Sauser Jr., W. I., Sauser, L. D.,

From Digital Culture & Society

Introduction

E-waste is a large issue globally that has begun to drastically affect the lives of many third world nations, but no first world ones. Research has discovered that a big reason to this issue has to do with their governments regulation. Large corporations and governments have been able to take advantage of poverty driven countries to dump large amounts of electronic waste. This issue is discussed in further detail by the author Xianlai Zeng and her article Perspective of electronic waste management in China based on a legislation comparison between China and the EU. Through comparing legislation in important years this article will seek to show a greater understanding of how this issue is growing for its main contributors.

Outlined differences for why cultures legislation may be different

Through examining evidence Xianlai Zengs’ article showed three consistent results. The first result discovered showed the life of an E-waste product from production to deconstruction is entirely done through EU and Chinese regulation. Major findings discovered that the EU legislation created a more systematic eco design, with greater integrated product policy. The second major discovery this article found was that the differences in legislation between the two nations can be better understood through their social circumstances. While the European Union has a considerable amount of environmental awareness, there are very different frameworks for how the Chinese view the planet versus how they view society. The third minor discovery Zeng found was that through the comparison in legislation there was a four-phase process for the deconstruction of a product and this is what china hopes to implement in the years to come for a potential solution to the E-waste issue. The four phases mentioned were the “dismantling phase (1980se2000), recycling pilot phase (2001e2008), development phase (2009e2020), and mature phase (2020e)” (Zeng, 80). These four phases show that china will now attempt to start dealing with this drastically growing issue, but this solution may not be a global one, as EU countries e-waste shipments are more than likely to much for the Chinese plants to handle.

Legislation example and highlighted differences

The comparison of legislation is an important part of how improvements are going to be made for global sustainability in the future. A major strength to this article was that it compared legislation that was released at the same time, and ones that compared similar areas. This article did this comparing through the 2006 released legislation called RoHS, which was done for both China and EU. Through this specific example there were three main differences that were pointed out when examining the specifics. The first difference discovered was the scope, because the Chinese have created a much narrower scope, which basically means it will be harder to change to adapt new emerging products. The second major difference this example provided was the management method. This difference showed that although new products may be harder to adapt, the Chinese will still fundamentally be able to deal with a larger assortment of e-waste products than the EU. This major difference is partially due to how china has been able to somewhat deal with current E-waste, as well as their knowledge of their societal situation. The final difference discovered was in the difference within the legislation's authority on inspection and quarantine. This difference is only done by China. What this means is that although prevention and treatment is done in EU, the Chinese are the first to implement this most likely due to their vast majority of e-waste that currently needs to be dealt with. These three highlighted changes are a major strength to this article as their some of the most recent evidence of not only the differences in legislation, but potential solutions that are arising as well.

Another very good strength exhibited by this article was the explanation on the differences between societies. In north America and most of Europe, its illegal to throw out electronics such as computer into the landfills, thus why regulations have been put in place that enforce citizens to abide by these eco-friendly laws. In China its quite the opposite, as the Chinese government does not deal with the e-waste like a vast majority of Western governments do through taxes, and up to 90% of the Chinese have been reluctant to pay a fee to the privatized corporations. This demonstrates that enforced regulation can have a very serious effect on how heavy metals in electronics are disposed of safely. A weakness found in this information was the article lacked evidence of why the Chinese were reluctant to pay for cheap green solutions as opposed to destroying the environment. This evidence may have shed light on different society issues and ones that the European union should take in account when making serious legislative changes around the environment.

Conclusion

Through the construction of a product to its deconstruction, the most legislative power over how these products are created and destroyed are in perspective of saving the environment. Within Xianlai Zengs article evidence was found that for positive change to be made, three main differences needed to be highlighted and considered when creating legislation. Major weaknesses and strengths were found during the comparison of litigation between the nations, and to build upon on an already improving system the European nations will have to take into consideration why certain cultures feel so drastically different about electronic disposal and environmental safety.