working/repairable, and junk.

It is estimated that in California alone, we will junk over 60,000 monitors this year alone.

The demand for replacement monitors also is relatively simple to project. Specifically, Americans are expected to buy 50 million new monitors next year. Monitors, on average, make up 35 percent of the entire computer cost, and about half of the computer's weight.

The largest component of a monitor is the leaded face glass; monitors also contain lead solder, copper wiring and plating, silver, palladium and a small amount of gold.

Based on our experience in de-manufacturing monitors, we estimate that manufacturing those 50 million new monitors will require between 1 million to 2 million pounds of copper, gold, palladium, leaded glass and silver. Some of those materials (particularly free lead) are extremely toxic in themselves, while others (such as gold) are separated from mining ore or scrap using toxic processes (cyanide baths, for example).

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

Today, most of the computer monitors sold in Western nations are replacements for old monitors and computers, deemed "obsolete" by the consumer (such as computers less than 200 mHz. and monitors that have lost color, or at 14 inches, are just too small and too low resolution for the U.S. market).

Let's say that there are 10 monitors manufactured in Asia to replace 10 in the U.S. market. Old monitors that were once stored in an attic, or dumped in a landfill, are now turned in to a recycling program such as ours, dumped off at a local charity at night or at worst, left on a street curb.

Of the above 10 junk monitors, statistically, at least one is probably worth fixing and reselling in the U.S. At least two more can be fixed or reused in countries with cheaper technicians and lower cosmetic standards. The remaining seven can be recycled back into leaded glass, copper, gold, ABS plastic, etc.

The process of separating monitors back into individual components involves de-manufacturing and either rebuilidng computer systems, or, selling the components to other remanufacutrers. What is happening is this: We are replacing mined organic components with already usable materials.

The major problem with this method of recycling, is that many of the individual scrap components, especially CRT glass, are expensive to process and ship. De-manufacturing operations that allow "speculative accumulation" of the less profitable items need to have a facility closure plan - that is, assurance that these materials will be recycled, even if the facility no longer operates profitably. On a weekly basis, CRT handlers and recyclers, close their doors and walk away from the remaining junk.

In other words, a processor without "environmentally safe management" (ESM) practices could pull the copper, stainless steel and gold out of monitors, find a market for the plastic and leave the CRTs on the ground.

EXPORTING E-WASTE

Some environmentalists have asked that nations stop exports of used electronics, based on the principle that exporting waste to poorer countries is bad for their environment.

For those monitors that are banned from disposal in California , there is a definite need to find something to do with them. It is difficult to argue that leaded glass recycling will be accomplished better overseas, and most responsible, state-sponsored CRT recycling programs ban that practice, yet condone the use of prison labor to de-construct the CRT glass using sledge hammers.

But what about the copper yoke?

Scrap materials such as processed copper, steel and baled paper are among the largest exports by volume from the U.S. - surpassing wheat and automobiles.
Meanwhile, the wealthy countries that are so good at recycling and disposal, are lousy at repair. Truly repaired and repairable items are not "waste," nor are derived loads of copper, steel, silver and gold scrap (especially when that scrap has a higher chemical percentage of material than the mined material).

So for those who do have strong environmental and social principles, are there better rules of thumb than "E-exports are bad"? The delimiter is to make recycling pay. You can be as altruistic as you want, but the almighty dollar is what will make recycling of CRT's a reality.

CREATING AN ECO-SYSTEM THAT PAYS
Consider if you will, the following environmental principles. These principles don't really touch on profitability, wages or social welfare in other countries.
As far as life-cycle analysis goes, however, the following principles are reasonably well researched, and useful to guide environmental practices. The trick is to apply these principles overseas.

1) Recycling is Almost Always Better than Mining. A toilet paper mill in Massachusetts uses 100 percent recycled content. But, the river it sits on is doubtlessly harmed by the production (heat and effluents). However, it is well established that the total amount of pollution and carbon use per ton of paper produced is far lower than production of toilet paper made by cutting down trees and reducing them to bleached fiber.

While "saving trees" still is ingrained among paper recyclers, mineral and metal production presents an even more extreme case for recycling. Recycling aluminum reduces energy use by 95 percent because mining and refining aluminum from a mountainside is an extremely invasive procedure. Not only are the trees cut down, but the very earth for several hundred yards below those trees is scraped, bared and exposed to chemical baths. Even the "best" mining is usually worse than the "worst" recycling.

2) Repair and Reuse is Better than Recycling. Assuming they are put to productive and good use, or as an alternative to a newly manufactured product, more environmental and economic benefits are gained from repair and reuse than creating new products.

Traditionally, the biggest opponents of repair and reuse have been original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), who coined the term "planned obsolescence" in the 1960s, and who today are accused of stopping repair and reuse businesses overseas that may compete with their production.

MEETING THOSE STANDARDS

Admittedly, these are purely environmental standards - and there is considerable world debate about lower social standards, and wage and worker protection in other countries. For best business practices, we are left with three questions:

* Should U.S. electronics companies be allowed to send unprocessed, mixed loads of electronics overseas for reuse, recycling or disposal when we know that these loads will cause a hazard to the citizens of that country?

* If the U.S. is buying monitors made overseas, should the U.S. recycle and send back the semi-precious metals needed to make those monitors?

* And given the decline of repair in the U.S., should we be willing to export repairable items to technicians in Eastern Europe, Latin America and other regions where repair and reuse is a way of life?

Another question arises from this line of thinking: Recycling reduces mining, so recycling is good. Foreign recycling plants injure workers, so recycling is bad. Is there one "export is bad or good" rule to follow?

There are three types of used electronics now being exported to rapidly industrializing countries: Scrap electronic components, scrap computers and scrap monitors. If in shipping these items out of the US saves our ecology, shouldn't we we feel responsible for damaging the ecology of those countries that we ship this junk to?

Perhaps the worst offense is to send "toxics along for the ride"-such as a leaded glass CRT containing a $1 scrap copper yoke. In other words, we should not send things to other countries that they don't need and don't want, even if that means de-manufacturing, separating and processing the items in the U.S.

It is bad enough, that our use of 3rd world countries as a dumping ground, is hurting the laborers of those countries, but at the same time, it is taking away jobs from our own citizens.

2) Reuse and Repair Should be Better Supported. Hitachi is currently the only manufacturer to provide downloadable repair manuals. Some other manufacturers charge up to $40 to the repair facility per manual. While no one is protesting about "planned obsolescence" these days, there is certainly not much "Good Samaritan activity" by manufacturers to make repair easier. The U.S. is giving up on repair, and the consumer repair technician is one of the only skilled technical professions projected to make double-digit declines in employment.
3)We should not be exporting toxic waste to other countries just to keep "our backyard clean".

What we are doing at the OSS is provide jobs, protect our environment and create a financially viable alternative to filling our landfills with hazardous waste.


Five Important Questions

Following are some questions recyclers may want to pose of their prospective recycling service providers. If you are unsure about the recycling company you are working with, here are a few simple questions that may indicate what is going on.
* Does the company really have the capacity to de-manufacture seven out of 10 of the leaded CRT monitors it receives? (If the company only exports, then they export everything.)

* What do they do with monitors that can't be repaired?
* What technical staff do they have to examine whether monitors are repairable?
* If they export the scrap, where is going to? China, Thailand or Indonesia? Those countries are notorious for abusing their citizens.

.. The author is Director of the Organization for Strategic Studies Inc., Tujunga, California. The organization offers consulting and research in the areas of recycling program design and policy, and is a Re-Training facility for Disabled American Veterans, He can be e-mailed at: dave@spectrumwest.com