Abstract

The three main stages of the global electronics hardware life cycle—mining, manufacturing, and disposal—are responsible for myriad socio-environmental dilemmas, including health issues, labor rights abuses, greenhouse gas emissions, and environmental contamination. The goal of this case study is to explore these deleterious impacts using environmental justice and climate justice as key frameworks. These frameworks help identify how inequitable climate change outcomes, environmental destruction, and health disparities result from systemic and structural issues in our global economic, political, and social systems. In addition, we introduce life cycle assessment and circular economy as mechanisms to explore and address specific environmental and climate justice issues throughout the electronics hardware life cycle. After reviewing impacts of mining, manufacturing, and disposal, we conclude by assessing higher education’s role in expanding awareness, and the potential of LCA and CE in mitigating these issues around the globe.

🎧 Listen to an audio version of this case study.

Keywords: environmental justice, climate justice, electronics, mining, manufacturing, e-waste, life cycle assessment, circular economy

Top Row (Left to Right):
Lelia Hampton*, Madeline Schlegel*^§, Ellie Bultena*

Middle Row (Left to Right):
Jasmin Liu*, Anastasia Dunca*, Mrinalina Singha*

Bottom Row (Left to Right):
Sungmoon Lim*, Lauren Higgins*, Christopher Rabe*^¶

* SERC Scholars Program, MIT
§ Northeastern University
¶ Environmental Solutions Initiative, MIT

Authors’ Note: Funding for postdoc and student time on this project was provided by the SERC Scholars Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).

Learning Objectives

• Explore the environmental and climate justice implications of the global electronics hardware life cycle.

• Review specific instances of climate and environmental justice issues associated with the mining of minerals, electronics manufacturing, and electronic waste (e-waste).

• Evaluate which stakeholder groups across the world are most impacted by the electronics hardware life cycle.

• Become familiar with the basic definitions of environmental justice, climate justice, life cycle analysis, and circular economy, and understand their potential application to assessing and mitigating socio-environmental impacts within a product’s life cycle.

• Gain awareness of some subthemes related to the electronics industry such as the right to repair and planned obsolescence.

1. Introduction

Inside the basement and loading docks of the Stata Center at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), students and community members sift through piles of electronics that have been discarded by various departments, labs, and centers.1 This collection of e-waste is organized in between fenced-in spaces and consists of old printers, copiers, fluorescent lights, computer monitors, lab equipment, and much more.2^,3 The community members exploring these electronic devices are composed of MIT students and staff who sometimes refer to themselves as “crufters.” This term has historical relevance to MIT4 and has been described by MIT alumni as “being able to take cruft [junk, discarded items] and make it work again, or do something new and useful.”5^,6

We begin this case study with this scene of crufting as a reminder that at individual and organizational levels, we participate in the cycle of electronic device consumption, which involves material extraction, production, use, and disposal and causes interrelated climate, environmental, and social justice dilemmas across the globe.7^,8^,9 Despite growing awareness of these issues, relatively little discussion has focused on how the electronics hardware life cycle intersects with issues of environmental and climate justice.10

The environmental justice (EJ) movement began in the United States in the early 1980s and sought to document and confront the ways marginalized communities11 experience inequitable environmental burdens.12 The EJ field emerged to address these inequities and has expanded to include new subfields such as climate justice, which has a broader, more global focus. These two fields also provide theoretical frameworks to better understand how inequitable climate change outcomes, health disparities, or environmental destruction result from systemic and structural issues present in our economic, political, and social systems. In addition, climate justice provides a powerful framework that argues for critical and transformational measures to address the climate crisis as the most urgent injustice of our times.13^,14

Jennie C. Stephens, a scholar of sustainability science and policy, provides more details on this framework, explaining that “climate justice requires recognizing that:

• Many policies, processes, and practices of wealthy elite institutions and individuals are the drivers of climate change;

• The impacts of climate disruptions and the capacity to adapt are distributed unequally among and within local and global communities; and

• Equitable climate adaptation and strengthening climate resilience requires new transformative investments, innovations, and actions to rectify the disproportionate burdens on those who are most vulnerable to ongoing and future climate impacts.”15

In line with this framework from Stephens, this case study explores how systemic practices from governments and corporations associated with the electronics hardware industry exacerbate climate and environmental injustices among marginalized communities in the Global South, and integrates two possible mechanisms for confronting these injustices.

The first mechanism is called life cycle assessment (LCA), which is used to evaluate the environmental, economic, and social impacts of products throughout their life cycle. Traditional LCA primarily focuses on environmental and economic metrics such as greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, contamination,16 and resource depletion,17 so it can often exclude complex variables that attempt to understand social impacts. However, it has become more common to include indicators of social impact and risk as a part of an LCA, which is sometimes referred to as social LCA (S-LCA).18 For the purposes of this case study, we will mainly use the term “LCA” and clarify what indicators are being measured when appropriate.19

To conduct a basic LCA, there are four common iterative steps that are similar in nature to many other kinds of research methods:

1. Define the Goal and Scope of Your Study: Choose a product or organization and a specific impact category; decide on environmental, economic, or social indicators as the unit of analysis. Stakeholder groups and social categories would be selected in S-LCA.

2. Life Cycle Inventory: Access or collect data in an interactive process. Researchers can measure (qualitatively or quantitatively) the impact of a particular product or system during the life cycle stage(s) and context selected.

3. Impact Assessment: Assess and translate data into clear impacts. Summarize impact category totals such as GHG emissions or workplace conditions.

4. Interpretation: All data are comprehensively interpreted, limitations identified, and recommendations developed. Findings are translated for relevant stakeholders, and implications are clearly disseminated for impact in real-world scenarios.20^,21

The second model is called circular economy (CE). The idea of a CE is rooted in decreasing the use of raw materials by maximizing the reuse and recycling of resources, materials, and waste in order to make consumption and production more sustainable and efficient.22 However, there is currently no standardized way to assess the success of different CE practices or policies in improving the overall sustainability and efficiency of a particular consumption or production pattern.23 Given this, LCA is increasingly discussed as a tool to ensure a sustainable and just CE transition, as it is able to measure the social and environmental impacts that are excluded from traditional economic analysis.24 See (ref?).

