Want to play a game, and take little a trip down memory lane? Grab a piece of paper, or start a running tally in your head: we’re going to go through all the electronic devices you’ve owned in your lifetime.  Ready? Here goes:

Take a moment and think all the way back to the first cell phone you ever had –perhaps chuckle as you recall how the clunky device compares to the sleek, multitasking gadget you have now– and go through all the cellular phones you’ve had since then. Count them up — how many have there been in total?  Is it 3? 5? 7?  More? Take note.

Now, do the same thing for any music playing device, starting way back at the beginning. Did you once have a cd player, maybe even a tape player?  And then at some point at the turn of the millenium, did you transition over to using the ill-fated mini-disc player, or more likely, did you join the revolution that was the iPod? And as the years went on, did you find yourself having to upgrade, because, well, the new iPods were smaller and sleeker, and then the even newer iPods came with video screens, and then the even newer ones came with touch screens?  And, oh yea, along the way, how many stereos, speakers, and earphones would you say you’ve gone through in tandem? From your first cd or tape player all the way to now, how many electronic bits and pieces have you used to play the songs you love?

What about televisions — and of course, the video players, gaming systems, and satellite boxes that go along with them– how many of those have you had?  Ever had to replace a TV because you were moving, and it was too heavy to bring along? Or maybe you just wanted to upgrade it to say, a new HD screen, or a higher quality Blu-ray video system, because the old version just wouldn’t do?  And what about that laptop or computer you are reading this blog post on right now?  It’s unlikely it’s the first computer you’ve ever owned or used, that is, unless you’re staring at an early 1990s Dell or Macintosh and stubbornly using dial-up internet ; so how many computers have you had before the one you are on right now?  And the one you are on now, do you like it?  How long before you upgrade to a newer one, on to bigger (or smaller) and better things, never to look back at the now defunct product you no longer have use for?

OK – game over. Time to tally it up–all the old cell phones, iPods, TVs, video systems, computers – and place them in a line up in your head.  Now, go ahead and ask yourself: where are all of those items now?

Though some of these items may be gathering dust in a drawer or a box in your garage, unless you’re part of the 20% of people who recycle their electronic waste properly, it’s more than likely that all those electronics that you once owned and loved but cast aside are in a toxic dump, somewhere overseas, leaching toxic chemicals into the ground, air, and water, and contributing to a global epidemic of improperly disposed electronic waste.

Here are the facts: There are over 20-50 million tons of e-waste generated worldwide each year, constituted by cell phones, computers, music devices and also other electronic devices like microwaves and refridgerators. In the United States alone, we throw away over 350,00 cell phones and 130,000 computers a day; that’s over 100 million cell phones per year.  And though some of this waste languishes in landfills stateside, over 60% of this waste is shipped to places like China and Africa, where it is dealt with in facilities that lack the money, machinery, and ability to properly dispose of them.  As a result, these items leak toxic chemicals, including chemicals like mercury, lead, and cadmium, into the environment and bodies to which they are exposed.

Why is it a moral issue – and why should you care?  Improperly disposed e-waste is a global ethical problem of which each individual who uses electronics is a stakeholder.  A look into the town of Guiya, China, where there are “miles and miles of nothing but old electronics,”  provides insight into the issue.  Guiya is an area which houses a major electronic recycling facility, wherein residents – including children– are employed to break down old cell phones, computers, and other electronics into their component parts often by burning them or placing them in nitric hydrochloric acids to remove their precious metals.  But in the process, the destabilized chemicals are released and wreak havoc on those who are exposed. Guiyu is reported as having the highest number of cancer causing toxins in the world; the river which runs through it contains up to 2,400 times the World Health Organization’s acceptable threshold for lead.

Guiya River has over 2,400 times the WHO's limit for Lead

The residents face high rates of risk of miscarriage, respiratory problems and lead poisoning.  And other health effects remain unknown. Oladele Ogunseitan, an environmental health scientist at University of California Irvine interviewed by Jon Mooallem for the New York Times Magazine reports, “In a phone that you can hold in the palm of your hand, you now have more than 200 chemical compounds,” “To try to separate them out and study what health effects may be associated with burning it or sinking it in water — that’s a lifetime of work for a toxicologist.”

This catastrophe is not just taking place overseas. Mooallem writes, “In a study published last year, 34 recent-model cellphones were put through a standard E.P.A. test, simulating conditions inside a landfill. All of them leached hazardous amounts of lead — on average, more than 17 times the federal threshold for what constitutes hazardous waste. Under a stricter state of California test, they also leached four other metals above hazardous levels.”).  Even landfills, which are technically supposed to be more contained and safe, are bastions of risk.

In addition to these significant environmental and health effects, e-waste is just what it sounds like—a waste—of both money, and of resources. Many electronics that are thrown away contain precious minerals like gold and platinum that can be “mined” and then reused or reconstituted into products – but only if they are properly managed after disposal. Companies such as Umicore are in the business of extracting the precious metals in a process known as “aboveground mining.”  And how’s this for a factoid?  In 2005, The United States Geological Survey estimated that in the more than half a billion old phones stored away in people’s drawers, there was more than $300 million worth of gold, palladium, silver, copper, and platinum contained in the precious metals in those cell phones.

Kendra Postell writes about the global issue of e-waste — and what our role is in pursuing it as a moral issue — in her guest post below.  Read it and consider the questions she asks: what is our ethical responsibility to the environment when it comes to our use of technological devices?  How can we best address the problem of e-waste, as we continue to use and develop more and more electronic devices into the future?

Kendra Postell is a Freshman at Santa Clara University pursuing a degree in Philosophy with an emphasis in Pre-Law. She chose to write about this topic because she is interested in the relationship between developed and developing nations and thinks it important to examine the global ramifications of everyday actions.

Technology: A Mixed Bag

Our generation and the past few decades have been defined by an explosion of invention and use of technology. One-hundred years ago being able to talk to someone on the other side of the planet instantly was an impossible feat and today people in some of the most remote parts of the world are communicating with each other wirelessly on cellular or satellite phones. Technology has done many good things for humanity. With the help of modern communication technologies we have created a society in which we can share knowledge and resources with people around the world. With advancements in electrical and civil engineering we have seen lifespan and quality of life for many drastically increase over the past several decades.

Despite all of its usefulness, our modern obsession with technology comes with some negative side effects. A large amount of capital is needed to continually update as new inventions arise, but many poor countries, which are most in need of this development, do not have the financial means to support it. These countries are left starving, with neither electricity nor clan water, and most of their citizens living in staggering poverty. While wealthy countries continue to update, reinvent and redesign these countries fall further and further behind. Often, because of this pattern of several countries advancing far beyond the means of others, the success of powerful countries is achieved at the expense of the poor. This cycle is exemplified especially in our methods of e-waste disposal.

Since preschool our generation has been taught that recycling is good for the environment. Programs such as Earth911 provide recycling education resources to students and teachers alike. Though many of our plastic bottles still make it to landfills and, according to Time Magazine’s Bryan Walsh in his article “E-Waste Not” only 20% of Americans properly dispose of their electronic waste, at least we know we have failed when we toss our soda can in the trash or that outdated calculator in the dumpster. We are taught that taking our old electronics to a proper facility is the more honorable alternative and we imagine those electronics end up in a plant similar to the one in my hometown, Roseville, California, described in the New York Times article, ‘Panning E-Waste for Gold’. In recent years, however, we have found that electronic recycling has its dark side.

