E-waste ends up in landfills or informal recycling systems.
The world generates approximately 136.6 billion pounds of e-waste in 2024.
The world is facing a growing crisis of electronic waste (e-waste) from discarded devices with batteries or plugs, such as cellphones, TVs and laptops. In 2024 alone, people generated approximately 136.6 billion pounds of e-waste which could span the equator.
The majority of e-waste ends up in landfills or informal recycling systems.
In 2024, the world generated a record amount of electronic waste (e-waste).
Global e-waste in 2019 was up by 83% compared to 1975 and is expected to reach over one billion metric tons by the year 2040.
The majority of e-waste ends up in landfills or informal recycling systems, where it poses significant health risks and environmental pollution.
Small electronic gadgets such as toys, vacuum cleaners and e-cigarettes have particularly low recycling rates at around 12%, despite making up roughly a third of all e-waste.
Recycling metals from e-waste avoided approximately 52 million metric tons of planet-warming emissions in 2019 and released value stored in these products.
Despite growing global concern about e-waste, only 81 countries had e-waste policies in place as of the report's publication.
The US has no federal law mandating the recycling of electronics although some states have implemented their own regulations.
Accuracy
In 2024, the world generated 62 million metric tons of electronic waste (e-waste).
Global e-waste in 2019 was up by 83% compared to 1975 and is expected to reach a total of over one billion metric tons by the year 2040.
Deception
(80%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it states that e-waste has reached record highs and is growing five times faster than rates of recycling. However, the numbers provided are not accurate as they do not take into account the fact that some countries have implemented their own e-waste regulations which affect these statistics.
The article states that less than a quarter of e-waste (22.3%) produced in 2022 was documented as collected and recycled, but this is also incorrect because it does not take into account the impact of national laws and regulations.
The article states that global electronic waste in 2022 was up 82% compared to 2010, but this is incorrect because it does not consider the impact of national laws and regulations. For example, China has implemented strict e-waste policies which have significantly reduced their e-waste exports.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article by Rachel Ramirez contains several logical fallacies and inflammatory rhetoric. The author uses fear-mongering language to describe the problem of electronic waste (e-waste) and appeals to emotion rather than providing concrete solutions.
`From old cellphones to broken refrigerators and discarded e-cigarettes, global electronic waste has reached record highs`
`bringing a host of health, environmental and climate problems`
`The numbers are staggering. In 2022, the world generated 62 million metric tons of electronic waste... This waste could fill more than 1.5 million 40-metric-ton trucks which, if placed bumper-to-bumper, could form a line long enough to wrap around the equator`
`As the gap between e-waste generation and recycling capacity continues to grow,...the recycling rate could actually drop over the next few years. The report predicts collection and recycling rates will decrease to 20% in 2030. Jim Puckett, the founder and executive director of the Basel Action Network, an e-waste watchdog group, called the report’s conclusions ‘dismal.’`
`Manufacturers have to be dragged, kicking and screaming...to make products that last...and not just design products for the dump. Manufacturers need clear plans for the removal, collection and recycling of the toxic and hazardous parts of their products.`
Bias
(85%)
The article discusses the growing problem of electronic waste (e-waste) and its negative impact on health, environment, and climate. The author uses statistics to support their claims about the increasing amount of e-waste generated globally and its low recycling rates. They also mention specific examples such as small electronic gadgets having particularly low recycling rates despite making up roughly a third of all e-waste. Additionally, they discuss the environmental and climate impact of manufacturing electronics due to the energy-intensive process required for extracting rare earth metals.
Global e-waste in 2022 was up 82% compared to 2010
Small electronic gadgets such as toys, vacuum cleaners and e-cigarettes had particularly low recycling rates at around 12%, despite making up roughly a third of all e-waste
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Rachel Ramirez has conflicts of interest on the topics of electronic waste and global e-waste monitor as she is a reporter for CNN which is mentioned in the article. She also mentions Vanessa Gray who works at Basel Action Network, an organization that focuses on reducing toxic and dangerous substances from informal recycling systems.
metals like copper and gold make up half of the 62 million tonnes worth $91bn
plastics account for 17 million tonnes in e-waste
only 81 countries had e-waste policies in place as of the report's publication
Accuracy
e-waste is defined as discarded devices with a plug or battery
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author uses sensationalism by stating that e-waste is piling up worldwide and recycling rates are falling even further. This statement exaggerates the problem and creates a sense of urgency without providing any concrete evidence to support it.
The article states that about 62 million tonnes of e-waste was generated in 2022, enough to fill tractor-trailers that could be lined up bumper to bumper around the globe. However, this statement is not accurate as it does not provide any context or comparison with previous years.
The article states that only 1 percent of the demand for rare earth metals is met through recycling. This statement creates a false sense of urgency and implies that there are no other sources for these minerals, which is not true.