This case study explores the three main areas of the global life cycle of electronics hardware—extraction (mineral mining), manufacturing, and disposal—through the lens of environmental and climate justice. First, we explore the mining of rare minerals in the Amazon region. Second, we provide a brief review of the socio-environmental costs of electronics manufacturing. And third, we focus on the growing e-waste crisis. In the closing section, we conclude by assessing the role of higher education and the potential of LCA and CE in addressing some of the complex environmental and climate justice issues associated with the modern electronics hardware life cycle.

2. Mining, Deforestation, and Forest Fires

“If the situation continues as it is, with fires growing, within a few years there will be no forest, no Indigenous peoples, no game to hunt. And this is not just for the Indigenous peoples, I believe it is for the world. The world will miss it. What do we breathe? We breathe in oxygen, we breathe in the forest, and we have to stop burning it.”

–Yoka Manchineri, Indigenous nurse in Brazil specializing in Indigenous health25

A massive demand exists for mining in the computing industry because modern electronic devices contain on average more than 60 minerals.26 Mining production is heavily concentrated in the Global South, where workers pay a heavy price to mine precious metals for electronic devices. Miners in the Global South are typically subject to low wages and deadly conditions.27^,28 Armed groups often force child labor, and children often face severe injury or death.29 These “conflict minerals” end up in our phones and other devices.30 For example, the demand for cobalt for personal phones and electric vehicles fuels genocide and armed conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo,31 which produces 60 percent of the world’s cobalt.32

Because it releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, deforestation for industrial mining presents a critical climate change issue.33 According to the World Bank, “44 percent of all operational mines” are in forests.34 This phenomenon mainly harms regions within the Global South, as Indonesia, Brazil, Ghana, and Suriname experience 80 percent of global deforestation caused by the demand for industrial mining.35 Brazil and Ghana contain gold deposits coveted for various electronics,36 including personal computers, smart phones, and electric vehicles. Iron ore, which is “Brazil’s largest mineral export” and often used for electronics, contributes to the country’s deforestation.37

Demand for metals incentivizes encroachment onto Indigenous lands that leads to illegal deforestation and mining operations in the Amazon,38 threatening the livelihoods of the most economically vulnerable.39 The rise in deforestation due to mineral demand for electronics results in an increase in forest fires, which release GHGs into the atmosphere. However, forest fires due to Amazonian deforestation do not occur naturally.40 Miners often illegally and intentionally burn the forests on Indigenous land to clear it for mining.41

These activities have left 34 million people in the Amazon vulnerable to mortality as well as respiratory and cardiovascular morbidity associated with “air pollution from forest fires.”42 An air quality monitoring system of sensors in the Indigenous state of Acre showed that “particulate matter in the air is ‘two to three or even four times higher’ than the safe limit recommended by the World Health Organization.”43 Some Indigenous areas have experienced a rise in respiratory illnesses, including “asthma, chronic obstructive lung disease, upper respiratory tract infection, and community-acquired pneumonia.”44 Unfortunately, Indigenous people typically have more pre-existing conditions and less immunity, which exacerbates health disparities related to forest fires.45 Lowered immunity heightens risk of hospitalization and contracting COVID-19, for instance.46 However, some Indigenous people avoid urban hospitals due to discrimination.47

The Amazon is home to more than 380 Indigenous groups of peoples, who, despite “a very low carbon footprint,” face “the consequences of climate change” due to deforestation from mining and associated forest fires.48 Indigenous lands in the Brazilian Amazon are crucial to slow global warming: These lands serve as a carbon sink, unlike other forests in the region, and account for the least forest loss, which has been attributed to the local Indigenous people’s commitment to preserving and stewarding their lands.49^,50

While many Indigenous people work diligently to protect their ancestral lands, they increasingly face harassment, threats, arrest, gunfire, and murder.51 Even so, these communities press forward to defend their lands. While the picture is bleak, there is a way forward that promotes climate action and justice for Indigenous communities. Recognizing Indigenous lands is paramount, so they can steward and protect their ancestral lands.52 Indigenous people already spearhead “reforestation initiatives” and monitor the biome in the Amazon.53 Thus, they should have the opportunity to continue this work under safe conditions and legal protections.

LCA can be an informative tool to assess the issues affecting local communities in the Amazon as well as promoting sustainability among value-chain actors.54 We must strengthen environmental regulations and “environmental law enforcement” that previous Brazilian presidents weakened,55 including legal consequences for “unlawful intruders.”56 Protected area designation of public land is an important policy tool because it decreases deforestation.57 Governments and donors should increase development funding to Indigenous communities to protect forests.58 Demand for electronics results in demand for mining in the Amazon, contributing to climate injustices such as deforestation, food insecurity, savannization, and health inequities. Given sufficient legal protections and resources, Indigenous people can mitigate these climate injustices and preserve the Amazon, a critical carbon sink to address the climate crisis.

Discussion Questions

1. Discuss the tensions between mining for economic development and climate justice. Can they coexist? Why or why not?

2. Mining is often touted as indispensable due to the need for minerals in “green” technology. Do you think the potential benefit to climate mitigation outweighs the costs to local communities and environments? Why or why not?

3. Imagine you are a researcher performing a study that introduces an LCA for mining in the Amazon. Review (ref?) on LCA. Choose an LCA stakeholder and impact subcategory based on Figure 4. Scope research questions based on your choice.