Because the United States has strict regulations on dealing with pollutants and toxic waste and a high minimum wage “many electronics recyclers ship American e-waste abroad, where it is stripped and burned with little concern for environmental or human health,” notes Walsh. Breaking down and recycling electronics is an expensive undertaking in America, so many companies ship the electronics overseas where laborers are willing to do the dirty work for very little pay. Guiyu, China is one of the most noted recycling cites and because of the country’s poor waste management regulations this city’s people suffer many health complications including increased rates of miscarriage (six times greater according to 60 Minutes) and astonishing levels of lead in children’s bodies, a substance known to cause brain damage and a battery of other severe health complications described here.

We have a situation of “21^st century toxics being managed in a 17^th century environment” says Allen Hershkowitz of the Natural Resources Defense Council, in an interview with 60 Minutes. Circuit boards are dunked in crude acid to extract gold and plastics are burned away leaving behind other valuable metals, not to mention a flood of some of the most toxic fumes known to man.

See a video detailing the health hazards of e-waste in India:

Why do these people expose themselves to such horrible health hazards? Many do not even know of the hazardous effects, as mentioned in the above video, but for those who do it is all a matter of capital. One can afford to feed themselves and their family on the salaries (extremely meager by our standards) these recycling plants provide. “It’s…a choice between poverty and poison” explains, Jim Puckett, also a 60 Minutes interviewee, “and we should never make them make that choice.” Unfortunately, we make them make this choice every day, and with electronics being the fastest growing form of waste in America, the choice has become increasingly financially appealing; the people of Guiyu make a small salary by harvesting and selling metals, and American recycling businesses can simply ship off our worn electronics rather than go through the expensive process of breaking them down domestically.

See the 60 Minutes video below which further explains this smuggling process and the plight of Guiyu, China:
Watch CBS News Videos Online

The Politics Of ‘Going Green’

One of the most appalling aspects of this process is that some American recyclers who participate in selling these electronics to poor countries claim to break them down safely and ethically in the United States. They lie and get all of the advantages of having an ethical, positive image while still reaping the financial rewards of outsourcing the dirty work. As Rajni Kothari says in his essay about development, ‘Environment, Technology, and Ethics,’ “‘Sustainability’ has been adopted as rhetoric, not as an ethical principle which restructures our relationship with the Earth and its creatures in the realm of knowledge and in arenas of action” (Kothari, 431). The idea of ‘going green’ or being ‘eco-friendly’ is really just an add campaign, a way to make buyers feel safe and good about their purchase, while still causing the same environmental ills as before the green movement.

If recycling companies lie to their customers and promise to break down electronics in the U.S. when in reality they ship them to China, how is one supposed to dispose their old cell phones, laptops and televisions? It seems like we are stuck choosing between tossing our old cell phone in the dumpster and poisoning our own environment or “recycling” the technology and poisoning people who had nothing to do with and received no benefit from the use of the cell phone during its working life. I personally have every cell phone I have ever owned in my desk drawer because I have found no good answer to this very question. One reporter, Graham Russell, believes he has found the answer.

www.grxrecycles.com/

“If you’re a company needing to find a safe way to get rid of your old electronic equipment in Colorado, Utah or Nebraska, you have an obvious option. Guaranteed Recycling Experts (GRX – www.grxrecycles.com/) guarantees to completely destroy your e-waste, including any data remaining on hard drives or in printer buffers, and will document for you where the constituent materials end up. GRX encourages you to audit its facility at any time and to talk to its downstream partners to verify how they handle the material GRX sends them. By pursuing a strategy based on the principles of sustainable business management in an industry populated by many unscrupulous operators, GRX has built a competitive advantage in 5 short years that has made it by far the largest e-waste recycler in the Rocky Mountain region.”

And for those whose businesses lie beyond the Rocky Mountain region? Are we just to trust any recycler who promises they have good intentions? My gut says no. Few individuals have the time or resources to check up on recycling agencies themselves, so I feel the only way we can ever really be sure is to establish some sort of certification system similar to the FDA. The situation we face today is actually very similar to that described in Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle, and I hope, for the sake of our environment and the people in these poor recycling cities that the recycling business evolves as the commercial food industry did. Through exposure of the ills and injustices I hope we win a government agency with some kind of certification process that will assure a certified company follows ethical and legal procedures in disposing of our electronics.

Unfortunately, due to the pattern of recent events it seems the United States is not very receptive to regulation of electronics exports. In fact, as Susan Moran of The New York Times points out, we were the only industrialized country to refuse to sign The Basel Convention, a treaty to prohibit dumping e-waste in other countries, and the only substance that we regulate the export of is lead, which still often flies under the radar and makes its way to the third world.

This situation begs the question: as the leader in production of electronics and subsequent e-wastes do we have a responsibility to stop the export of toxic e-waste to poorer countries, or do we sacrifice the health of these people in the name of Capitalism and a free market?

The increasing severity of the amount of e-waste we produce causes one to question whether we could actually fix anything if we tried. Scrapping yards are not just limited to rural China. Greenpeace notes that the problem is spreading to India with tens of thousands of workers in Delhi and more found in Meerut, Ferozabad, Chennai, Bangalore and Mumbai.  Moran states that we are dumping on “other countries that are in no position to deal with our waste,” but are we even in the position to deal with our own waste?

Considering the Big Picture

The sheer amount of electronics America goes through is an impossible problem, and to suddenly switch to processing all of this waste ourselves would be an incredible feat that we may not have the time, resources or space to achieve. Purely domestic recycling would mean taking complete and utter responsibility for our wasteful and destructive actions. We would be required to see the massive stacks of our old electronics waiting to be broken down and we would risk poisoning our own children and cities with some of the most dangerous substances on earth.

Unfortunately, even if we were to halt the shipments of waste into China and other poor areas of the globe, the problem would not be solved. Guiyu is so polluted that the health issues are sure to be felt for generations after the dangerous “recycling” processes stop, if they ever do. To simply halt the shipment of electronics would probably cause the people of Guiyu more harm than good because to strip them of their access to the small bits of scrap metal would be to strip them of their only real source of income leaving them with no means to support themselves, let alone reverse the medical and environmental harm years of recycling have caused. To cease the smuggling of electronics and nothing more would mean leaving these people to rot, literally, in their toxic environment. So what do we do to remedy the problem? One tech journalist, John Biggs, suggests more easily recyclable electronics, but his suggestion like many others is feeble in the wake of this growing problem.

Americans seem to have a tendency to get themselves into these situations that are difficult to remedy when it comes to technology because as Lewis Mumford mentions in his essay ‘The Highway and the City’, “they are trading a permanent good for a very temporary advantage” (Mumford, 365). In this essay he is referring to our habit of building new roads straight through cities to alleviate traffic for a few years rather than rather than focusing on “the more permanent requirements of regional planning” which would alleviate traffic for decades, even lifetimes (365), but the same pattern is seen in our infatuation with electronics. We continually build, buy and throw away electronics with no thought about how wasteful our habits are or where our worn out cell phones will end up. We consume and replace at an alarming rate and leave the heaps of wasted plastic and metal and toxins for someone else to deal with and the environmental issues to be addressed at some later date. What we need is a revaluation of this lifestyle. We need to think to the future and preemptively prevent issues such as these rather than addressing them as they become severe and often irreversible.