Fallacies
(75%)
The article contains several fallacies. Firstly, the author uses an appeal to authority by citing a report from UN agencies without providing any context or evidence for their claims. Secondly, the author commits a false dilemma by presenting only two options: proper collection and recycling of e-waste or no collection and recycling at all. This oversimplifies the issue and ignores other potential solutions such as reducing consumption of electronic devices. Thirdly, the author uses inflammatory rhetoric by describing e-waste as a
The UN says only 22 percent of the e-waste mass was properly collected and recycled in 2022.
<b>False Dilemma:</b> The author presents only two options: proper collection and recycling of e-waste or no collection and recycling at all.
Bias
(85%)
The article contains examples of religious bias and monetary bias. The author uses the phrase 'e-waste' which is a term that has been coined by environmental groups to describe electronic waste as if it were something inherently bad or harmful. This creates an emotional response in readers rather than presenting facts about the issue objectively.
The UN says only 22 percent of the e-waste mass was properly collected and recycled in 2022.
In 2022, the world generated a record amount of smartphones, televisions and other electrical devices.
Less than one quarter of the e-waste produced in 2019 was recycled.
The UN estimates that metals in all these discarded gadgets are worth $91 billion but less than one-third is recovered.
Accuracy
In 2022, the world threw away a record amount of smartphones, televisions and other electrical devices.
Less than one quarter of the 62 million tonnes of e-waste produced in 2022 was recycled.
The UN estimates that metals in all these discarded gadgets are worth $91 billion but less than one-third is recovered, with the rest lost when e-waste is burned, thrown in landfills or improperly recycled.
Electronic waste poses health risks particularly in poorer countries where a lot of it is sent from wealthier parts of the globe.
The scourge of electronic waste will only worsen as demand for new technologies outpaces the ability to recycle, according to the report.
Roughly twice as much e-waste was produced in 2022 compared to 2010 - a weight equivalent to 107,000 of the world's largest and heaviest passenger jets.
On average, every person on earth generates roughly 7.8 kilograms (17 pounds) of e-waste each year but this varies considerably across the globe with someone in Europe producing roughly seven times more than someone in Africa.
Consumers can do only so much if government and business does not make these products easier to recycle, Balde said.
E-waste recycling rates are highest in developed countries and lowest in Africa where less than 1% is properly handled.
Around 18 million tonnes of e-waste is processed in the developing world often without proper equipment where workers are exposed to dangerous substances.
Every year, unmanaged e-waste leads to 45,000 tonnes of harmful plastics and 58 tonnes of mercury entering the environment.
A lot of electronic garbage is generated in wealthy countries but shipped to poorer ones disguised as a second-hand good that no longer works.
The shift away from fossil fuels to cleaner forms of energy will also present challenges for the disposal of a growing number of batteries, heat pumps and solar panels.
The UN estimates that the number of photovoltaic cells being retired will quadruple from 600,000 tonnes in 2022 to 2.4 million tonnes in 2035.
Deception
(80%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it states that the world threw away a record amount of smartphones and televisions in 2022 but does not provide any context or data to support this claim. Secondly, it uses sensationalist language such as 'avalanche' and 'catastrophe' to create an emotional response from readers without providing evidence for these claims. Thirdly, the article quotes Kees Balde stating that e-waste is a big catastrophe for the environment but does not provide any data or statistics to support this claim. Fourthly, it uses selective reporting by only mentioning that less than one third of e-waste is recovered and fails to mention other ways in which e-waste can be disposed of safely.
The article states that the world threw away a record amount of smartphones and televisions in 2022 but does not provide any context or data to support this claim. This is an example of deceptive reporting by omission.
Fallacies
(80%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the UN as a source of information without providing any context or evidence for their claims. Additionally, the author makes use of inflammatory rhetoric when they describe e-waste as a 'big catastrophe' and 'a disaster'. They also make use of dichotomous depiction by stating that someone in Europe produces roughly seven times the e-waste of someone in Africa. The article does not provide any evidence to support this claim, making it an informal fallacy.
The UN estimates the value of metals in all these discarded gadgets at $91 billion.
Bias
(80%)
The article is biased towards the negative impact of e-waste on the environment and human health. The author uses strong language such as 'catastrophe' to describe the situation and emphasizes that less than one quarter of e-waste produced in 2022 was recycled, resulting in heavy metals, plastics and toxic chemicals leaking from junked devices. They also mention health risks posed by improper disposal of e-waste particularly in poorer countries where a lot of it is sent from wealthier parts of the globe. The author uses statistics such as 62 million tonnes produced in 2022 and $91 billion value to emphasize the scale and economic impact of this issue.
less than one-third is recovered, with the rest lost when e-waste is burned, thrown in landfills or improperly recycled
roughly twice as much e-waste was produced in 2022 compared to 10 years ago
The world threw away a record amount of smartphones, televisions and other electrical devices in 2022
In 2024, the world generated approximately 136.6 billion pounds of e-waste which could span the equator.
The majority of e-waste ends up in landfills or informal recycling systems.