3. The Socio-Environmental Costs of Electronics Manufacturing

“We thought at first that maybe it was because of static electricity, because this work involves making the green circuit boards that go into electronic products. So maybe, we thought, you could try quitting work. But even after she quit, her period was still irregular. She got the brain tumor while she was being treated for her irregular periods…”

–Kim Shinyeo, speaking on behalf of her daughter, Han Hye-kyung, a former factory worker for Samsung59

As the demand for electronics increases across the globe, electronics manufacturing has increased in kind.60 With this increase in electronics manufacturing comes an increase in its impact on the surrounding environment and community, as well as the climate as a whole, with the industry seeing a 187 percent increase in emissions since 1990.61 People like Han Hye-kyung, who worked at a Samsung LCD factory from 1995 to 2001, reap few benefits from the world’s technological advancements and instead are burdened with the resulting environmental injustices, such as the health issues that Han Hye-kyung experienced.62 There are nearly 120,000 other women like Han Hye-kyung that still currently work in semiconductor factories in South Korea,63 but globally, there are an estimated 20 million people who work in electronics manufacturing who face similar risks.64^,65 See Figure 5.

Due to advancements in energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy throughout the electronics hardware production process, the manufacturing process accounts for the majority of carbon emissions in the electronics life cycle.66 For example, 86 percent of carbon emissions from the production of the iPhone 11 came from manufacturing.67 The contribution of electronics manufacturing to furthering climate change is a significant climate justice issue. Although most of the growth in the electronics manufacturing sector is attributed to increased demand of electronics in wealthy countries in the Global North, the countries that will be most intensely affected by the effects of climate change, to which electronics manufacturing contributes greatly, are countries in the Global South.68^,69

Furthermore, these countries in the Global South are also disproportionately burdened with the environmental and human health risks associated with electronics manufacturing.70^,71^,72^,73 Not only does electronics manufacturing emit ambient particulate matter—the sixth leading cause of death across the world74—but exposure to many of the chemicals used in the electronics manufacturing process can lead to health issues like cancer, lung disease, and reproductive disorders, both at factory sites and from nearby bodies of water.75^,76 Some evidence even suggests that exposure to these chemicals could cause intergenerational health issues.77 The first to bear the brunt of these environmental harms are the electronics manufacturing workers, who are often female, low-income, immigrants, or belong to a racial or ethnic minority,78 while communities that live near electronics manufacturing sites are also subjected to worse health outcomes.79

The greatest rise in electronics manufacturing has taken place in the Global South—sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, specifically—as a result of low wages and lax environmental regulations.80 These countries are commonly treated as sources of cheap labor and as a dumping ground for environmental harm, which one scholar describes as the exportation of environmental hazards.81 For these reasons, electronics manufacturing is a source of striking environmental and climate justice concerns.

Although there has been increasing attention given to the socio-environmental harms of electronics manufacturing in the past few decades, tangible solutions to these issues are underdeveloped, complex, and intersect with other areas of the electronics hardware life cycle. For example, there has been a growing global awareness of the idea of the CE.82 Because the foundational concept of the CE is to reduce dependence on nonrenewable resources as much as possible, it could help decrease the climate and environmental impacts of electronics manufacturing through the adoption of renewable energy sources, for example. However, current CE practices fail to address the underlying environmental and climate justice impacts of the electronics manufacturing process and thus risk further perpetuating such injustices.83^,84^,85 Additionally, governmental regulation and consumer awareness are often cited as effective ways to put pressure on larger global electronics corporations to engage in safer manufacturing processes, but existing regulations are largely inadequate, and those that conduct LCAs, the primary vehicle for consumer awareness, often underestimate the significance of the manufacturing process in determining a product’s overall environmental, economic, and social impacts.86^,87

To work toward a more sustainable, humane, and environmentally just electronics manufacturing process, more robust research, such as LCAs, on the climate and environmental impacts of specific products must be conducted in order to develop effective solutions that are better tailored to these complex problems. Additionally, rather than placing the burden on consumers to seek out alternative electronics that are more ethical and sustainable, more environmental and labor regulations are needed at the national, regional, and global levels that put pressure on all electronics companies to clean up their manufacturing processes.88

Discussion Questions

1. Fair trade certifications, which identify goods that are produced without jeopardizing the health and safety of both workers and the environment, are much more common in the agricultural, food, and clothing industries.89 However, Fairphone, a company that makes responsibly and sustainably designed modular electronics, provides at least one example of fair trade in the electronics industry.90 Can you envision a situation in which our electronics have different levels of fair trade designations? Would you choose to buy electronics that claim to be manufactured in socially and ethically responsible ways? Why or why not?

2. The most popular proposed CE policies for the electronics manufacturing sector focus on addressing sustainability concerns, like transitioning to renewable energy to decrease carbon emissions, rather than focusing on addressing climate and environmental injustices.91 These sustainability-centered policies are less complicated and thus cheaper and faster to implement, whereas justice-centered policies are typically more expensive and time consuming. To what extent do you think governments and electronics companies should prioritize cost, timeliness, and justice when it comes to which CE policies they choose to implement?

3. Some LCAs have revealed that many technologies that aim to decrease climate or environmental harm may not actually do so. For example, one LCA that looked at the environmental impacts of electric vehicles found that their global warming potential is almost twice that of conventional vehicles primarily due to the emissions released during the manufacturing process.92 This same study emphasized the importance of considering the impacts of manufacturing when conducting LCAs in order to better understand the overall environmental benefits of such technologies. What are some other products or technologies that are intended to reduce climate and environmental impacts for which you would want to conduct a complete LCA?

4. The Growing E-Waste Crisis

“There are skin diseases and ailments [at Agbogbloshie, Ghana], but the worst problem here is respiratory illnesses, because the amount of pollution here is so high… In terms of particulate matter, the quality of air is terrible. The workers can’t do anything about it because they have to earn a living, so it’s a trade-off. They earn money but their health suffers.”

– Julius Fobil, a professor in the School of Public Health at the University of Ghana, who studies the health outcomes related to informal e-waste recycling in Africa93

As consumers ever more rapidly discard their old electronics for new ones, electronic waste, or e-waste, represents “the fastest growing waste stream in the world.”94 This issue is exacerbated by the planned obsolescence present in modern product design, which harms the people in informal recycling economies concentrated in the Global South who carry the burden of e-waste recycling. Due to hazardous chemicals and their decomposition, e-waste is extremely toxic for both people and the environment. However, with better regulations and recycling, e-waste demonstrates the potential to be extremely valuable in a CE.

