ScienceDaily (Apr. 28, 2010) Developing countries will be producing at least twice as much electronic waste (e-waste) as developed countries within the next 6-8 years, according to a new study published in ACS' semi-monthly journal Environmental Science & Technology. It foresees in 2030 developing countries discarding 400 million -- 700 million obsolete personal computers per year compared to 200 million -- 300 million in developed countries.
Eric Williams and colleagues cite a dramatic increase in ownership of PCs and other electronic devices in both developed and developing countries. At the same time, technological advances are shrinking the lifetime of consumer electronics products, so that people discard electronics products sooner than ever before. That trend has led to global concern about environmentally safe ways of disposing of e-waste, which contains potentially toxic substances.
The scientists used a computer model to forecast global distribution of discarded PCs. It concluded that consumers in developing countries will trash more computers than developed countries by 2016, with the trend continuing and escalating thereafter.
"Our central assertion is that the new structure of global e-waste generation discovered here, combined with economic and social considerations, call for a serious reconsideration of e-waste policy," the report notes.
Recommend this story on Facebook, Twitter,
and Google +1:
Other bookmarking and sharing tools:
Story Source:
The above story is reprinted from materials provided by American Chemical Society, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.
Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.
Journal Reference:
- Jinglei Yu, Eric Williams, Meiting Ju, Yan Yang. Forecasting Global Generation of Obsolete Personal Computers. Environmental Science & Technology, 2010: 100322020137048 DOI: 10.1021/es903350q
Note: If no author is given, the source is cited instead.
Disclaimer: Views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of ScienceDaily or its staff.

