SWITCH 25
Links ZERO1SJ/Fuse Interviews Projects Features Articles About

Ted Smith is the founder of Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition (SVTC) and the former Executive Director of SVTC - an activist group formed in response to the ground water contamination in San Jose from leaking electronics underground storage tanks. He advocates for more sustainable policies within electronics firms, and focuses on the hazards associated with their production hazards as well as their electronic waste - in fact, any materials- which can be hazardous that goes into the ground water and air causing severe consequences to human health and the environment.

I was very pleased to meet with Ted Smith regarding this semester's topic about "Green". Here are the answers about his work, his experiences and thoughts and the problems we encounter in one of the ways to go "green".

1) You have met the Dalai Lama. What an incredible experience. I am sure you had people asking you about that in the past.

What impression did you have about him?

I was very humbled and grateful to meet him and was very impressed by his compassion, his integrity, his inspiration, and his sense of humor!

Can you tell how this experience was different or if it wasn't?

He seems to be a very simple and very direct man who speaks with incredible dignity and spirituality that makes people want to listen and engage with him. I felt very inspired to be honored by him along with a wonderful group of people who are all doing great things to try to make our world a better place. One of the main things that I appreciate about him is that he combines spirituality with action as two sides of the same coin and that he lives his life in that same way.

What does the Dalai Lama think about sustainability and green technology?

He has a profound understanding of our unsustainable path and inspires us to learn to live in ways that will help to protect the planet. He is actually very knowledgeable about environmental science as well as spirituality, so he provides an excellent synthesis of the two. I'm not sure what he thinks about green technology, but my guess is that he supports it on a human scale - that is technology that can help individuals and communities rather than large scale projects that sometimes do more to benefit the private sector (profits) than the public sector (people). In other words, I suspect that he would be more in favor of community based efforts to provide clean and safe water than he would support large scale dams. I suspect that he also would believe that while technological progress is important to help people meet basic human needs, technology itself cannot be a panacea and that we can't place over-reliance on technology to solve all of our problems.

What impact did he have on you? Can you relate your role as a leader?

He talks a lot about humility and compassion and reliance on the masses of people to do the right thing when offered the opportunity. He also thinks that leadership starts with setting a good example. He is also a pragmatic leader who tries to lead with positive examples and with humor, which he sometimes uses to disarm those who try to undermine his leadership. I've tried to learn from and adopt these principles in my own life.

2) Regarding your battle along with your wife to change the high tech industry and their awareness of consumer and environmental health,

What tools have you used to monitor and gather information and where do you put this live data?

We have both been long time advocates of worker's and the public's "right to know" about health and environmental data that can help them to protect themselves from the risks of hazardous materials. The worker's right-to-know movement led to the legal requirement that workers who are exposed to hazardous chemicals have the right to know what they are being exposed to and what the hazards are. Employers are required to provide information to all workers that detail and document this information and must also provide training to workers on how to minimize these hazards. While the quality of this data still needs a lot of improvement, it does provide valuable information that can be used to help prevent harm. Likewise, the public right to know has had a similar impact on the community’s ability to find out what toxic chemicals they are being exposed to and enables people to voice their opinions about how to clean up their neighborhoods. I've spent a lot of time working on these issues - in fact, we were among the first communities in the U.S. to pass right-to-know laws in Silicon Valley in the 1980's. So in both cases, the access to environmental and health data has been very empowering.

A lot of our work has been involved in passing laws to make this data available, to improve the quality of this data, and to make sure that it is available in ways that is really helpful to people both on the job and in the communities.

We've also spent a lot of time trying to improve the health and environmental monitoring of people, again both on the job and in our communities. We have advocated for better epidemiological studies done for workers and communities exposed to toxic chemicals; we've worked to provide long term health monitoring for people exposed to toxics; we've worked to improve environmental monitoring - of the air and water, for instance; we've supported efforts to do better bio-monitoring - again, both in the workplace as well as in the communities - to help with prevention of diseases that are caused by exposure to toxic chemicals; and we have also worked hard to insist on the public reporting of this information so that people can use this information to protect themselves and their families.

