Transition to a circular economy for electronics is vital to global decarbonization – it competes with resource use for alternative energy

//DH

Today, it is clear that the current linear economic model of electronics production, consumption, and disposal is no longer fit for purpose. It is challenged by consumer preference and a greater focus on sustainability and the circular economy — an economy that seeks to eliminate waste and pollution, keep materials at their highest economic value, recirculate products and materials through the value chain, reduce the draw on nonrenewable minerals, fuels, and feedstocks, and create regenerative systems.[14]

Since 2017, annual global primary resource extraction and use has exceeded 100 billion metric tons per year,[15] and estimates indicate that by 2050, annual global material use could be between 170 billion metric tons and 184 billion metric tons.[16] The production of minerals is expected to increase by nearly 400%-600% over the next several decades to meet the demand for electronics and alternative energy technologies like wind turbines, solar power, and energy storage systems. For minerals such as lithium and graphite, which are used in EV batteries, demand may increase by even more — as much as 4,000%.[17] More than 3 billion metric tons of minerals and metals will be needed to manufacture and deploy these systems by 2050. Minerals deemed critical to the economy and national security will increase fivefold by 2040 as the global clean energy transition unfolds.[18]

Vast amounts of resources are wasted across the electronics life cycle during mining, manufacturing, transport, retail, consumption, and disposal. This generates an array of negative impacts throughout the global network. For instance, minerals required for global energy transition strategies are often produced in countries that score below average in measures of corruption risk.[19] Environmental standards and oversight are generally low in these same countries. Aside from political and national security risks, supply chain disruptions, and price shocks, human rights violations associated with the mining, processing, and refining of critical minerals in high geographical concentration production areas with unstable governments are well documented.[20] Yet they are unaccounted for in sustainability profiles and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) reporting.[21] The production and processing of mineral resources gives rise to a variety of environmental and social issues — including hazardous working conditions, child labor, forced labor, and lax environmental laws — that, if poorly managed, can impair local communities and disrupt supply.[22]

There is growing evidence of problems related to the use of scarce metals, such as the long-term risk of high-grade ore depletion worldwide, shorter-term supply deficits, and mineral-related geopolitical conflicts. Recycling, material substitution, and dematerialization (i.e., using cheaper materials or reducing the amount of material and energy used per produced unit of service or utility) measures are being undertaken or encouraged by firms in the manufacturing industry to reduce the impact of scarcity. However, these responses can be costly, take time to implement, are not available to all participants, and can lead to permanent market changes.

At the end of life, e-waste is often incinerated, disposed of in landfills, or exported to developing economies under the guise of recycling, reuse, or repurposing schemes — largely to countries that lack adequate labor, health, safety, and environmental laws.[23] It is well documented that when improperly disposed of or routed to uncertified recyclers, e-waste has negative effects on human health, the environment, and the overall ecosystem.[24] More than 12 million women and 18 million children (starting at the age of 5) are employed in the informal e-waste management sector globally, recovering small amounts of gold, copper, and other semiprecious metals through rudimentary dismantling and artisanal processing techniques such as fire roasting, acid dissolution, leaching and digestion (for metal extraction), or open burning. In these unsupervised and unregulated settings, they face a constant risk of exposure to unsafe conditions and toxic chemicals known to cause cancers, reproductive health issues, and cognitive impairment.[25]

Unregulated practices, deficient infrastructure, and lack of oversight, governing legislation, and regulation also cause wide-ranging disruptions to the ecosystem. Crude recovery practices and the disposal of unsalvageable parts on open land, on shore, or adjacent to surface waters (e.g., rivers and lakes) leach heavy metals like lead, barium, mercury, and other contaminants into surface water and groundwater, sediment, and soil. The resulting emissions into the atmosphere have far-reaching consequences well beyond immediate human health.[26] The contaminants next enter the food chain, giving rise to various diseases[27] and indirectly causing health issues.[28]

Despite the current body of knowledge regarding the impacts of e-waste, there are still significant data gaps in the full spectrum of electronics sustainability. The spectrum includes the effects on biodiversity, human rights, gender equity, quality of life, and environmental justice, as well as how shifting to circular practices will impact corporate and government sustainability agendas.

If linear models continue, so too will our draw on natural resources and the associated impacts along the global value chain. This could lead to mineral resource depletion on a scale that inhibits the global decarbonization effort. The unsustainable and prevailing linear “take-make-use-dispose” economic model increases environmental, social, economic, and political risks globally and is driving a transition to a circular economic model — a pathway to mitigate these concerns.