requires its electronic manufacturers to establish their own recycling facilities or commission third parties to recycle a range of products, from computers and cellphones to TVs and air-conditioners.

Government or consumer pressure on manufacturers to design electronics with end-of-product-life issues in mind could be enormously helpful. Most cellphones, for example, are deliberately designed to make disassembly difficult. Changes in the way manufacturers glue, screw and solder components together would make it easier to dismantle discarded phones and thus reduce the risks posed by crude recycling techniques like those deployed by Ghanaian children.

THERE are alternative phone service business models that could be beneficial to producers, users and the rest of us. For example, manufacturers could sell products complete with prearranged recycling service or subscriptions that made it possible, for example, for phone user to exchange old units for new ones rather than throwing them away. Under a product service system model, companies recycle old units and repurpose core components. Xerox uses a similar model for its photocopiers, without impact on sales or profits.

In the absence of government regulation or industry initiative, consumers could play a role in determining what happens to products that have outlived their usefulness. Most phones and small electronics are designed with obsolescence in mind. But what if we held on to our gadgets longer and repaired, rather than replaced them? We could recycle the ones we no longer use through certified recycling services like e-Stewards, a nonprofit organization that runs certification programs for e-waste recyclers, ensuring that goods are not improperly exported.

As consumers we need to demand better end-of-life options for our high-tech trash; if manufacturers and government fall down on the job, we, the millions of Americans who own cellphones, should press for safe recycling.

Leyla Acaroglu is a sustainability strategist based in Melbourne, Australia.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: May 12, 2013



http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/05/opinion/sunday/where-do-old-cellphones-go-to-die.html

Aiming 4 Zero

Feature: Absolute Zero

Despite the downturn, home builders take lead role in energy and water efficiency.

Source: BIG BUILDER Magazine
Publication date: 2011-07-01

By Steve Doyle and Cary Lowe

Photo: Courtesy Toll Brothers

SOLAR STRATEGY: Toll Brothers is making solar panels available on homes in several of its communities, including Vista del Verde in Yorba Linda, Calif. The solar panels don't add extra dollars to the sales price since they are owned by a third party and leased to the homeowners.

In most endeavors, striving for a score of zero is a fool's errand.

In green home building, however, it is the gold standard. The trick is to keep it from becoming fool's gold.

Despite the housing downturn and its drag on home builders, real progress has been made toward achieving the goal of building homes that consume no net energy. Unquestionably, some of this progress has been forced by the government. Still, the home building industry, battered as it has been, is taking a leading role in the movement toward reducing consumption of energy and water resources. It is realistic to expect that, over the next few years, energy use in new homes will approach zero, and water use will drop to a level one could call insignificant.

Using California as a case study, consider how far the industry has come. Homes built in the last few years use 25 percent less energy, and generate 25 percent less greenhouse gas emissions, than those built just 20 years ago. This results from relatively simple improvements in building materials, construction techniques, insulation, and appliances.

Similarly, recently constructed homes use one-third less water indoors than those built in the mid-1970s, simply due to installation of more efficient fixtures. These are production homes, using standard features. The numbers are even more impressive for homes which incorporate custom, high-efficiency features, and photovoltaic or other onsite power generation facilities.

New homes in California account for a growth of only about 1 percent of the total housing stock in a given year during strong economic times—and only a third of that during the current recession. About 60 percent of homes statewide predate any meaningful energy conservation requirements, and more than 80 percent predate water-conservation standards. Achieving significant improvements in energy and water efficiency in the residential stock would require retrofitting large numbers of those older homes. That will happen over time, driven by the utility cost savings associated with such efficiencies.

Meanwhile, new housing stock begins to demonstrate the efficiencies that can be achieved and, over time, R&D in new-home building will gradually make them more affordable.

Much of this improvement in home efficiency has been driven by changes in the California Building Standards Code, contained in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. What began as a set of standards and requirements related to safety and structural integrity has evolved to address environmental issues of concern to the state and its residents. This has focused most heavily on achieving greater energy efficiency.

The need for space heating and cooling has been dramatically reduced by more efficient air-conditioning units, improved wall and attic insulation, heat-resistant windows, better sealing of ductwork, and passive energy design systems. Energy use related to domestic water has been reduced through more efficient water heaters, recirculating hot water systems, and insulated pipes. Electrical demand has been further reduced by installation of more efficient lighting fixtures and domestic appliances. (On the other hand, increasing consumer desire for the newest and best in electronic gadgetry continually adds to the per-person demand for electrical power.)