Due to demand for new electronics and planned obsolescence, the Global North is a primary producer of e-waste. According to the Executive Secretary of the United Nations’ Solving the E-waste Problem (StEP),95 “The explosion is happening because there is so much technical innovation. TVs, mobile phones, and computers are all being replaced more and more quickly. The lifetime of products is also shortening.”96 Although the Global North produces the most e-waste,97 the bulk of e-waste ends up in the Global South due to lax environmental regulations and cheap labor.98^,99 For instance, the US exports up to 40 percent of its e-waste.100 Although Africa produces the least e-waste per capita,101 countries like Ghana, Nigeria, and Kenya bear a huge burden of e-waste disposal. See Figure 6.

E-waste directly leads to GHG emissions, resulting in severe climate health issues in the Global South.102 One study found that the Global South suffers significantly from emissions of the toxic chemical polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) from e-waste mostly generated by regions of Europe, North America, and parts of Asia.103 According to the study, the “vast majority” of PBDE emissions related to e-waste occur in China, India, Bangladesh, and Western Africa “at the end of a product’s life cycle.”104 PBDE exposure can lead to “thyroid problems, neurodevelopmental deficits, and cancer.”105 Moreover, e-waste often ends up in landfills, where it produces GHG emissions (e.g., methane).106 Open burning is a common practice in the Global South to remove metals,107 releasing carbon dioxide and methane108 and representing a significant occupational hazard for informal e-waste workers. High levels of methane pollution in the air can reduce the amount of breathable oxygen, and prolonged exposure can result in premature death.109 S-LCA can be a compelling tool to examine informal e-waste recyclers as a stakeholder group, by focusing on how emissions impact respiratory illness rates and outcomes.

Addressing the growing and critical e-waste problem requires a comprehensive approach. Buying a new phone costs less in the Global North than replacing an old phone, enabling companies to profit from sales of new products and satisfy growing consumer demand.110 Often, consumers throw away functioning devices, as demonstrated by the example of crufting at MIT.111 Increasing the life cycle of electronics by delaying upgrades, conserving electronics in a way that extends their useful life, and repairing devices is key. However, in many instances, copyrighted software on electronics legally prohibits users from repairing their devices. Thus, the right to repair devices is crucial to address the climate justice issues surrounding e-waste. Moreover, extended producer responsibility requires electronics companies to manage and dispose of devices as well as “provide consumers with free and convenient e-waste recycling.”112 Companies can then use valuable materials from e-waste in new products.113 LCA serves as a resource for the electronics industry to promote environmental and climatic corporate responsibility in their supply chain and take accountability for products’ end-of-life.114

Currently, the world only recycles a meager fraction of e-waste, directing 80 percent to landfills.115 Moving to a CE is important to recirculate rather than waste resources.116 Recycling more e-waste would curb landfill emissions and reclaim precious metals.117 Recycling precious metals is cheaper than mining and can address shortages of raw materials for electronics due to heightened demand.118

Lax environmental and labor regulations present a key climate injustice issue in the e-waste sector. Many industries and countries in the Global North illegally export their e-waste to the informal e-waste sector in developing countries, which often have fewer regulations and cheaper recycling. In contrast, the regulated formal e-waste sector typically has a strong record of adhering to health and safety rules.119 Formal workers operate pollution-control technologies that lessen “the health and environmental hazards of handling e-waste.”120 While both the Global North and South have formal e-waste sectors, informal e-waste workers tend to live in the Global South. Although it presents health and environmental hazards, the informal e-waste sector is integral to the livelihoods of many in the developing world. Thus, some countries, such as India and China, have proposed to “integrate the informal and formal recycling” sectors.121 One suggestion is to “give informal recyclers financial incentives to divert e-waste to formal collection or recycling centers.”122 Notably, regulations to protect workers, the environment, local communities, and human health are a critical approach to address the climate justice implications of e-waste.

The Global North’s insatiable demand, combined with limited recycling opportunities, contribute to an ever-growing e-waste crisis. The current mechanisms of disposal and recycling of e-waste emit GHGs, polluting communities’ water, air, and soil. The most economically vulnerable groups suffer numerous dire health outcomes. E-waste requires a comprehensive approach, particularly extending the useful life of electronics; promoting a CE, the right to repair, and extended producer responsibility; recycling more e-waste; and protecting informal e-waste workers from environmental and health hazards, especially in the Global South. Achieving climate justice with respect to e-waste depends on these solutions.

Discussion Questions

1. What might pose challenges to the proposed solutions to the issues surrounding e-waste? Why might certain stakeholders oppose any of the solutions?

2. How do the climate justice implications of e-waste relate to other social justice issues in the Global South (e.g., economic injustice, dangerous low-wage jobs, exploitation of lax environmental regulations, legacies of colonialism)?123 Describe connections between the climate justice issues of e-waste, manufacturing, and mining.

3. What are your thoughts on the role of the CE in addressing issues in the electronics hardware life cycle? Could recycling e-waste help reduce natural resource extraction for electronics hardware manufacturing, or is this an overly ambitious assumption? Why or why not?

4. Imagine that your supervisor at your non-governmental organization has asked you to collect data for an LCA, giving you the question “How do emissions in the informal e-waste sector impact workers’ health and safety?” What data would you collect to inform an LCA to answer this question?124 What challenges, if any, do you foresee in data collection?

5. Conclusion: Higher Education’s Role in Expanding Awareness

“I think if I remained in the big-tech-world and didn’t take your class, I wouldn’t have started thinking about these complicated health effects [related to climate impacts and fossil fuel burning] and general need for awareness. [University of Washington Computer Science] didn’t reveal any of this to me which is a bit annoying to me now.”