I've also spent a lot of time making this information available to people via the Internet so that people can have easy access to it and use it to protect themselves and to enable them to use it to help prevent diseases. I believe that information is the best defense and that the Internet can be a very useful tool to help empower people to live healthier lives. I was very involved in the efforts in the 1980's to make hazardous materials information available to the public - first at the local level, then at the state level, and finally at the national level with the passage of the Community Right To Know laws that were passed by Congress in 1986. These laws require companies that use hazardous materials to report publicly what their toxic emissions are and where their pollution is and these laws have provided a lot of help to people who are trying to protect themselves and their families from exposure to toxic chemicals. I have been very involved in the efforts in the US and around the world to make this information public and available to the public so that people can better protect themselves and as a way to encourage the companies to practice pollution prevention and toxics use reduction. I believe that information can be the best defense to protect people and communities.

We have been collecting and posting environmental information on the Internet for many years now - I was one of the people who was involved in developing the "community right-to-know" movement in the U.S. and around the world so that people could get access to information that can be used to protect themselves and their families. We were one of the first groups in the U.S. to provide this information on our web site when I was with Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition ( www.svtc.org ) and now there is a lot more of this information available.

More recently I have been working with the Electronics TakeBack Coalition (www.electronicstakeback.org ) and we have been working with the electronics companies - computer, television, cell phone, printers, etc - to improve their environmental design and to take back their obsolete products at the end of their useful lives in order to prevent the enormous environmental hazards caused by the millions of obsolete toxic electronic products that are being discarded as newer models enter the market. This is particularly important now that the Federal Communications Commission has decreed that as of February 2009 all televisions must switch over to a digital signal from the current analog signal, which we believe will result in massive dumping of older TVs. So we are tracking these developments on another web site at www.takebackmytv.com .

What is your mission? What is your passion?

I have been involved in developing mission statements for several related organizations:

1. Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition Mission Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition is a diverse organization engaged in research, advocacy and grassroots organizing to promote human health and environmental justice in response to the rapid growth of the high-tech industry.

We envision a toxic-free future, where each new generation of technical improvements in electronic products includes parallel and proportionate advances in social and environmental justice. Our goal is environmental sustainability and clean production, improved health, and democratic decision-making for communities and workers most affected by the high-tech revolution.

2. International Campaign for Responsible Technology's Mission Statement We are an international solidarity network that promotes corporate and government accountability in the global electronics industry. We are united by our concern for the lifecycle impacts of this industry on health, the environment and workers' rights. By sharing resources, we seek to build the capacity of grassroots organizations, local communities, workers and consumers to achieve social, environmental and economic justice.

3. Electronics TakeBack Coalition Mission Statement

The goal of the Electronics TakeBack Coalition is to protect the health and well being of electronics users, workers, and the communities where electronics are produced and discarded by requiring consumer electronics manufacturers and brand owners to take full responsibility for the life cycle of their products, through effective public policy requirements or enforceable agreements.

What has been a memorable success that you had?

I believe that our early work to develop a hazardous material model ordinance that was designed to prevent contamination of our communities was a significant success. We started by passing laws throughout Silicon Valley, then passed a law in California, and finally got the U.S. Congress to adopt these protections. This has had major impacts on communities throughout the U.S. and has also been adopted throughout the world.

Who else would you like to join your coalition or who would be a good contributor?

We have been working very hard to include young people - students, young workers - as well as people working within the high tech firms that we have working with. We've also been working with electronics recyclers who are becoming a more important part of the overall solution to electronic waste.

What in your opinion would make a big contribution to change the environment in terms of each person's energy saving? (Solar, change car, water, technology)

People can do a lot in small ways as well as in big ways. We are very wasteful in the U.S. without thinking much about it the impacts that we have on the rest of the world. Conservation is one of the easiest and least expensive ways to do the most. Walking, riding a bike and taking public transportation can make a real difference. Saving water (and not being wasteful) can make a huge difference. I still hear my mother's voice in my head to "turn off the lights" or to "close the door! You don't live in a barn!" as a way of not wasting heat and electricity.

What is your personal method of "going green"?

We collect water from the sink and the bath tub to re-use it to flush the toilets and to provide irrigation to house plants. We don't have a front lawn (since it requires a lot of water) and instead have plants that don't require as much water. We have solar electricity in order to help offset green house gas emissions. We drive hybrid cars in order to minimize the use of gasoline. We built a backyard greenhouse out of recycled materials. We buy cloth bags to do shopping to minimize the use of plastic and paper. So it is a variety of things from very small to very large.

What car do you drive?

I drive a Toyota Prius, as does my wife.

Have you experienced any improvements in birth defects or cancer due to contaminated ground water in this area?

