As a former employee of the University of Oregon’s Office of Environmental Health and Safety, I know firsthand how the computer harvest operation is handled. In fact, I have physically moved an enormous amount of computers, monitors, printers, peripherals and other various electronic items. While the University diligently works to ensure that viable computer equipment is “recycled” throughout various departments, in practice, most of the so-called “e-waste” that eventually falls within the jurisdiction of EHS is far from “broken” or “obsolete.”
A couple of years ago, one would be hard pressed to find a flat-screen monitor in any of the University’s computer labs. As the technology became cheaper, however, more and more departments saw a need to upgrade their systems. As a result, there has been an overwhelming surplus of the older CRT-based monitors. Many of these monitors are less than two years old and are in perfect working order. Unfortunately, University departments lack a reason to allocate these screens from the University’s electronic recycling system. Technology is becoming ever more integrated with education, creating an impetus for academia to constantly upgrade to the newest and best equipment. This means that departments are hard-pressed to justify “taking a step back” and requesting these older screens. Due to this desire to upgrade, there are pallets upon pallets of working CRT monitors (which could be reused in some alternative capacity) stored at EHS’ warehouse, waiting to be demanufactured.
But CRT monitors are only one example of this non-existent cycle. Oftentimes working computers, printers and other peripheries are left sitting in hallways, under stairwells, and even in dumpsters. This equipment essentially falls through the cracks; no one wants it, and no department wants to deal with its removal. More seriously, though, is the fact that University faculty and graduate students are often the perpetrators of this abandonment. These individuals are supposedly beholden to the rules governing this “recycling” system. Consequently, anything that could be considered slightly out-dated, such as Apple G4 Power Macs or older HP Laser Printers, are quite commonly found within EHS’ warehouse.
The comments made by University officials in the Emerald’s article entitled, “UO’s Computer Wasteland,” are simply a bureaucratic version of the truth surrounding the computer recycling system. While some of the equipment that enters this “hardware pool” will end up within other departments, much of it will simply slip off the page. At any given moment, thousands of dollars of working and viable electronic equipment is sitting in an unheated warehouse waiting to be demanufactured. Not only is the current system of computer disposal antithetical to the University’s mantra of reduce, reuse, and recycle, it is also a clear and discouraging example of fiscal irresponsibility at the administrative level.
Dan Snyder is a student majoring in political science