–Undergraduate student who took a climate justice–focused chemistry course to transition from a career in big tech to a career in medicine125

This case study broadly reviewed the environmental and climate justice implications of the electronics hardware life cycle. We also explored how LCA can play a role in addressing these issues and accelerate the transition to a more sustainable CE. To recap, an LCA that robustly examines environmental, economic, and social indicators is critical for organizations, companies, and governments to create new social policies, support decision making processes that impact stakeholders,126 manage social risks in hotspots, provide new credibility to support the disclosure of social issues, and ensure a better understanding of the intersection of social and environmental problems.127 Finally, LCA can aid in the transition to a CE by:

• Providing holistic (social, economic, environmental) measurement of new CE performance of electronics by developing and testing circularity indicators for product life stages.128

• Supporting emerging economies’ transition (especially in the Global South) toward socially responsible, regulated, and sustainable circularity.129

• Building consensus among the LCA and CE research and professional community.130 See Figure 7.

One approach to expanding awareness on environmental and climate justice, LCA, and CE in the life cycle of electronics is through higher education research and coursework. However, one study at a university in the Global North found computer science students are generally not familiar with the extractive relationship between mining and electronics in the Global South, nor its impact on local communities,131 and at one technological institution of higher education, less than 4 percent of courses across all STEM departments cover environmental and climate justice topics.132 Additionally, there exists a significant gap in academic research pertaining to the ethical and socio-environmental impacts of the electronics hardware life cycle.133 This suggests that computing or electrical engineering students may also not be familiar with LCA, CE, or other topics related to the electronics hardware life cycle. How does this influence computing students’ decision-making when choosing their academic path and transitioning into a computing or technology professions?

The influence of institutions of higher education extends far beyond what takes place on campus. Computing college graduates often go into technology companies that directly implicate environmental and climate justice issues, potentially exacerbating environmental inequities, and although not typically considered climate-oriented, computing and mechanical engineering jobs nowadays can fall within the climate sector as there are many related subfields emerging.134 Furthermore, the research that is conducted at institutions of higher education has rippling effects on industry.135

Because this case study broadly reviewed the issues present in the three main stages of the electronics life cycle, it is critical that future work provides more in-depth analysis within one specific stage, stakeholder group, or impact category. In addition, we introduced the growing interconnection between environmental and climate justice, LCA, and CE. Future research could more systematically and deeply explore these connections.136 Relatedly, new initiatives in higher education could assess and change how computing students and professionals are educated on the environmental and climate justice impacts of the electronics hardware life cycle and explore new and innovative applications to LCA and CE specific to new trends in hardware. Finally, more work could be done on other transformational and critical approaches that seek to address the root causes of climate and environmental injustices within different electronic products’ life cycles. As demand increases for electronic devices, it is imperative to continue to expand research and action in this area that can create actionable steps toward a more just and sustainable global electronics hardware industry.137

Discussion Questions

1. Have you ever been exposed to any of these issues in your previous coursework? Should computing courses and research in higher education be tasked with focusing more on LCA and CE in the context of the electronics hardware life cycle? Why or why not? If yes, what should this look like?

2. After reviewing Figure 7, which aspect of the CE or LCA process stands out to you as having the most potential to address climate and environmental injustices or sustainability challenges? Which area faces the most potential challenges now and in the future? How do you see LCA interacting with CE in addressing these issues?

3. How could you address some of the environmental and climate justice issues associated with electronics hardware—either in your position within higher education or in the future post-graduation? What challenges do you anticipate?

Supplemental Materials

Bibliography

Acharya, Manasa, and Chris Rabe. “Mapping and Expanding Climate and Environmental Justice in MIT’s STEM Departments.” MIT Environmental Solutions Initiative White Paper Series. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2023. https://environmentalsolutions.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Mapping-CEJ-in-MITs-STEM-Departments.pdf.

American Chemical Society. “Pulling Valuable Metals from E-waste Makes Financial Sense.” ScienceDaily, April 4, 2018. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/04/180404093956.htm.

American Public Health Association (APHA). “Improving Occupational and Environmental Health in the Global Electronics Industry.” APHA Policy Statement 20124, October 30, 2012. https://apha.org/policies-and-advocacy/public-health-policy-statements/policy-database/2014/07/21/08/43/improving-occupational-and-environmental-health-in-the-global-electronics-industry.

Babatola, Samuel Soledayo. “Global Burden of Diseases Attributable to Air Pollution.” Journal of Public Health in Africa 9, no. 3 (December 2018): 813. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc6326158/.

Ashton, Weslynne S., Chiara Farné Fratini, Cindy Isenhour, and Robert Krueger. “Justice, Equity, and the Circular Economy: Introduction to the Special Double Issue.” Local Environment 27, no. 10–11 (October 2022): 1173–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2022.2118247.

Benoît Norris, Catherine, Marzia Traverso, Sabrina Neugebauer, Elisabeth Ekener, Thomas Schaubroeck, Sara Russo Garrido, Markus Berger, et al., eds. Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment of Products and Organizations 2020. Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environment Programme, 2020. https://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Guidelines-for-Social-Life-Cycle-Assessment-of-Products-and-Organizations-2020-22.1.21sml.pdf.

Beyeler, Kelsey. “The Intersections of Climate and Racial Justice.” Amazon Aid, September 15, 2020. https://amazonaid.org/the-intersections-of-climate-and-racial-justice/.

Bozeman, Joe F., III, Erin Nobler, and Destenie Nock. “A Path Toward Systemic Equity in Life Cycle Assessment and Decision-Making: Standardizing Sociodemographic Data Practices.” Environmental Engineering Science 39, no. 9 (September 2022): 759–69. https://doi.org/10.1089/ees.2021.0375.

Brigham, Katie. “How Conflict Minerals Make It into Our Phones.” CNBC, February 15, 2023. https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/15/how-conflict-minerals-make-it-into-our-phones.html.

Campbell, Don. “More Developed Countries Dumping Toxic E-waste in Global South, U of T Researchers Find.” U of T News, April 13, 2012. https://www.utoronto.ca/news/more-developed-countries-dumping-toxic-e-waste-global-south-u-t-researchers-find.

Cheng, Kang-Chun. “Scrappy Endeavor.” Earth Island Journal, Spring 2021. https://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/magazine/entry/scrappy-endeavor.