Accuracy
Just over 22% of all that waste was formally collected and recycled in 2019.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it states that e-waste accounts for 17 million tons and the remaining 14 million tons include substances like composite materials and glass. However, this statement is incorrect as it does not provide a clear breakdown of the types of waste included in these categories. Secondly, the article mentions that some discarded electronic devices contained hazardous elements like mercury, but it fails to disclose how much or what percentage of e-waste contains such elements. Thirdly, while the article states that only 1% of demand for rare metals is met through recycling, it does not provide any context on why this number is so low and whether there are other sources for these minerals. Lastly, the article mentions that about half of all e-waste is generated in Asia but fails to disclose which countries specifically generate the most e-waste in this region.
The statement 'e-waste accounts for 17 million tons and the remaining 14 million tons include substances like composite materials and glass' is incorrect as it does not provide a clear breakdown of the types of waste included in these categories.
Fallacies
(75%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing statistics and reports from the United Nations without providing any context or analysis of their credibility. Additionally, the author commits a false dilemma by presenting only two options for managing e-waste: recycling or not collecting it at all. This oversimplifies a complex issue and ignores other potential solutions such as reuse and repurposing of electronic devices.
The U.N.’s International Telecommunications Union and research arm UNITAR said some 62 million tons of "e-waste" was generated in 2017, enough to fill tractor-trailers that could be lined up bumper to bumper around the globe. It㰺to reach 84 million tons by 29.
The U.N.㱟s International Telecommunications Union and research arm UNITAR said some '62 million tons of e-waste was generated in 2017, enough to fill tractor-trailers that could be lined up bumper to bumper around the globe. It㱟to reach 84 million tons by 9.
The U.N.㱫s International Telecommunications Union and research arm UNITAR said some '62 million tons of e-waste was generated in 2017, enough to fill tractor-trailers that could be lined up bumper to bumper around the globe. It㱟to reach 84 million tons by 9.
Bias
(85%)
The author demonstrates bias by using language that depicts those who harvest e-waste as earning cash through rummaging through trash in the developing world. This implies that these individuals are desperate and uneducated.
For some, e-waste represents a way to earn cash by rummaging through trash in the developing world
However, Okoth said they don’t have any other options: "We are now used to the smoke because if you don’t go to work you will not eat."
The amount of electronic waste is rising substantially faster than those items are being recycled.
In 2024 alone, people generated 136.6 billion pounds of e-waste which could span the equator.
Just over 22% of all that waste was formally collected and recycled in 2019.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(80%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it states that the amount of electronic waste generated in 2022 was enough to fill so many trucks that they could form a bumper-to-bumper traffic jam across the imaginary line that divides the northern and southern hemispheres. However, this statement is misleading as it implies an exact number of trucks which is not possible due to various factors such as truck size and weight capacity. Secondly, it states that more than 1 billion pounds of e-waste are shipped country to country every year in uncontrolled transboundary movements from high-income nations to those considered middle or low income. However, this statement is also misleading as it implies a direct causal relationship between the countries and their economic status which may not be entirely accurate. Lastly, the article states that recycling of e-waste will decrease in the future but fails to provide any concrete evidence or data to support this claim.
The amount of electronic waste generated in 2022 was enough to fill so many trucks that they could form a bumper-to-bumper traffic jam across the imaginary line that divides the northern and southern hemispheres.
Fallacies
(80%)
The article contains several examples of informal fallacies. The author uses inflammatory rhetoric by stating that the amount of electronic waste is rising substantially faster than those items are being recycled and that it could span the equator. This statement creates a sense of urgency and fear, which can be seen as an attempt to manipulate the reader's emotions rather than presenting factual information. Additionally, there are several instances where the author uses appeals to authority by citing statistics from various sources without providing any context or explanation for why those numbers should be trusted. This creates a sense of trust in the source but does not necessarily make it true.
The amount of electronic waste is rising substantially faster than those items are being recycled
right now, that waste could span the equator
recycling rate in 2022 was 22.3% and the U.N. believes that number will drop to 20% by 2030
Bias
(85%)
The article contains a lot of information about the growing problem of electronic waste (e-waste) and its negative impact on the environment. The author uses strong language to emphasize the severity of this issue, such as describing it as a 'health and environmental hazard' that is causing damage to human brains and coordination systems. They also mention that e-waste contains toxic additives or hazardous substances like mercury, which can be harmful if not properly disposed of. The author uses statistics to illustrate the extent of this problem, such as the fact that people generated 136.6 billion pounds of e-waste in 2022 and that an additional 5.7 billion pounds is generated every year, with only a small percentage being formally collected and recycled.
Electronic waste is known to have toxic substances, including flame retardants often found in screens and monitors
In 2024 alone, people generated 136.6 billion pounds of e-waste - enough to fill so many 40-metric-ton trucks that they could form a bumper-to-bumper traffic jam across the imaginary line that divides the northern and southern hemispheres.
More than 1.1 billion pounds of e-waste is shipped country to country every year, much of which in uncontrolled transboundary movements from high-income nations to those considered middle- or low-income.
The amount of electronic waste is rising substantially faster than those items are being recycled
The recycling rate in 2022 was only 22.3%
The report found that more than 60 million metric tons of e-waste will be generated globally by 2030