To continue our current rate of electronics disposal means to leave the people of Guiyu, Delhi and countless other rural, poor cities to cancer and birth defects and allow the environmental harms their recycling tactics cause to worsen and spread to other areas. But to save these people and cease the environmental poisoning means to drastically alter our way of life. It would mean not getting to update that cell phone every six months or not buying that bigger television, faster computer or better stereo Americans constantly crave. It would mean challenging our morals and shifting away from a stuff-centered way of life. It might even mean risking health issues of our own to take responsibility for our garbage and break it down domestically. Are we strong enough in our values of freedom and democracy to make these sacrifices? Is human nature on the whole kind enough to pull off this one grand selfless act?

Herein lies what I believe to be one of the most problematic ethical issues of our age. With the slow down in our economy we have come to a crossroads, a chance to revaluate our role as individuals and a country. Do we continue unrestrained progress at the expense of these people in developing countries and cling to distant and unfounded hopes that someday the resulting technology will help their situation? Or do we redesign our world, make sacrifices, and start working towards a better future for everyone?

To find places to e-recycle, click here and scroll to the bottom of the page.

Questions:

What do we owe to the people of Guiyu China and other poor countries whose lives are directly impacted by our actions? Do we have a responsibility to cease electronics shipments and clean these areas up?

What suggestions do you have for cleaning up this electronic mess we have made? Policy changes? Domestic Recycling? Lifestyle changes?

What do you think of this issue in terms of technological determinism? Do we have the power to overcome the maladies caused by technology or are we doomed to continue down a path of environmental destruction?

Works Cited

Basel Convention. UNEP. Web. 12 Mar. 2010. <http://www.basel.int/>.

Biggs, John. “Guiyu, E-waste Capital of China.” Web Log post. CrunchGear. TechCrunch, 04 Apr. 2008. Web. 12 Mar. 2010. <http://www.crunchgear.com/2008/04/04/guiyu-e-waste-capital-of-china/>.

“Dailymotion – Waste Management Matters, Meet the Global Waste Challenge.” Dailymotion – Online Videos, Music, and Movies. Web. 12 Mar. 2010. <http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xbuf5l_waste-management-matters-meet-the-g_lifestyle>.

“Following The Trail Of Toxic E-Waste.” 60 Minutes- CBS News. 30 Aug. 2009. Web. 15 Mar. 2010. <http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/06/60minutes/main4579229_page2.shtml>.

Hanks, Craig. Technology and Values. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. Print.

Moran, Susan. “Panning E-waste for Gold.” The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 17 May 2006. Web. 12 Mar. 2010. <http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/17/business/businessspecial2/17ewaste.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1&sq=electronic%20waste&st=cse&scp=1>.

Pelley, Scott. 60 Minutes. The Wasteland. CBS News, 30 Aug. 2009. Web. 12 Mar. 2010. <http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5274959n&tag=related;photovideo>.

Russell, Graham. “Electronic Waste – Sustainability Finally Triumphs over Unscrupulous Practices.” Examiner.com. Clarity Digital Group, 29 Aug. 2009. Web. 15 Mar. 2010. <http://www.examiner.com/x-16776-Denver-Sustainable-Business-Examiner~y2009m8d29-Electronic-waste–sustainability-finally-triumphs-over-unscrupulous-practices>.

“Where Does E-waste End Up?” Greenpeace China. Web. 12 Mar. 2010. <http://www.greenpeace.org/china/en/campaigns/toxics/e-waste/where-does-e-waste-end-up>.

Where Does E-waste End Up? Youtube. Greenpeace International, 22 Feb. 2008. Web. 12 Mar. 2010. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JZey9GJQP0&feature=related>.

Santa Clara University Recycling Intern Kaelin Holland works at Santa Clara University to promote awareness about this issue — and to encourage people to recycle the items they no longer have use for, including electronics.  In her post below, she discusses the global e-waste epidemic and the moral problems it presents, and then she outlines some ways to make sure we stop it.  She also identifies the best places in Santa Clara and beyond to recycle all of your old electronics.  Make sure to check it out the next time you’re in the market for an upgrade.

Kaelin Holland is a Recycling Intern at Santa Clara University.  She is studying English and Environmental Science and Santa Clara.  For questions on recycling at Santa Clara or on other Sustainability topics, you can reach her at recycling@scu.edu.

Electronic Recycling at Santa Clara University

Saving up for that new iPad? Counting down the days to get a new laptop? Or maybe your cell phone took a voluntary swim in a puddle or toilet and you’re left with no choice but to purchase a new one. All these scenarios are understandable; however, what will you do with your old item? Unless you bring it to a proper recycling system, it could end up with all other E-waste.

E-Waste is a broad umbrella category that covers the ever-growing universal amount of discarded electronic items such as computers, cell phones, printers, hair dryers, and basically anything that uses an electric cord or battery. These items differ from the ordinary landfill waste because of the amount of toxic metals they contain that produce even more environmental hazards than landfill waste. Some of these metals include arsenic, lead, and mercury, brominated flame retardants (BFRs), and polyvinyl chloride (PVC). Frequent exposure to these chemicals can cause severe health issues such as cancer, respiratory illness, and reproductive problems (Visit SVTC for more information). A Greenpeace study argued that E-waste is currently one of the ‘fastest growing types of hazardous waste’ on the planet. The amounts of E-waste are only expected to rise in the future, given the continual increase of new technologies and shorter product lifespans. As companies continue to race with each other to see how can develop the more advanced, ‘gotta have it’ product first, more and more electronics will become unnecessarily obsolete.

Hidden Flows

E-Waste Map from Greenpeace.org

The problem with electronic waste lies not only in the high level of toxicity of these products, but the way in which they are disposed. Greenpeace states that 20-50 million tonnes of E-Waste are generated each year. While this is a gigantic amount to consider, what is left uncounted is a ‘hidden flow’ of E-waste that is exported to developing nations such as China, India, Pakistan, Vietnam, and the Philippines. Greenpeace suggests that in India, the hidden flows could potentially count for 99% of reported E-waste, or 143,000 tonnes. Due to companies mislabeling their exports as ‘donations’ or ’scrap’, it is impossible to quantify just exactly how much waste is being illegally exported and dumped on these countries.

Health Risks

When impoverished countries receive this waste, they are only equipped with rudimentary recycling technologies to either simply extract valuable raw material or reuse certain components. Those who work in the scrap yards breaking apart and retrieving these items aren’t adequately covered with protective clothing gear or face masks when the chemicals are smelted or released into the air, so their health is immediately at risk. In addition to posing severe health risks to those in the immediate vicinity, the chemicals also pervade the air, soil, and water in the surrounding areas, causing incredible environmental degradation in these communities.

Thinking Ethically

Considering the vast amount of human, air, water, soil, and biota pollution that this hazardous and toxic waste creates, an ethical issue is at hand. It is easy for us in developed countries like America and Europe to develop an ‘out of sight, out of mind’ mentality when it comes to all types of our waste. But unless it is properly recycled, the waste never disappears; it just winds up in a landfill or on the other side of a planet that is still ours. It is important to keep in mind that environmental degradation that is unaccounted for will snowball into all sorts of problems once the ecosystems are destabilized; gradually contaminated health, food, and water supplies are just as harmful as sudden natural disasters or disease epidemics that we would otherwise feel a moral jolt to assist.