Cho, Renée. “What Can We Do about the Growing E-waste Problem?” State of the Planet: News from the Columbia Climate School, August 27, 2018. https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2018/08/27/growing-e-waste-problem/.

European Parliament. “Circular Economy: Definition, Importance and Benefits.” Topics, May 23, 2023. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/topics/en/article/20151201STO05603/circular-economy-definition-importance-and-benefits.

Faber, Daniel. “Global Capitalism, Reactionary Neoliberalism, and the Deepening of Environmental Injustices.” Capitalism Nature Socialism 29, no. 2 (April 2018): 8–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/10455752.2018.1464250.

Fang, Amy. “Takedown Tuesday.” Medium, July 30, 2018. https://medium.com/@amyfang2/takedown-tuesday-5f3eb94df934.

Fawole, Akeeb Adepoju, Ochuko Felix Orikpete, Nwakamma Ninduwezuor Ehiobu, and Daniel Raphael Ejike Ewim. “Climate Change Implications of Electronic Waste: Strategies for Sustainable Management.” Bulletin of the National Research Centre 47, no. 1 (October 2023): 147. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42269-023-01124-8.

Forti, Vanessa, Cornelis Peter Baldé, Ruediger Kuehr, and Garam Bel. “The Global E-waste Monitor 2020: Quantities, Flows, and the Circular Economy Potential.” United Nations University (UNU)/United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR), co-hosted SCYCLE Programme, International Telecommunication Union (ITU) & International Solid Waste Association (ISWA), 2020. https://ewastemonitor.info/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/GEM_2020_def_july1_low.pdf.

Fortier, Marie-Odile P., Lemir Teron, Tony G. Reames, Dynta Trishana Munardy, and Breck M. Sullivan. “Introduction to Evaluating Energy Justice across the Life Cycle: A Social Life Cycle Assessment Approach.” Applied Energy 236 (February 2019): 211–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.11.022.

Ge, Mengpin, Johannes Friedrich, and Leandro Vigna. “4 Charts Explain Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Countries and Sectors.” World Resources Institute, February 6, 2020. https://www.wri.org/insights/4-charts-explain-greenhouse-gas-emissions-countries-and-sectors.

Ghana Carbon Market Office. “Ghana Takes Step to Reduce Methane Pollution in Agriculture, Waste Management.” Ghana Carbon Market Office, December 27, 2023. https://cmo.epa.gov.gh/index.php/2023/12/27/ghana-takes-step-to-reduce-methane-pollution-in-agriculture-waste-management.

Greenberg, Chris. “Amazon Rainforest Fires 2022: Facts, Causes, and Climate Impacts.” Greenpeace International, September 5, 2022. https://www.greenpeace.org/international/story/55533/amazon-rainforest-fires-2022-brazil-causes-climate/.

Gross, Terry. “How ‘Modern-Day Slavery’ in the Congo Powers the Rechargeable Battery Economy.” NPR, February 1, 2023. https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2023/02/01/1152893248/red-cobalt-congo-drc-mining-siddharth-kar.

Gupta, Udit, Young Geun Kim, Sylvia Lee, Jordan Tse, Hsien-Hsin S. Lee, Gu-Wei, David Brooks, and Carole-Jean Wu. “Chasing Carbon: The Elusive Environmental Footprint of Computing.” In 2021 IEEE International Symposium on High-Performance Computer Architecture, 854–67. New York: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1109/hpca51647.2021.00076.

Harlan, Sharon L., David N. Pellow, J. Timmons Roberts, Shannon Elizabeth Bell, William G. Holt, and Joane Nagel. “Climate Justice and Inequality.” In Climate Change and Society: Sociological Perspectives, edited by Riley E. Dunlap and Robert J. Brulle, 127–63. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199356102.003.0005.

Hawkins, Troy R., Bhawna Singh, Guillaume Majeau-Bettez, and Anders Hammer Strømman. “Comparative Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Conventional and Electric Vehicles.” Journal of Industrial Ecology 17, no. 1 (February 2013): 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00532.x.

Health Effects Institute. “State of Global Air 2018.” Health Effects Institute, 2018. https://www.stateofglobalair.org/resources/archived/state-global-air-2018-report.

Hickel, Jason. “Quantifying National Responsibility for Climate Breakdown: An Equality-Based Attribution Approach for Carbon Dioxide Emissions in Excess of the Planetary Boundary.” The Lancet Planetary Health 4, no. 9 (September 2020): e399–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2542-5196(20)30196-0.

Hira, Anil, Henrique Pacini, Alessandro Sanches Pereira, Kweku Attafuah-Wadee, Amir Rashid, Faith Gara, and Keru Munene. “Shifting to Circular Manufacturing in the Global South: Challenges and Pathways.” Journal of Developing Societies 38, no. 3 (September 2022): 310–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/0169796x221107217.

Iles, Alastair. “Mapping Environmental Justice in Technology Flows: Computer Waste Impacts in Asia.” Global Environmental Politics 4, no. 4 (November 2004): 76–107. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep.2004.4.4.76.

“Indigenous Lands Block Deforestation in Brazil, New Study Finds.” Al Jazeera, April 19, 2022. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/4/19/indigenous-lands-block-deforestation-in-brazil-new-study-finds.

International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC). “Children in Hazardous Work: What We Know, What We Need to Do.” Geneva, Switzerland: International Labour Organization, 2011. https://www.ilo.org/publications/children-hazardous-work-what-we-know-what-we-need-do-1.

Jazkowski, Evan. “Global Semiconductor & Electronic Parts Manufacturing: Market Research Report (2013-2028).” IBISWorld, November 2023. https://www.ibisworld.com/global/market-research-reports/global-semiconductor-electronic-parts-manufacturing-industry/#IndustryOverview.

Kelly, Annie. “Apple and Google Named in US Lawsuit Over Congolese Child Cobalt Mining Deaths.” The Guardian, December 16, 2019. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/dec/16/apple-and-google-named-in-us-lawsuit-over-congolese-child-cobalt-mining-deaths.