In recent years, as water supply has become an increasingly critical consideration in connection with new development, Title 24 has focused on water conservation as well, setting standards for more efficient plumbing fixtures and water-using appliances.

Photo: Brookfield Homes

Energy conservation:-Tight ducts (less than 6% leakage) -Radiant barrier roof sheathing-Tankless water heaters-R-30 or 38 ceiling insulation-Low-E windowsRenewable energy: -Photovoltaic solar panels (optional)Water conservation: -WaterSense bath faucets-Low-flow showerheads-Tankless water heaters-Insulated hot water loop lines-Water-sensitive landscaping-Dual-flush toilets (optional)

Photo: Brookfield Homes

How LowCan You Go? Houses in Brookfield Homes' Rockrose community extend 35 percent above California's energy-efficiency standards. The eco-savvy homes focus on energy efficiency, water conservation, indoor air quality, as well as other environmentally friendly features. As part of Brookfield's focus on water conservation and environmentally friendly features, its Rockrose community showcases native and drought-tolerant plants. The builder also engages prospective home buyers with its sales office displays that tell its eco-savvy story.

This trend toward increasing conservation and efficiency requirements was accelerated by enactment of A.B. 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act, in 2006. With about 22 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in California attributable to residential and commercial buildings, clamping down further on energy consumption is vital to meeting the emissions reduction standards of A.B. 32.

That has been a prime driver behind the California Green Building Standards Code, now incorporated into Title 24. As part of a broad array of environmentally friendly building requirements, the new code includes requirements for accurate sizing of heating and cooling systems, sealing and insulation of ductwork, and sealing of openings between conditioned and unconditioned space. It also includes changes for plumbing fixtures that will result in a 20 percent reduction in potable water use, as well as weather or moisture-based outdoor irrigation controllers.

In addition to satisfying environmental regulatory requirements, these kinds of features will produce substantial cost savings for homeowners. The average California household consumes about 5,900 kilowatt hours per year. Based on typical utility rates, reducing their electrical consumption by one-third would result in an annual savings of about $375. Because electrical rates are tiered, with higher per-unit costs for higher levels of consumption, a household using 10,000 kilowatt hours per year would save nearly $1,000 annually.

Similarly, a typical new single-family home consumes about 59,000 gallons of indoor potable water and about 115,000 gallons for outdoor irrigation annually. Reducing the indoor use by 20 percent pursuant to the new code, combined with an achievable reduction of 40 percent in outdoor irrigation, would save about $300 annually. Again, because of tiered water rates, the savings would be much greater for homes with more fixtures and more landscaping.

Some home builders are taking the quest for efficiency significantly further. Brookfield Homes' Rockrose community in Carlsbad, Calif., is incorporating standard features that reduce energy consumption by 35 percent below Title 24 requirements. These features include radiant barrier roofs, more thermal-resistant windows, quality installation of insulation, insulated and tightly sealed ductwork, tankless water heaters, and highefficiency furnaces. Photovoltaic solar panels are available as an option.

Water consumption is reduced further by the use of dual-flush toilets, looped and insulated hot water lines, high-efficiency irrigation controllers, and drought-resistant landscaping.

Other builders are trying different approaches.

Toll Brothers is introducing a variety of energy-saving options but is focusing particularly on renewable energy generation. The company is making photovoltaic solar panels available on homes in several projects, including in the Vista del Verde community in Yorba Linda, Calif., at no increase in sales price, by having the panels owned by a third party and leased to homeowners, who then receive lower-cost electricity. Toll similarly is making available geothermal heating and cooling systems in projects such as the Hills at Southpoint in Durham, N.C. KB Home is installing solar panels as a standard feature in several new projects. Pacific Housing is taking this a step further in a Sacramento project, installing a battery storage system as a backup to rooftop solar panels.

Surprisingly, these kinds of features are not significantly impacting housing affordability. Taking into consideration all rebates and tax credits available, construction costs in the Brookfield project are only increased by $1.50 per square foot on a net basis, allowing it to remain one of the most affordable new housing developments in San Diego County. This project also benefits from the moderate, coastal Southern California climate; such energy efficiency improvements would cost considerably more in the warmer inland climate zones.

In Phoenix and other markets, Meritage Homes has been able to include an array of energy-saving features, including solar energy, while keeping sales prices under $230,000 for a 3,000-squarefoot home, by incorporating these elements into their standard design rather than adding them as options. Moreover, as an optional upgrade, they are offering sufficient additional solar panels to eliminate electrical service costs.