Furthermore, in such a highly globalized society that we live in today, it is extremely important to understand the interconnectedness of activities that take place on this earth. For instance, when E-waste chemicals infiltrate every ecological component of regions in China, they will eventually make their way into whatever we import back from them, be it food or manufactured items. When our air, food, water supply, and other necessities for life come directly from our environment, it is all of our responsibilities to think critically about the impacts we are making on the environment each time we toss away an item that could otherwise be reused or recycled. Finally, human interests aside, the pollution that E-waste causes affects not only humans but also all other organisms in those areas. If we feel that we have a moral and ethic responsibility to engage in life sustaining activities for every living thing on this earth, then E-waste pollution and other environmental issues should force us to reflect upon the ways in which we impact our global community.

Three C’s

Sustainability Coordinator Lindsay Cromwell

Santa Clara University’s Sustainability Program works to foster the three C’s: Competence, Conscience, and Compassion. We should develop the competence to learn about these issues and deal with them in an appropriate manner, the conscience to take into account the impact that our daily lifestyles have on the global environment, and the compassion to reach out to those communities currently dealing with the negative effects of our lifestyle. If you would like to learn more about the current effects of E-waste, Santa Clara University offers a number of ways to get more involved. We recommend taking an environmental class here on campus; intro Environmental Studies classes, “The Joy of Garbage”, and “Environmental Technology” especially go into detail about different waste diversion technologies. Also, student organizations such as Green Club and B LEJIT work to increase environmental awareness and environmental justice issues on campus. Finally, you can watch The Story of Stuff online to see the ways in which the extraction, production, and circulation of ‘stuff’ affects our environment and natural resources.

Individual Effort

Check out http://www.scu.edu/sustainability/

For us individuals, what can we do to minimize the amount of E-waste we generate? E-waste minimization can take place in all steps of the product life cycle; first, we can choose our electronics consciously. Buying electronics that are built to have a lower environmental impact (such as the newer MacBooks that not only eliminated the main toxic culprits but also used less material overall) will aid in this reduction. Also, despite the excitement that comes out over a new or updated product, is it really worth it to get new electronics if the ones you already have work just fine? And finally, it also goes without saying if your electronics have seen better days and those days are over, they should be taken to a proper recycler. Fortunately for us on campus, our Facilities department will happily accept all E-waste and universal waste (such as batteries, innk cartiges, compact flourescent light bulbes, and cell phones). If you’re a student living in one of the residence halls, you can leave your large E-Waste under the sign where you take your trash and recyclables, and small items like cell phones, batteries, ink cartridges, and CFL’s can be dropped off at the residence hall service desks.

Conclusion

While it is exciting to develop and experience new technologies, we have an ethical responsibility to minimize hazardous waste production throughout the entire life cycle of an item, from its production to its disposal. Simply being aware of your consumption of electronic goods and taking your items to a proper recycler will help immensely against the illegal dumping of E-Waste to other countries that are forced to sacrifice their health and their environment to dispose of it.

Places to Recycle Your E-Waste

What Stores Accept E-Recycling?

Most large electronics corporations will be happy to responsibly recycle your items. Here are some of the closest stores near Santa Clara:

-Staples will accept cell phones, computer monitors, desktops, laptops, printers, fax machines, electronics, ink cartridges, office machines, toner cartridges, and batteries. Some of the larger brands may require a $10 fee. The closest address to SCU is: 1351 Coleman Ave, Santa Clara, CA 95050. Phone number: (408) 588-9650

-Best Buy will accept cell phones, compact disks, computers, MP3 players, batteries, telephones, game consoles, small appliances, and certain types of televisions. The closest address to SCU is: 3090 Stevens Creek Blvd., San Jose, CA 95128, Phone number: (408) 241-6040

-Goodwill & Salvation Army locations accept computers and other electronics like radios and stereos. Goodwill Donation Station: Stevens Creek & Winchester, San Jose, CA 95121, Phone number: (408) 998-5774. Salvation Army Thrift Store, 702 West Taylor Street, San Jose, CA 95131, Phone number: (408) 943-9943

-Apple also has a program to recycle old Apple products.  Find out more information from their website.

Where to E-Recycle at Santa Clara University?

-Residence Halls: E-Waste (anything with a cord or battery) as well as cell phones, chargers, batteries, ink cartridges, and CFL’s should be brought to the small blue receptacles at the reception desks. For larger items, request a pickup from Facilities by either calling 554-4742 or emailing facilities-csc@scu.edu.

-Faculty Offices: Request a pickup from Facilities by either calling 554-4742 or emailing facilities-csc@scu.edu.

Where to E-Recycle outside the University, including Home Pick-Up?

-U.S. Post Office (in Franklin Square) will accept cell phones, electronics, ink cartridges, and toner cartridges.  Also, you can donate or sell your cell phone to be reused at Recellular.com.

-ECS Refining will accept cell phones, computer monitors, televisions http://www.ecsrefining.com/

-Earthcare Recycling will pick up certain electronics; contact the site for more information.

-College Hunks Hauling Junk is a nationwide company that will send two strapping young college men to come to pick up any ‘junk’ you have and they will recycle, reuse, or donate the items properly.

These locations and the items they accept are certainly not exhaustive; there are plenty of more places to recycle your electronics in the area. For more locations, visit Earth911.com. This site provides recycling centers closest to you for not only electronics but other recyclable items as well.

]]> http://thetechnologicalcitizen.com/?feed=rss2&p=2979 1 http://thetechnologicalcitizen.com/?p=1506 http://thetechnologicalcitizen.com/?p=1506#comments Tue, 02 Feb 2010 17:02:59 +0000 admin http://thetechnologicalcitizen.com/?p=1506 There is something primal about our need for nature — for time in the out doors, for sunshine, for fresh air.  Psychologist Paul Bloom writes, “Our hunger for the natural is everywhere…People like to be close to oceans, mountains, and trees.  Even in the most urban environments, it is reflected in real estate prices: if you want a view of the trees of Central Park, it’ll cost you.  Office buildings have atriums and plants; we give flowers to the sick and the beloved and return home to watch Animal Planet and the Discovery Channel…And many of us seek to escape our manufactured environments whenever we can — to hike, camp, canoe, or hunt.”

Yet on the heels of a study that just came out last week saying that teenagers spend up to 7.5 hours per day on digital devices — up an hour from the previous year — one wonders what is happening to our individual relationships to the natural world as a result of technology.  My previous post explored some of the broad ethical relationships between technology, human behavior, and the environment; today, I’m featuring an article which raises an important and related question: Is nature important to our happiness?  And if so, then why do we spend so much time attached to our technologies, and detached from nature?

In his article “Natural Happiness,” for The New York Times Magazine’s Green Issue, Paul Bloom, a psychologist from Yale University, asks us to ask ourselves these questions.  Read Bloom’s article, ahead.

Paul Bloom is a psychology professor at Yale University.  His article, “Natural Happiness” originally appeared in The New York Times Magazine Green Issue and is reprinted here with his permission. His book, “How Pleasure Works: The New Science of Why We Like What We Like” comes out in June.

Natural Happiness

Why should we care about nature? Should we care about it for its own sake — or for our sake, because it happens to make us happy or healthy? These might not seem like the brightest questions. Few people need convincing that the destruction of rain forests, the mass extinction of species and the melting of the ice sheets in Greenland would all be very bad things. Do we really need to list the reasons?

We do. After all, in many regards our species has already kissed nature goodbye, and we are better off for it. Technology has come to be more diverse than the biosphere. In 1867, Karl Marx observed that there were 500 types of hammer made in Birmingham, England. In 1988, Donald Norman, a cognitive scientist at the University of California, San Diego, suggested that the average American encounters 20,000 different kinds of artifacts in everyday life, which would be more than the number of animals and plants that we can distinguish. And right now, there are about 1.5 million identified species on Earth — impressive, but nothing compared to the more than 7 million United States patents.