Kirchain, Randolph E., Jr., Jeremy R. Gregory, and Elsa A. Olivetti. “Environmental Life-Cycle Assessment.” Nature Materials 16, no. 7 (July 2017): 693–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat4923.

Krause, Dunja. “Transformative Approaches to Address Climate Change and Achieve Climate Justice.” In Routledge Handbook of Climate Justice, edited by Tahseen Jafry, 509–20. London: Routledge, 2018. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315537689-37.

Ku, Yu-ling. “Human Lives Valued Less Than Dirt: Former RCA Workers Contaminated by Pollution Fighting Worldwide for Justice (Taiwan).” In Challenging the Chip: Labor Rights and Environmental Justice in the Global Electronics Industry, edited by Ted Smith, David A. Sonnenfeld, and David Naguib Pellow, 181–90. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 2006. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt14bs81m.22.

Kuklinski, Alexandra. “Chemicals Appear at Every Stage of the Supply Chain.” In Human Rights Risks in the ICT Supply Chain, edited by bart plantenga, 37. Make ICT Fair, 2021. https://www.ed.ac.uk/files/atoms/files/human_rights_risks_in_the_ict_supply_chain_0.pdf.

Landrigan, Philip J., Richard Fuller, Nereus J R Acosta, Olusoji Adeyi, Robert Arnold, Niladri Nil Basu, Abdoulaye Bibi Baldé, et al. “The Lancet Commission on Pollution and Health.” The Lancet 391, no. 10119 (February 2018): 462–512. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(17)32345-0.

Lebbie, Tamba S., Omosehin D. Moyebi, Kwadwo Ansong Asante, Julius Fobil, Marie Noel Brune-Drisse, William A. Suk, Peter D. Sly, Julia Gorman, and David O. Carpenter. “E-waste in Africa: A Serious Threat to the Health of Children.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 16 (August 2021): 8488. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18168488.

Locke, Richard M., and Hiram Samel. “Beyond the Workplace: ‘Upstream’ Business Practices and Labor Standards in the Global Electronics Industry.” Studies in Comparative International Development 53, no. 1 (March 2018): 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12116-017-9258-6.

Maddox, Thomas, Pippa Howard, Jonathan Knox, and Nicky Jenner. “Forest-Smart Mining: Identifying Factors Associated with the Impacts of Large-Scale Mining on Forests.” World Bank Group Report 137696, April 1, 2019. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/104271560321150518/Forest-Smart-Mining-Identifying-Factors-Associated-with-the-Impacts-of-Large-Scale-Mining-on-Forests.

Magnani, Amanda. “Could Indigenous Communities in Brazil Hold Key to Climate Justice?” Al Jazeera, August 2, 2023. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/8/2/could-indigenous-communities-in-brazil-hold-key-to-climate-justice.

Mälkki, Helena, and Kari Alanne. “An Overview of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Research-Based Teaching in Renewable and Sustainable Energy Education.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 69 (March 2017): 218–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.176.

Meira, Teresa, and Giacomo D’Alisa. “Global Environmental Justice and Circular Economy.” In Circular Economy for Social Transformation: Multiple Paths to Achieve Circularity, edited by Renata Passaro, Patrizia Ghisellini, Mario Pansera, Stefania Barca, and Martin Calisto Friant, 209–20. Barcelona, Spain: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 2021. https://just2ce.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/D1_1-JUST2CE-Final-Version.pdf.

Mohai, Paul, David Pellow, and J. Timmons Roberts. “Environmental Justice.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 34, no. 1 ( November 2009): 405–30. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-082508-094348.

Moltesen, Andreas, Alexandra Bonou, Arne Wangel, and Kossara Petrova Bozhilova-Kisheva. “Social Life Cycle Assessment: An Introduction.” In Life Cycle Assessment: Theory and Practice, edited by Michael Z. Hauschild, Ralph K. Rosenbaum, and Stig Irving Olsen, 401–22. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56475-3_16.

Moreno Boluda, Inès, Elizabeth Patitsas, and Peter McMahan. “What Do Computer Scientists Know about Conflict Minerals?” paper presented at the Seventh Workshop on Computing within Limits (virtual), June 14, 2021. https://doi.org/10.21428/bf6fb269.64063bd7.

Moriyama, Victor. “In the Line of Fire: Indigenous Brigades Battling Forest Blazes in the Amazon.” The Guardian, September 28, 2023. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2023/sep/28/in-the-line-of-fire-indigenous-brigades-battling-forest-blazes-in-the-amazon.

National Minerals Information Center. “Mineral Commodity Summaries.” U.S. Geological Survey, 2024. https://www.usgs.gov/centers/national-minerals-information-center/mineral-commodity-summaries.

Obiuto, Nwankwo Constance, Kehinde Andrew Olu-lawal, Emmanuel Chigozie Ani, Ejike David gwuanyi, and Nwakamma Ninduwezuor-Ehiobu. “Chemical Management in Electronics Manufacturing: Protecting Worker Health and the Environment.” World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews 21, no. 3 (March 2024): 10–8. https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2024.21.3.0648.

Ogunbode, Charles A. “Climate Justice is Social Justice in the Global South.” Nature Human Behavior 6, no. 11 (November 2022): 1443. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01456-x.

O’Malley, Matty. “Global Consumer Electronics Manufacturing - Market Research Report (2013-2028).” IBISWorld, September 2023. https://www.ibisworld.com/global/market-research-reports/global-consumer-electronics-manufacturing-industry/#IndustryStatisticsAndTrends.

OnePointFive. “What Role Do Mechanical Engineers Have in Combatting Climate Change?” Wayback Machine, archived August 15, 2024. https://web.archive.org/web/20240815063819/https://www.opf.degree/our-blog/what-role-do-mechanical-engineers-have-in-combatting-climate-change.

Pellow, David Naguib. “Electronic Waste: The ‘Clean Industry’ Exports Its Trash.” In Resisting Global Toxics: Transnational Movements for Environmental Justice, 185–224. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2007. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/7479.003.0007.