Yes, I believe that our efforts to clean up and prevent future groundwater contamination has been quite effective and I believe that the rates of cancer and birth defects have gone down. But there is still a need to do better health monitoring, since it is still difficult to detect many environmental health problems.

3) Also, you are the co-editor of the book called "Challenging the chip". I believe that must have been quite accomplishment for yourself and for the fact that you can talk to a broad range of people.

How was the book accepted by society?

It has been pretty well received, I believe, throughout the U.S. and in many other countries around the world. It is not an easy read, however, since it contains over 20 chapters written by many people about their own experiences and each story is distinct and diverse.

Did your former view change in the process of writing he book or did you encounter new cognitions?

This is the first time I've been involved in a book project and I was amazed at how much work it was - the writing, the collecting of other articles, the editing, the footnoting, etc. It took a lot longer and was more work than I realized it would be. I also learned a lot from the book and from the stories that the other authors wrote about. Altogether, I think it is an incredible compilation of information that I wish more people knew about and acted on.

Having published the book, do you think that there is more hope for the electronic industry as well as society to change?

I think that the book is helping to get our stories out to the public all around the world. I do think that as more people become aware of the "dark side" of the high-tech revolution that there will be more improvements in developing "greener" technologies and in educating the designers who want to improve the environmental and health impacts of these products.

The book has various people tell their histories- what story do you think we can all learn from the most?

It's hard for me to pick one story since I think that so many are incredibly important. I think that the story that touches me the most is the story from Scotland - Silicon Glen - where I got to know the people involved, came to understand their struggles and their dreams, and was very much inspired by their determination and inspiration. One of the most incredible leaders was Helen Clark who we gave an award to when I was still at Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition. After she died from the cancer she got from working at National Semiconductor in Silicon Glen, we named an award after her for those who sacrifice for their colleagues in the fight for a cleaner workplace and community. But there are many other stories that are also very inspiring and it's hard to choose just one.

4) I understand that there is a big problem created by the world's largest electronic industries' fabrication of material that cannot be properly recycled. The waste goes directly to the landfills in Third World Countries as an unknown fact to the people. The containers of this hazardous waste material are labeled "special waste" instead of "electronic" waste.

How is that approved?

We estimate that between 50% and 80% of all electronic waste (e-waste) that is collected in the U.S. for "recycling" ends up being exported to developing countries like China, India, Nigeria, etc where it is causing enormous harm. See http://www.computertakeback.com/the_problem/export_hazard_waste.cfm for some of the worst examples of what's happening. The main reason for this is that it's much cheaper to export e-waste than it is to recycle it properly in the U.S. and also because the U.S. is the only industrial country in the world that has not ratified the Basel Convention which is an international treaty that prohibits the export of hazardous waste from the wealthy countries to the developing world. Until the U.S. ratifies this treaty, unscrupulous companies that call themselves recyclers will continue to make lots of money by exporting this harm I was involved in helping to expose these practices in 2002 with the publication of the report "Exporting Harm: The Toxic Trashing of Asia" ( see http://www.ban.org/E-waste/technotrashfinalcomp.pdf ).

5) Knowing this there is a way for us to help reduce those transports by making the producers responsible for their products and recycling and have workers stepping up to protect themselves.

Is there such a way?

We are working very hard now to persuade the electronics companies as well as the recycling companies to stop exporting e-waste to developing countries, but it very difficult to do this without national legislation. We have developed a "recycler's pledge" that many recycling companies have endorsed where they pledge not to export hazardous e-waste and many of the brand name electronics companies have likewise promised not to export. But without national enforceable legislation, this remains a very difficult task. We've included anti-export language in some of the state legislation that has passed, but it has not been enforced since export is deemed to be in the federal rather than a state jurisdiction. We have had a very anti-environmental congress up until recently, so it has not been a national priority, but that may change over the next year or two. We have also been working with EPA, state governments, electronics companies and recyclers to develop a "certification" that would be a voluntary commitment by recyclers to not export hazardous e-waste, but to date it has not yet been successful.

Is the problem that there is no national law for this, is it too expensive or do people simply not bother? What is your experience?

See above. I do believe that if most people were aware of what's going on, they would want to do the right thing and would be willing to make an effort to do so. Our experience with curbside recycling throughout the U.S has been very successful once you make it available and easy for residents, and I think that we can do the same with electronics recycling.

6) In response to this Dell Inc. has changed its products to recyclable standards. This could be a model to other companies.