This is mostly good news. No sane person would give up antibi­otics and anesthesia, farming and the written word. Our constructed environments shield us from heat and cold and protect us from predators. We have access to food and drink and drugs that have been devised to stimulate our nervous systems in magnificent ways. We sleep in soft beds and have immediate access to virtual experiences from pornography to classical symphonies. If a family of hunter-gatherers were dropped into this life, they would think of it as a literal heaven.

Or maybe not. There is a considerable mismatch between the world in which our minds evolved and our current existence. Our species has spent almost all of its existence on the African savanna. While there is debate over the details, we know for sure that our minds were not adapted to cope with a world of billions of people. The life of a modern city dweller, surrounded by strangers, is an evolutionary novelty. Thousands of years ago, there was no television or Internet, no McDonald’s, birth-control pills, Viagra, plastic surgery, alarm clocks, artificial lighting or paternity tests. Instead, there was plenty of nature. We lived surrounded by trees and water and animals and sky.

E. O. Wilson popularized the “biophilia” hypothesis: We thrive in the presence of nature and suffer in its absence

This history has left its mark on our minds. Children are irrepressible taxonomizers, placing the world of distinct individuals into categories based on their appearance, their patterns of movement and their presumed deeper natures, and some psychologists have argued that the hard-wired capacity to organize and structure the world is specially adapted to nature: we are natural-born zoologists and botanists. We may also have evolved to get pleasure from certain aspects of the natural world. About 25 years ago, the Harvard biologist E. O. Wilson popularized the “biophilia” hypothesis: the idea that our evolutionary history has blessed us with an innate affinity for living things. We thrive in the presence of nature and suffer in its absence.

Our hunger for the natural is everywhere. It is reflected in art: the philosopher Denis Dutton, in his book “The Art Instinct,” suggests that popular taste in landscape painting has been shaped by preferences that evolved for the African savanna. The appeal of the natural is also reflected in where we most want to live. People like to be close to oceans, mountains and trees. Even in the most urban environments, it is reflected in real estate prices: if you want a view of the trees of Central Park, it’ll cost you. Office buildings have atriums and plants; we give flowers to the sick and the beloved and return home to watch Animal Planet and the Discovery Channel. We keep pets, which are a weird combination of constructed things (cats and dogs were bred for human companionship), surrogate people and conduits to the natural world. And many of us seek to escape our manufactured environments whenever we can — to hike, camp, canoe or hunt.

Wilson emphasizes the spiritual and moral benefits of an attachment to nature, warning that we “descend farther from heaven’s air if we forget how much the natural world means to us.” But there are more tangible benefits as well. Many studies show that even a limited dose of nature, like a chance to look at the outside world through a window, is good for your health. Hospitalized patients heal more quickly; prisoners get sick less often. Being in the wild re­duces stress; spending time with a pet enhances the lives of everyone from autistic children to Alzheimer’s patients. The author Richard Louv argues that modern children suffer from “nature-deficit disorder” because they have been shut out from the physical and psychic benefits of unstructured physical contact with the natural world.

Richard Louv argues that modern children suffer from “nature-deficit disorder” because they have been shut out from the physical and psychic benefits of unstructured physical contact with the natural world

So the preservation of the natural world should be important to us. But how important? The psycholo­gist Philip Tetlock has pointed out that many people talk about the environment as a “sacred value,” protected from utilitarian trade-offs — when the Exxon Valdez spilled nearly 11 million gallons of crude oil, 80 percent of the respondents in one poll said that we should pursue greater environmental protection “regardless of cost.” But he also points to the need to balance environmental concerns with social and political and personal priorities. (Few of these respondents would be willing to hand over their pensions for a more efficient cleanup of the Alaskan shoreline.) And even if we did value nature above everything else, we would still have to decide which aspects of nature we care about the most. You can see this in the debate over the creation of giant wind farms in the ocean or on hillsides. Proponents are enthusiastic about the cheap, green energy; critics worry about the loss of natural beauty and the yearly filleting of thousands of songbirds and ducks.

In the end, an indiscriminate biophilia makes little sense. Natural selection shaped the human brain to be drawn toward aspects of nature that enhance our survival and reproduction, like verdant landscapes and docile creatures. There is no payoff to getting the warm fuzzies in the presence of rats, snakes, mosquitoes, cockroaches, herpes simplex and the rabies virus. Some of the natural world is appealing, some of it is terrifying and some of it grosses us out. Modern people don’t want to be dropped naked into a swamp. We want to tour Yosemite with our water bottles and G.P.S. devices. The natural world is a source of happiness and fulfillment, but only when prescribed in the right doses.

You might think that technology could provide a simulacrum of nature with all the bad parts scrubbed out. But attempts to do so have turned out to be interesting failures. There is a fortune to be made, for instance, by building a robot that children would respond to as if it were an animal. There have been many attempts, but they don’t evoke anywhere near the same responses as puppies, kittens or even hamsters. They are toys, not companions. Or consider a recent study by the University of Washington psychologist Peter H. Kahn Jr. and his colleagues. They put 50-inch high-definition televisions in the windowless offices of faculty and staff members to provide a live view of a natural scene. People liked this, but in another study that measured heart-rate recovery from stress, the HDTVs were shown to be worthless, no better than staring at a blank wall. What did help with stress was giving people an actual plate-glass window looking out upon actual greenery.

All of this provides a different sort of argument for the preservation of nature. Put aside for the moment practical considerations like the need for clean air and water, and ignore as well spiritual worries about the sanctity of Mother Earth or religious claims that we are the stewards of creation. Look at it from the coldblooded standpoint of the enhancement of the happiness of our everyday lives. Real natural habitats provide significant sources of pleasure for modern humans. We intuitively grasp this, and this knowledge underlies the anxiety that we feel about nature’s loss. It might be that one day we will be able to replace the experience of nature with “Star Trek” holodecks and robotic animals. But until then, this basic fact about human pleasure is an excellent argument for keeping the real thing.

This article touched on so many interesting ideas, the most fascinating also being the most simple: We need nature.  We look to nature for many things: for relaxation, for play, for spiritual sustenance.  Indeed, writers and philosophers alike have turned to the natural world to reveal truths about humanity. (”I went into the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived,” Thoreau once famously wrote.)

And yet, it’s interesting that even in light of this, people find it challenging to commit to spending time in nature, or even to preserving it.  We seem to have little problem enthusiastically championing technology, embracing new products and new developments in our technologically-driven lifestyle — but we do this even if and while nature is being eroded at its expense.  We know nature is important to our happiness in some fundamental way, yet we seem to take it for granted, and increasingly live our lives enveloped by the technologies we have created for ourselves.

This mentality seems important to examine.  The study of trying to recreate nature scenes on HD TVs is telling: it raises the issue that there is value to nature that can never be replicated or equaled by technology.  The experience of interacting with nature — full-fleshed, real nature–it seems, can never be equalled by a virtual, digital experience.  We can watch Avatar in 3D (whose message, ironically, is to respect nature), 11 million of us can play “Farm Town” on Facebook per day, and we can even try to hook up HD TVs with nature scenes to recreate the calming, serene image of a forest; but these digital mediums can never substitute for the authentic pleasure that nature can provide.  And this seems interesting to reflect on, particularly if we are pursuing a world that is centered and focused more and more on technology, and less and less on appreciating and being in the natural world.  Are we ever as fulfilled after a day on the computer as we are spending a day out of doors?  If not, then why are we such slaves to our screens?