Peña, Claudia, Bárbara Civit, Alejandro Gallego-Schmid, Angela Druckman, Armando Caldeira- Pires, Bo Weidema, and Eric Mieras. “Using Life Cycle Assessment to Achieve a Circular Economy.” Life Cycle Initiative, July 2020. https://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Using-LCA-to-achieve-circular-economy-LCI-July-2020.pdf.

Pollard, Jennifer, Mohamed Osmani, Christine Cole, Suzana Grubnic, James Colwill, and Ana Isabel Díaz. “Developing and Applying Circularity Indicators for the Electrical and Electronic Sector: A Product Lifecycle Approach.” Sustainability 14, no. 3 (January 2022): 1154. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031154.

Rautela, Rahul, Shashi Arya, Shilpa Vishwakarma, Jechan Lee, Ki-Hyun Kim, and Sunil Kumar. “E-waste Management and Its Effects on the Environment and Human Health.” The Science of the Total Environment 773 (June 2021): 145623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145623.

Remington Doucette, Sonya, Heather U. Price, Deb L. Morrison, and Irene Shaver. “Teaching STEM through Climate Justice and Civic Engagement.” Science Education and Civic Engagement 15, no. 1 (Winter 2023), 6–16. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1388898.pdf.

Reuters. “Indonesia, Brazil biggest Culprits in Tropical Forest Loss Linked to Industrial Mining: Study.” CNN, September 14, 2022. https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/14/world/indonesia-brazil-forest-loss-deforestation-mining-intl-hnk/index.html.

Ribeiro, Joselito Nardy, Angelo Fernando Melo Barbosa, Araceli Veronica Flores Nardy Ribeiro, Madson de Godoi Pereira, Jairo Pinto de Oliveira, Alan Bragança Zordan, and André Romero da Silva. “E-waste and Its Consequence for Environment and Public Health: Perspectives in Covid-19 Pandemic Times.” Global Journal of Health Science 14, no. 3 (February 2022): 54–76. https://doi.org/10.5539/gjhs.v14n3p54.

Santana, Valéria, and Juliana Ennes. “As The Amazon Burns, Its Indigenous Inhabitants Choke on the Haze.” Mongabay, December 23, 2021. https://news.mongabay.com/2021/12/as-the-amazon-burns-its-indigenous-inhabitants-choke-on-the-haze/.

Satell, Greg. “Innovative Companies Get Their Best Ideas From Academic Research — Here’s How They Do It.” Harvard Business Review, April 19, 2016. https://hbr.org/2016/04/innovative-companies-get-their-best-ideas-from-academic-research-heres-how-they-do-it.

Schroeder, Patrick, and Jack Barrie. “Is Going Circular Just? Environmental Justice and Just Transition – Key Elements for an Inclusive Circular Economy.” Field Action Science Reports 24 (2022): 20–5. https://journals.openedition.org/factsreports/6864.

Schwarzer, Stefan, Pascal Peduzzi, and UNEP/GRID-Geneva. “The Growing Footprint of Digitalisation.” United Nations Environment Programme, November 22, 2021. https://www.unep.org/resources/emerging-issues/growing-footprint-digitalisation.

Simpson, Cam. “American Chipmakers Had a Toxic Problem. Then They Outsourced It.” Bloomberg, June 15, 2017. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-06-15/american-chipmakers-had-a-toxic-problem-so-they-outsourced-it.

Smieja, John. “The Enormous Opportunity of E-waste Recycling.” World Economic Forum, March 24, 2023. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/03/the-enormous-opportunity-of-e-waste-recycling/.

Stahl, Bernd Carsten, Job Timmermans, and Brent Daniel Mittelstadt. “The Ethics of Computing: A Survey of the Computing-Oriented Literature.” ACM Computing Surveys 48, no. 4 (May 2016): 55. https://doi.org/10.1145/2871196.

Stephens, Jennie C. “Beyond Climate Isolationism: A Necessary Shift for Climate Justice.” Current Climate Change Reports 8, no. 4 (December 2022): 83–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40641-022-00186-6.

Sullivan, Zoe. “Mining Activity Causing Nearly 10 Percent of Amazon Deforestation.” Mongabay, November 2, 2017. https://news.mongabay.com/2017/11/mining-activity-causing-nearly-10-percent-of-amazon-deforestation/.

Sultana, Farhana. “Critical Climate Justice.” The Geographical Journal 188, no. 1 (March 2022): 118–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12417.

Umair, Shakila, Anna Björklund, and Elisabeth Ekener Petersen. “Social Impact Assessment of Informal Recycling of Electronic ICT Waste in Pakistan Using UNEP SETAC Guidelines.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling 95, no. 1 (February 2015): 46–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.11.008.

Veit, Peter, David Gibbs, and Katie Reytar. “Indigenous Forests Are Some of the Amazon’s Last Carbon Sinks.” World Resources Institute, January 6, 2023. https://www.wri.org/insights/amazon-carbon-sink-indigenous-forests.

Viana, Virgilio. “Health Climate Justice and Deforestation in the Amazon.” In Health of People, Health of Planet and Our Responsibility: Climate Change, Air Pollution and Health, edited by Wael K. Al-Delaimy, Veerabhadran Ramanathan, and Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo, 165–74. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31125-4_13.

Vidal, John. “Toxic ‘E-waste’ Dumped in Poor Nations, Says United Nations.” The Guardian, December 14, 2013. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/dec/14/toxic-ewaste-illegal-dumping-developing-countries.

Xie, Benjamin, Greg L. Nelson, Francisco Enrique Vicente Castro, Nicholas Lytle, and Briana Bettin. “Centering Environmental Justice in Computing Education.” In SIGCSE 2023: Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 2, edited by Maureen Doyle and Ben Stephenson, 1244. New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1145/3545947.3573343.

Yeung, Peter. “The Toxic Effects of Electronic Waste in Accra, Ghana.” Bloomberg, May 29, 2019. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-29/the-rich-world-s-electronic-waste-dumped-in-ghana.