As these kinds of offerings become more commonplace in the home building industry, the question will be how far such efficiency can be taken, particularly by production builders. The goal of many developers, consumers, and environmentalists is to be able to produce homes that are net zero with regard to resource impacts, i.e., homes with on-site features that reduce consumption to zero, through some combination of efficiency and renewable energy generation.

To achieve such net zero results with regard to energy will require taking significant additional steps in most cases. These might include thicker exterior walls, heat-resistant roof tiles, higherefficiency heating and cooling equipment, conditioned attic space, passive heating and ventilation features, fewer and better insulated windows, strategic orientation of the structure, and planting of deciduous trees. In all likelihood, it also will require installation of on-site energy generation facilities, particularly photovoltaic solar, geothermal, solar water heating, and/or wind turbines. This is all readily doable now, but at a cost of $40,000 to 50,000 for a typical new detached home.

Photo: Courtesy KB Homes KB Home is another builder installing solar panels as a standard feature in several of its new projects, including Newbury at the Enclave in Eastvale, Calif.

At the same time, an energy savings greater than that available from a full range of green building features can be obtained by simply locating homes in walkable communities or transit-oriented locations, as energy use and greenhouse gas emissions associated with vehicular transportation typically exceed those of the house itself. Such locational considerations will be increasing in significance in California, in particular, as the state implements not only the mandates of A.B. 32 but also other statutory requirements for reduction of vehiclerelated environmental impacts.

Bringing water consumption down to net zero is more challenging. Significant reductions can be achieved by using the lowest-flow fixtures indoors, planting the most drought-resistant landscaping, and using both collected stormwater and domestic gray water for irrigation. However, in the absence of onsite water treatment capability, net zero will not be achievable.

Individual zero-energy custom homes are popping up, especially in areas with temperate climates, and a handful of zero-energy subdivisions are being built. These homes typically also receive LEED certifications and come with a certain cachet of environmental consciousness.

It is reasonable to ask, however, whether achieving zero-energy status and near-zero water status is a particularly worthwhile goal.

Noted new urbanist architect Andres Duany has taken the lead in criticizing LEED and other similar programs for requiring large expenditures to meet extreme standards, when nearly the same level of environmental gain can be achieved at far less cost. Achieving that last increment comes with a highly disproportionate price tag. Just as a given level of energy reduction can be achieved through retrofitting older homes at one-eighth the cost of achieving the same reduction in already more-efficient new homes, the cost of taking a standard new home to a zero net energy level could instead pay for signifi- cant energy reductions in several new homes. Furthermore, new urban, infill, and transitoriented developments already substantially reduce their energy use footprint simply by virtue of their locations, and therefore should be viewed as effectively below net zero compared with new homes in locations that generate high vehicle miles traveled.

Zero net energy is a lofty goal, and its application to even a small percentage of new homes serves as a proving ground for new technologies and new design methods, some of which can be applied to production homes. It is not, however, a feasible or practical approach for all new housing. Nor should it be.

We can accomplish far more in the way of reducing our energy and water use by applying more cost-effective methods on a larger scale, to both new housing and the existing housing stock. This will take political courage, however, because new homes do not have a political constituency, while existing homes certainly do.

Until conservation and efficiency become real goals for the general public throughout the country, new housing alone will bear the financial burden, to the detriment of both housing affordability and environmental goals.

BB Steve Doyle is president of Brookfield Homes, San Diego. Cary Lowe is a San Diego land use lawyer and planning consultant.

http://www.bigbuilderonline.com/Industry-news.asp?articleID=1603853&cid=NWBD110712002

Rain Gardens

A little piece of a greener world
Rain gardens are planted at Habitat building site in D.C. to cut runoff pollution

By Miranda S. Spivack
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 2, 2009

Sarah Fulton once worked as a social worker, trying to help clients change their ways, but now that she's retired, she is trying to create tiny ecosystems that could help change the world.

Fulton is one of three volunteers who last month helped plant a rain garden at a Habitat for Humanity townhouse development in Deanwood in Northeast Washington.

At the development, volunteer construction crews have been using environmentally sensitive building methods and materials as much as possible. The goal is to create an affordable green community of 53 houses on what had been 4.3 vacant acres off Central Avenue near the Prince George's County line.

Installing rain gardens, instead of using more traditional methods of managing storm water, is one way to meet Habitat's goals of building green and promoting low-impact lifestyles.

The gardens comprise an array of water-loving plants that filter runoff headed for the region's water supply and the Chesapeake Bay. Each garden is expected to handle about 600 gallons of runoff for every inch of rainfall. Without the gardens, the runoff would go directly into the District's storm sewer system.