So this article left me thinking: What is the value of nature, and why in our technological age does it seem harder and harder to be in touch with it?  Are there ways in which technology has enhanced our experience of nature, or are nature and technology fundamentally at odds with each other?  By choosing to embrace technology, are we automatically giving up a close relationship nature?

Questions:

Do you spend more or less time in nature as a result of technology?

How has your appreciation for nature shifted over time as our lives have become more “digitally” focused?

Modern technology

Owes Ecology

An Apology.

-Alan Eddison

Each year, we lose over 38 million acres of rainforest as a result of deforestation; rainforests used to cover 14% of the earths surface; now, they cover less than 6%, and are depleting more each year. Our 800 million+ cars in the world emit carbon emissions at such a high level that they erode the atmosphere and are contributing to drastic changes in our weather patterns.  The trash we have discarded – including, of course, man-made non-biodegradable plastics– accumulate in landfills throughout the world and leach toxic chemicals into the land and water, greatly affecting the survival of animal and plant life.

And in a pursuit to feed the ever-growing world population, agricultural biotechnologists are altering the genetic make-up of food and plants, splicing the genes from fish into the genes of tomatoes, for example, to increase the amount that we can grow and the “nutrient content” they possess –  a type of species cross-breeding that has heretofor never occurred, and never would occur, naturally in nature.

Thinking about modern technologies of the past 100 years, one can’t help but see how they have radically transformed our planet.  The cars we drive, the massive amounts of waste we discard, the agricultural techniques we employ, among many other examples: each has led environmental aftereffects such as climate change and depletion of natural resources that have altered the biosphere in which we live in very significant ways.

Before our widespread technological developments, we may have modified the earth for our needs, including hunting wildlife and farming for food, as well as gathering necessities for living and shelter, but fundamentally, as Rudi Volti writes in Society and Technological Change, we “used to leave the earth roughly as we found it.”   Yet with modern technologies, we no longer leave the world the way it was when we came into it. With modern technology, we have the capacity to not only influence the world, to leave our footprint, but to radically transform it.  We even have the power to destroy it.

Imbued by technology with this capacity to literally destroy our own habitat, some philosophers contest that we need to catch our ethics up to speed – that our previous ethical frameworks do not address this relatively newfound authority to impact the planet so significantly.  Ethics that were established in an age before we could drastically impact our biosphere – before we knew about carbon emissions, or nuclear power, or genetic engineering—are not equipped to help us cope with modern day problems.  Morton Winston, Hans Jonas, and writers like Bill McKibben call for a new type of ethics that takes this power modern technology gives us into account, where we consider not only our individual moral decisions, but the aggregates of our actions; where we consider not only human beings in our decision making, but the planet, and nature, as well; and finally, where we consider the timeline of our decisions, and the future of humanity, and not only how the decisions we make now affect us currently, but how they will affect the livelihood of future generations as well.

In his essay, “Children of Invention,” MortonWinston writes eloquently about technology’s game-changing influence on ethics, and how we need to develop a new framework as we proceed in the technological age:

“Our previous ethics has not prepared us to cope with such global threats.  Traditional ethics has focused primarily on the moral requirements concerning individual action, on the direct dealings between persons, rather than on the remote effects of our collective action.  This problem is particularly important with respect to widely distributed technologies, such as the internal combustion engine, whereby the cumulative effects of individual decisions can have a major impact on air quality even though no single individual is responsible for the smog.

By and large, traditional moral norms deals with the present and near-future effects of actions of individual human beings and do not prepare us to deal with cumulative effects and statistical deaths.  Traditional ethics, above all, has been anthropocentric – the entire nonhuman world has been viewed as a thing devoid of moral standing and significance except insofar as it could be bent to satisfy human purposes.  We have assumed the natural world was our enemy and that it did not require our care (for what could we possibly do to harm it really?) and nature was not regarded as an object of human responsibility.

In the past, we have attempted to fashion out ethical theories in terms of these assumptions.  The traditional maxims of ethics – for example, “Love thy neighbor as thyself,” “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” and “Never treat your fellow man as a means only but always also as an end in himself” – are in keeping with the individualistic, present-oriented, and anthropocentric assumptions of our ethical traditions. Even the Christian ethic of universal love does not transcend the barriers of time, community, and species.  Even more modern ethical theories such as utilitarianism and Kantian ethics do not provide particularly good guidance when it comes to the sorts of ethical concerns raised by technology.  In part this is because they were designed to be used to evaluate individual actions of particular moral agents.

But the sociotechnological practices that comprise our collective action are not only made up of many individual choices – such as the choice to have a child, to eat a hamburger, or to invest in a mining stock – but also the aggregation of these individual choices, plus those of organized collectivities such as corporations and governments.  In most cases, the individuals, business executives, or politicians who are making the choices that add up to our collective insecurity do not intend these threats to result, and neither they nor we consequently feel any sense of responsibility for them.

Although individuals view themselves as moral agents and consider themselves bearers of responsibility in all the roles in which they participate, the collectivities to which we belong do not.  All the threats we face are in part the result of this diffusion of responsibility.  How then should we, the citizens of Earth, be responding to these environmental questions? Do people in richer countries have any responsibility to those in poorer ones?  Do we, in general, have any responsibilities to future generations concerning the long-term social and environmental effects of our present economic, lifestyle, and political choices?

The notion of responsibility that we need to cultivate is not the backward-looking notion of responsibility as liability, which seeks to allocate blame for past harms, but the forward-looking sense of responsibility in which each of us and every organization and institution “takes responsibility” for future generations of humans and the nonhuman species with whom we share this planet.  This notion of social responsibility, although it is voluntary and discretionary, places real demands on us as individuals and members of communities and requires that we think carefully about the decisions and choices that we make.”

Winston outlines a number of reasons I’d like to highlight about why he believes technology poses new ethical challenges that we have not yet had to face.

First, he stresses that the impact of technology is different from other ethical issues because it is not individual decisions but the aggregate of those decisions that have an ethical impact. This is an interesting idea to consider: one person driving a car is not intrinsically wrong; however, millions of people driving a car might be, because of the cumulative impact on others health and on the environment.  Therefore, when we consider what is ethical, we must consider not only the individual, direct consequence of our own decisions, but the aggregate of those decisions…and extrapolating from this idea, one wonders if driving a car therefore does become unethical.  Do you generally think that when you throw away a plastic water bottle, you are making an ethical decision, because you are contributing to build up of plastic in landfills?  When you eat tuna at a restaurant, do you consider yourself a contributor to the epidemic loss of deep sea wildlife occurring on the planet right now?

Another interesting concept Winston raises is that the harm caused by technology is not direct, per se, but diffuse and broad, often perpetrated without any knowledge from the people performing the harmful actions. Indeed, industrial technology has alienated us from nature – we no longer produce our own food, make our own shelter, sew our own clothes.  This is not inherently a bad thing; of course, it has allowed us tremendous freedoms.  But it contributes to what Winston calls a “diffusion of responsibility”, in which we don’t connect our actions with their consequences, because we are so removed from them.  Might you assume more responsibility for your actions if you got to see the amount of waste that your lifestyle accumulated, instead of being isolated from the industries that make your food, clothes, and shelter for you?  How does this separation lead people to feel less accountable for the way they live?