Do you think there is hope for other firms to adapt to that? What could possibly hinder them?

I have attached a recent presentation that I've done that documents what the various computer and TV companies have now done to implement takeback programs ( see especially slides 11, 16 and 17). The computer companies have moved the furthest, as you can see, especially after our Dell campaign which identified Dell as the main "laggard". They have moved the most since then and Apple has also made good progress. We are now focusing our attention on the TV companies and we expect that more of them will follow Sony's recent example to become environmental leaders. Some companies still believe that there is no short term financial advantage to "going green" but I believe that they will all dome to see that consumers are increasingly demanding greener products and that they will eventually come around.

You were talking about "collateral damage" in one of your articles. Could you explain what exactly you mean with that? What would be the perfect outcome of this- yet we don't want to renounce electronics, nor do we want to pay more to have it recycled?

By "collateral damage" I mean the unintended consequences of our electronics revolution. When workers get sick from the chemicals that they are exposed to while making electronics products or from recycling these same products, they suffer the consequences of the high-tech revolution, even though that was never the intent of the people who invented and produced these products. But they were too focused on getting their products to market to beat the competition and they neglected to make sure that people wouldn't be harmed in the process. I believe that the full cost of the entire life cycle must be built into the price of the product so that these "collateral damage" costs don't continue to be passed off onto innocent victims. This is called cost internalization and it a key solution in all of the work that I am doing. Once these costs are internalized into the price, then the manufacturing companies will have incentives to build greener products because it will be cheaper for them to do so. But as long as these costs are externalized and passed on to the workers and the consumers, there is no financial incentive for the manufacturers to clean up their production. As we are always told, "there is no free lunch" and someone is going to have to pay these costs eventually so the question is how to allocate these costs fairly and in ways that provide good incentives for cleaner and greener production.

How much do you think can we achieve through proper recycling of e-waste and thus not being surrounded by toxics? Can we sustain the environment while demanding more and more high tech material?

We can easily improve our environmental health significantly by developing more sustainable systems for taking back and properly recycling our mounds of electronic waste. This is happening in many other parts of the world, starting in Europe and spreading into Asia and elsewhere. They have passed national laws that require takeback and responsible recycling. It is the U.S. that is the international laggard and that is what needs to change. We have to demand more sustainable electronic products as well as more sustainable means for re-using and recycling these products. We need to address the planned obsolescence that is the essence of the high-tech revolution. And we need to challenge ourselves as consumers to resist the impulse to buy all of the latest gadgets and to insist that manufacturers provide us with products that last longer and are more recyclable. For more information on the importance of building consumer awareness around these issues, see a great video entitled "The Story of Stuff" at http://www.storyofstuff.com/ .

7) My last question goes back to your meetings with interesting people in that area. I read about Al Gore in one of the articles on your company's SVTC website and with Greenpeace's Rick Hind.

How does Rick Hind address these issues and what is his proposal to change the industry?

Rick is a very smart and effective environmental activist who has been very involved with many of these same issues and who has been very effective in helping to get the companies to pay more attention to "green" issues. He has been helpful in providing technical information to companies to help them better understand some of the hazards that they are dealing with and to also provide information about safer and greener alternatives. He has also been effective in praising the industry leaders and in shaming the industry laggards, knowing that their brand names can be affected by good or bad publicity.

Is Al Gore really as smart as everybody thinks he is and what does he have to say about your statement of the real inconvenient truth being e-waste?

Al Gore has been helpful in getting the companies to better understand how important it is to develop greener products and to take more responsibility for their e-waste. He sits on Apple's board and was helpful in getting them to improve their environmental performance. He is clearly a very smart policy person but also keenly aware of how to move public opinion and how to advance an environmental agenda by showing people how important it is and by also helping them to understand that it is in their own self-interest and the interest of their children and grandchildren.

Al Gore, Dalai Lama, Rick Hind- who else? How have these people influenced you or your work? Have they been inspiring, contributing or discouraging?

They and many others have been inspiring to me and my work. My wife Mandy Hawes has been the most important influence on my thinking and on my work for over three decades now. Barry Commoner was an early inspiration as was Rachel Carson. I particularly rely on Margaret Meade, the great anthropologist, who said: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." I also often quote Frederick Douglas, the former slave who became a great leader in the struggle against slavery who said in 1857: "If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation... want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightening. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters... Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will." Some of my other most important inspiration has come from Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Caesar Chavez.