"If we only build housing, shopping centers and highways, we don't have plants to soak up water," Fulton said as she explained her growing interest in rain gardens and their effect on the environment. The garden is the second on the site, and Habitat plans to plant more.

Unfiltered storm water runoff, which carries dirt, gravel, chemicals, motor oil, farm runoff and other gunk into waterways, is a leading source of water pollution in the Washington area.

In the District, runoff poses special problems because, as in many older jurisdictions, sewage and storm water mostly run through the same sewers. In a heavy rainstorm, storm water can overwhelm the system and send untreated sewage into local waterways.

Dick Brinker, a developer in Prince George's, was among the first in the nation to use rain gardens, when in 1990 he decided to forgo the usual retention pond and install rain gardens in the Somerset development near Bowie. Subsequent studies have shown rain gardens can reduce runoff substantially. At the Somerset development, an analysis found that the gardens helped the development cut down its storm water runoff by about 70 percent.

"They can be very effective," said Delores Milmoe, a lobbyist for the Audubon Naturalist Society who helped organize the planting at the Habitat site.

A fortuitous phone call from Milmoe to Habitat in early fall connected the two groups at a time when Habitat construction chief Dave Gano was thinking about installing rain gardens. Milmoe, coming out of a long and unsuccessful battle to derail the Intercounty Connector highway in Montgomery and Prince George's counties, was looking for a new project for the society, a leading regional environmental organization.

Habitat spokeswoman Heather Phibbs said her organization, which sells its houses at cost and provides no-interest loans to buyers of moderate means, was pleased to have the assistance.

"Building a green home isn't just about the house itself but the land around it," Phibbs said.

The plants, topsoil and sand for rain gardens at the Habitat site were funded by the District Department of the Environment. Mulch was donated by Montgomery County, as were some plants. A major effort was made to include many plants native to the Washington area because they can do double duty, soaking up rainwater and helping local fauna.

One of the plants selected is turtlehead, which has dense, spiky leaves and white or lavender flowers. It not only loves water but also happens to be the only plant on which the threatened Baltimore Checkerspot butterfly will lay its eggs.

The plants most suitable for area rain gardens such as Habitat's cost $200 to $400 per garden, Milmoe said, depending on where they are purchased. Audubon has helped install many rain gardens of about 35 square feet each at several other sites in the region; the Habitat gardens are a bit larger.

The rain gardens were designed by Habitat volunteer Yungling Mei, a local architect, to run down slopes between two houses. Runoff from roofs and the street will be sent through pipes to the garden, which will absorb as much as possible and send the excess flowing through pipes into a creek that empties into the Anacostia River.

To install the garden, Milmoe enlisted Fulton, Gayle Countryman-Mills, a retired middle school teacher, and Marney Bruce, a volunteer with the Maryland Native Plant Society. They spent about four hours on a misty mid-November day planting and mulching, following a map Fulton drew to show what would go where.

The gardeners offered a primer as they warmed up indoors after their work.

First, determine where water runs downhill; be prepared to dig to about 18 inches; fill with soil mix suitable to the plants selected. Plants should be grouped together. Plants should like lots of water but be able to endure dry spells. If possible, plants should be native to the area.

Once the garden is established, "you don't have to do much except weed," Milmoe said.

If planting a rain garden seems too daunting, there are other ways to slow down and filter runoff, Bruce said, such as directing a house's downspouts away from the street or using a rain barrel to capture runoff, which can be used to water plants.

"It is instant gratification," said Countryman-Mills of her volunteer gardening. And it can be done with minimal intrusiveness. "Nobody has to know you were there."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/01/AR2009120102363.html

Aquabarrel @ DC Green Festival - great rain barrels!

Lots of things to see at the Green Festival in Washington, DC, on October 10 and 11, 2009. And lots of people to meet.....

Barry Chenkin started Aquabarrel because he thought he can make a better rain barrel. I don't own an Aquabarrel rain barrel but I do believe he has designed and manufactured a better rain barrel. Aquabarrel's web site is an extensive resource on rain barrels. (I would like to own an Aquabarrel rain barrel...... once I solve a location and diverter issue)

A new product this year for Aquabarrel (but not made by them) is a kit to convert a toilet to dual flush. Dual flush toilets are not cheap so a conversion kit is a welcome alternative for retrofitting existing toilets - less waste and significantly less water used.

The Aquabarrel crew kept busy at Green Fest answering all sorts of questions from a steady stream of people. They paused for the photo below.









http://www.aquabarrel.com/



Thanks to the Aquabarrel web site for the rain barrel photo and Save The Baby Raindrops logo. Check the web site for more photos and videos of rain barrels in action.