And finally, Winston raises the point that we must consider that in the technological age, the effects of our actions are not always immediate, but in fact influence the lives of generations to come. The issue of environmental ethics is on the level not of an individual human being, living now, but rather on humankind and the survival of the planet as a whole.  When you consider the way we treat the planet now, do you think about how it affects the lives your grandchildren? That destroying land now for our use currently might result in future generations never seeing that land?  One can’t help but think of the movie Wall-E, in which people become so preoccupied with their technology that they completely ignore nature, and in the process, forget nature’s value, leaving a ravaged planet behind.  Is this the type of road we are on, and if so, how do we stop from going down it?

Winston, as well as Hans Jonas and others, call for a new ethical framework that takes the future of the planet into consideration – a framework that is not focused on the individual, or the immediate moment, but on humanity on the whole, and its survival. So what might this new type of ethics look like?

New Ethical Frameworks

Jonas says that “An imperative responding to the new type of human action and addressed to the new type of agency that operates it might run thus: “Act so that the effects of your action is compatible with the permanence of human life;” or expressed negatively, “Act so that the effects of your action is not destructive of the future possibility of such life.”

Another view is that of Deep Ecology, which Mark Somma writes about this framework in his essay, “Radical Environmentalism.”

In the early 1970s, philsopher Arne Naess laid the ground work for an ecological movement called Deep Ecology. Deep Ecology is rooted in the idea that nature has wisdom and value independent of the value ascribed to it to meet human needs.  It emphasizes a “biocentric” view of the world that seeks to cultivate human being’s relationship with nature, based on the principle that nature doesn’t exist solely to meet human ends, but is intrinsically valuable in its own existence.  Human beings should promote the well-being of the entire biosphere, including the oceans, forests, and other natural resources, because they deserve, morally speaking, to be preserved.

Deep Ecology also emphasizes that our moral and spiritual well-being as humans is dependent on a wholesome and integrated relationship with our surrounding world – that we lose something vital and important about ourselves as we increasingly alienate ourselves from the natural world that surrounds us.  When we lose our connection with nature, when we stop valuing nature for nature’s sake, we become less complete, less morally developed human beings.  Deep Ecology also maintains that the amount of interference we have with the nonhuman world currently is excessive, and that as humans, we don’t have the right to reduce biodiversity in such a drastic way, and to exploit nature as much as we do.  Ultimately if we continue down this path, Deep Ecology suggests, it is human beings that will lose out as a result.  Jonas Salk once said, “Eventually we’ll realize that if we destroy the ecosystem, we destroy ourselves.”

Deep Ecology contrasts with Shallow ecology, which may be more recognizable as our current way of relating to the planet.

Deforestation in The Amazon

Shallow ecology refers to the practices that many people would characterize as an industrialized view of living on the planet.  In shallow ecology, human beings see nature as valuable only as it meets human needs.  It is a human-centered ethos (also known as an “anthropocentric” focus) in which people think about how nature can serve their own needs or wants, and focus on mastery and control of nature, not an appreciation of it.  In shallow ecology, “wilderness is wasted unless developed.” In other words, the rain forests exist to provide resources for human use,minerals exist to be mined, and plants exist to be used by human beings. In this framework, as is evident today, humans are increasingly alienated from nature by their modern technologies. Driving in cars, sitting inside in air conditioning, we are comforted by our technologies, but exist apart from nature; we care less and less about it, seeing it as something to use, rather than something to value.

“For shallow ecology the forest becomes a collection of discrete resources measured by their respective values to an exploitative human society; for deep ecology, the forest has an intrinsic value distinct from human society’s use for it.”

Like Winston, Somma argues that we need a new type of ethics: “Such transformation requires a new social movement and a positive vision of a new society, the likes of which does not yet exist and remains to be invented.” And whether or not this transformation needs to be as extreme as Deep Ecology, it nevertheless raises some important questions:

Does the planet have intrinsic value, apart from its value of being used as a resource for human beings?  Should we care about nature for nature’s sake?

Is nature important to humanity, or can we alter it to any extent to meet our needs, even if that means a destruction of biodiversity, and even, as deep ecologist Bill McKibben writes, “The End Of Nature”?

If nature does have intrinsic value, what steps would human beings have to take to “put nature first”?  Reducing populations? Reducing waste?  Even abandoning the development or use of modern technologies that affect the planet negatively?  At what point do you draw the line between valuing nature, and living a comfortable life? Is driving a car reasonable? How about eating meat?  Cutting down forests for housing developments?

Reflecting on these questions is critical to how we will address the environmental issues facing us today.  Ultimately, they also cause us to ask,  ”What, for me, is an ethically sustainable way of living?”

Leave your reflections about the principles of Deep Ecology and a “new ethics” below.

Watch a video explaining Shallow and Deep Ecology:

Questions:

Address any of the questions above, or these below:

In what ways has the technology  influenced our relationship with the natural world?

Does the planet have value intrinsically apart from its value for human use?

What steps do you think human beings should take to live ethically and eco-consciously in the 21st century?

Just ask Team California, a group of undergraduate students from Santa Clara University and California College of the Arts who were recently awarded 3^rd place in The Solar Decathlon competition in Washington D.C. for their tremendous achievements in building a sustainable, solar-powered, energy-efficient home. Today’s post is written by Santa Clara student and Team California member Preet Anand, who has been working on this project along with his team for over 20 months.  In it, Preet describes the technologies utilized in the award-winning Refract House, the experience of competing in The Solar Decathlon, and the message driving Team California’s success: Green living doesn’t have to be a compromise.  Preet’s post, ahead.

Preet Anand is a Senior Engineering Physics major at Santa Clara University.  Too curious, he has actually been in each of the three schools at SCU (Business, Engineering, and Arts and Sciences).  He was one of the core leaders and a man of many hats in Santa Clara’s 2009 Solar Decathlon entry.  He’s already looking for the next great project.  He can be reached at panand@scu.edu.

What I Learned At The Solar Decathlon

Team California at The Solar Decathlon in Washington D.C.

Opening

I came to Silicon Valley because I felt that it was the area in America where literally anything could happen.  My experience in Solar Decathlon really showed that was true.  Who would imagine undergraduate college students building a solar home that was impressive enough to earn mention in publications such as Popular Mechanics or be featured on CNN?

I was actually brought into it by Jeff Abercrombie because he knew my desire for a good project and assured me it would “not be a disappointment”.  I learned some critical life skills and met some of the most impressive people in the world.  It was a success that taught me the worth of camaraderie and collaboration. The experience was so amazing, and such a big part of me, that I already feel the void in my life just after three weeks.

What is the Refract House?

Photo Courtesy of Stefano Paltera/U.S. Department of Energy Solar Decathlon

The Refract House was an 800 square-foot solar-powered home built for the U.S. Department of Energy Competition known as the Solar Decathlon.  It was created by Santa Clara University in partnership with California College of the Arts.  Compared with a traditional green-home that normally espouses the efficient shape of a box, the Refract House is bent around a courtyard to resemble a ‘C’ shape.  Our motto in building the Refract House was that “green building is not a compromise”.  We wanted to prove that green is not synonymous with sacrifice and that a homeowner could be sustainable yet comfortable.  With the accolades we won: 1^st in Architecture, 2^nd in Engineering, and 3^rd in Market Viability, we are sure we succeeded.

Below is a list of some of the house’s compelling features:

• Radiant Cooling and Heating to provide a more comfortable, efficient, and hygienic home conditioning system.

• A gray water filtration system to sustainably irrigate the landscape.

• A pond that is a wonderful aesthetic feature but also serves for rainwater catchment.

• Student designed artwork and a couch stuffed with denim insulation

• Quartz countertops, back painted glass, and a re-circulation pump for a low-maintenance interior.

• Large South-facing windows to invite the outside in.

• A touch screen that not only allows control of the lighting, temperature, and operable windows, but also informs the user of their energy and water usage.

Sustaining our Built Environment

The purpose of the Refract House was specifically to tackle the energy and sustainability issues provoked by the built environment most intimate to us: our homes.  In many ways, as pointed out by the renowned designer William McDonough, our homes are the embodiment of our inefficient practices.  They aren’t well insulated, so they leak energy.  They are too big, so we have to cut corners to save money.  They are built to put up, but with no thought of how to re-use materials in demolition.

The Solar Decathlon provides an opportunity to demonstrate a new way for homes to receive their energy.  The competition, through its ten contests, challenges universities to build homes that achieve all the tasks necessary of a normal home, but within the framework of a green, solar-powered design.  Additionally though, it mandates 9 days of exhibit for the public to walk through and learn from these homes.  It invites them to consider things they can do in their own home such as insulating their hot water tanks or investing in Smart Strips to reduce phantom loads (where electronics that are ‘off’ are still drawing power).  In our case, we had over 15,000 people walk through the Refract House.

However despite being an icon of a green building, in building the Refract House, sustainability often clashed with winning the Solar Decathlon.  For example, we were not allowed to utilize filtered graywater, water that has already been used by the home but doesn’t have biological particulate e.g. shower water, in our reflecting pool.  California, which is facing an impending water crisis, allows water that has reached appropriate cleanliness standards to be used in water features.  So, fresh water was wasted there.

Another example of the challenges of sustainability would be with the frames of our windows.  Aluminum, what we used as the frames of our windows, is a conductor, so it will transmit heat either into or out of the home.  Vinyl, another material used for window frames, is a better insulator, but it cannot be recycled.  Although it would make us perform marginally worse in a contest, we were more concerned with the life-cycle of the material and preferred to use Aluminum because it was readily recyclable at the end of the Refract House’s life.

Brought altogether, the Refract House was a spectacular demonstration of not just solar living, but of sustainable practice.  Our ability to forward this message to the public is what garnered us a 1^st place in the Communications contest.

What is Sustainability? Why is Education about it Important?
Sustainability is not just about climate change, it’s about survival.  Our Engineering Manager, Tim Sennott wisely said,” we have to be smarter about the way we live on this planet. . . The way nature works is also the only way we can: zero-waste, solar-powered, and fueled by constant innovation.”  The term ‘Green’ is usually more relevant to climate change and the environment, while sustainability is a bit more encompassing with reference to surpassing resource extinction.  The two are often used interchangeably.

“We have to be smarter about the way we live on this planet”

Education is important because ‘greenwashing’ has become rampant.  Greenwashing is when companies label their products as ‘green’ just to utilize the positive publicity that is now associated with the word because of works such as ‘An Inconvenient Truth’.  We have to be sustainable with our money.  The billionaire venture capitalist Vinod Khosla speaks of this when he says that just from the perspective of carbon emissions, someone can negate the same amount by painting their roof white as they would by driving a Prius.

The change necessary to achieve sustainability won’t come from a select few; it needs the weight of everyone, especially the American consumer.  For example, people should know the difference between post-consumer and post-production recycled products.  They should be asking about the product: how much energy was used to make the product, how was it transported, can it be recycled, will it break down in a landfill or be around for 1000 years?  Do the company’s employees actually employ sustainable practice?  Most importantly, am I going to be throwing this out really soon?

For Californians, a great thing that can be done at home is simply harvesting the rainwater that hits your roof.  Just connect your downspouts to some sort of water tank; you can use that water later on for irrigation.  Be more energy efficient by ensuring your lights are turned off and your refrigerator is full (a full refrigerator uses less energy than an empty one due to the influence of thermal mass).  For a great list of things you can do at home, check out what was made by Team California at http://www.refracthouse.com/index.php/concept/what/ .  Without a doubt though, the most important thing you can do for more sustainable practice is to educate yourself and take action.

What do we have to put in?

We no longer need to be complacent to the plans of production.  Using our education, we can create change and transparency.  However, for companies that want to create this change, being ‘Green’ isn’t enough.  To achieve traction in the world market, effectiveness and economics are just as important as emotion.  A sustainable product either needs to be cost-competitive or more useful than its alternatives.   The Refract House was much more expensive than a contemporary house, coming in at about $600 per square foot.  However, on top of an owner not having to pay a power bill for the next 25 years, the house is also extremely comfortable and will save the owner time (something that may actually supersede money).

As Al Gore said, “Money or the entire World?”

As these products become more prevalent, by the nature of cost curves, their prices will further come down.  Yet to create the initial opportunity, we need either the help of honest policy or of activist consumers.  It will be a big investment for us, but as Al Gore said, “Money or the entire World?”

Whether to mitigate the impact of climate change on the world populace’s health, our crops, and animals, or simply to diversify our energy resources, there should be no doubt we need it.  After all, the sovereign investment funds that have been buying pieces of American companies are all fueled with oil wealth.

Santa Clara made an investment in the Solar Decathlon to build the future.  Now let’s bring it into the present.

Watch SCU’s Allison Kopf on The Refract House:

Watch Team California Take 1st Place in Communications:

Make sure to check out more video, including a time lapse of Team California building The Refract House, here.

For more information, visit www.RefractHouse.com and http://www.solardecathlon.org/.

Leave your comments about Team California, The Solar Decathlon, and The Refract House below!

Historically, ethical frameworks have rarely considered our moral obligations to “nature”– the planet was too vast and seemingly unalterable to be considered in our decision-making. Concerns for destroying the food chain, changing the climate patterns, or poisoning soil that would affect people for thousands of years to come were simply not considered because the planet seemed impervious to mankind’s actions. 

But technology has changed everything. From nuclear power to genetic engineering to global warming, humans now have the ability to fundamentally reshape the course of the planet. What questions does having this power raise, and how can we address them?

At The Technological Citizen, we will be exploring the impact that technology has on the environment on a broad level. What is green energy and how can we achieve it? What is agricultural biotechnology and how is it shaping the future of food and plant systems? But also, we will be looking at the technologies we use each day and their impact. Where do our iPods, cell phones, and computers go when we throw them away? What chemicals are in the products we use each day, and what affect do they have on the environment?

In moving forward through the technological era, we must reflect on these issues and assess how we are to proceed: the future of the planet is at stake. Tune into The Technological Citizen to explore these topics in more detail.

The Technological Citizen is a forum to explore and exchange ideas about the issues that arise from modern technologies. A wide variety of topics will be explored, including the ethics of cognitive enhancement, genetic testing, and biotechnologies, as well as the way in which technology impacts our relationship with other people, the environment, and ourselves.

Postings will fall under five basic categories:

Technology and Society
Technology and The Environment
Neuroethics
Ethical Issues in Health and Biotechnology
The Future of Technology

If you are interested in seeing all the posts on one particular topic, please click on that topic heading under “Categories”.

Thanks for checking out the blog! I look forward to hearing your ideas about these topics.