The Darker Side of Computer Recycling

Makarand writes "We all know that with electronics it is very difficult to be green. We leave our computer waste in the recyle bin lest dangerous chemicals like lead and mercury seep into our landfills. The more dedicated environmentalists make a trip to the local recyling center where they may be asked around to pay around $15-$30 to recycle their old PCs. But guess what -- these 'recyclers' merely ship 50-80% of this stuff overseas. The Mercury News has a report on this ugly side of the PC industry which merely exports the recycling problems instead of solving them."

Comments

There is Money to Be Made

[pgrote]

Nothing has changed since the last time this was brought up or the time before that.

People need to understand that the countries that these parts are shipped to either A) Want them. B) Don't care about the damage they do.

I read the article, but there are no new insights into this at all. Take this quote for instance:

"``I don't know yet if I like this work,'' said Li, 30, who had been on the job about one month. ``But back home there are no jobs. There is no money. There is nothing to do.''"

That is the plain and simple truth to this. There is a market for this crud. They are making money by doing it. Is it the most healthy way of doing it? More than likely not, but it is a way to make money.

Someone needs to publish that link about the place in India that takes apart oil tankers. Big Karma boost in that.

Re:Exporting == solving

[Ben Escoto]

Trade that is welcomed by both parties is not bad. Just because third party interlopers feel the need to stamp and huff about it, it doesn't mean that it should be done away with.

And if your child was trying to chew on nails / [something pointy] for fun, would you let it find out for itself if it was harmful, or would you suggest a few alternatives for it?

Your comparison to children is telling, because your argument, like many anti-trade arguments, rests on paternalism. It's common for first worlders to assume that they know better than the democratic governments elected by the people they are trying to help, or even the people themselves. Surprise, intelligence isn't limited to the rich. Poor people are often perfectly capable of evaluating the pros and cons of their own choices.

Re:Exporting == solving

[gavinR]

It's common for first worlders to assume that they know better than the democratic governments elected by the people they are trying to help, or even the people themselves. Surprise, intelligence isn't limited to the rich. Poor people are often perfectly capable of evaluating the pros and cons of their own choices.

While I agree with your assessment of his tone, you are mistaken in implying that "poor people" are the ones making the decisions regarding international trade. "Poor people" are not deciding to import the toxic electronic waste of first-world, but they are the ones who will be living and working with it. "The rich" who actually make these decisions will be far, far away.

The poster's analogy should have been something more along the lines of "If you saw an adult feeding nails (or other sharp things) to a child, should you do something about it?" While the comparison may use paternalistic terms, I don't believe that invalidates the analogy.

Re:I Have But One Word for Computer Recycling:

[Elbereth]

The schools don't want it. They buy Dell/IBM/Compaq PCs and have support contracts with those manufacturers. They also would also need to buy a license for Windows XP. Your license is non-transferable. What do they do when your PC's memory goes faulty? Who do they contact for a replacement? The fly-by-night Pricewatch vendor you bought it from? What are they going to use your Pentium 133 for, anyways? They're not going to be doing any physics simulations on it. You want to explain to them why they should make this the lone Linux PC in their entire computer lab? Especially after they see how horribly slow KDE runs with 32MB RAM and a 2MB video card that doesn't have XF86 4.x drivers...

Most people here are wrong

[Zeddicus_Z]

I see a lot of mis-guided and mis-informed posts on this subject. Not surprising really, since the waste 'recyclers' don't exactly advertise their business practices.

1) In most cases, the countries involved in importing PC waste *do not* ask for it. Recent case-in-point being China, which after banning the import of US PC waste *still* cops both US and non-US PC waste. The people don't want it*, the government doesn't want it. But the businesses can make a f*#ckload of money doing it, so it continues.

2) One previous poster has pointed out that the Chinese people *want* the waste dumps to continue, so that they may work. To which I say, "utter bullshit". If you're a techie and, because of the economic climate are forced to work as a dish pig in the local diner, does that mean that you *want* to work there? No. You work there because *that's all there is!* It's the same with the people in China and other 3rd/2nd-world countries who panhandle our old 286 motherboards in corrosive acid for the tiny amounts of gold on the traces.

3) For anyone who thinks putting this crap in landfil is a *good* solution (like one previous poster) - lead, arsenic and other chemicals that remain on PCBs and other PC parts can *kill* you. If you don't believe me, try regularly eating old-paint flakes that contain lead.

4) To all the people who cite refurbishment of old PC parts, networked clusters and the like: You must look at the entire energy chain before you can assert that refurbishment of old equipment is better than replacing with new. Five networked 486's are all going to need power. They're all going to give off at least some amount of ozone. Basically, they're all going to pollute when running. Compare this to the pollution and energy usage of the single Athlon 1GHz you would have replaced it with, combined with the energy cost and pollution generated by recycling the old machines properly. Once you have your result (and you better use a proper equation, not just some approximations), THEN you can talk about refurbishment being more environmentally friendly than proper recycling.

Re:Basement

[Rebel Patriot]

Rather the legislation should require the actual companies (like Intel) to start REAL clean-up programs and actually build facilities for reclaiming the toxics in their machines.

What makes it Intel, or AMD's responsability to do this? Why should they be shouldered with the burden of disposing of YOUR waste properly. Just because they built the product does not mean they are responsible for how it is disposed. If the government is going to require a product to be recyced, the government needs to handle that itself.

To say that Intel should have to build facilities to see to it that electronic goods they may have made are properly disposed of is akin to saying that Coca~Cola and Pepsi need to build aluminum recycling plants nation-wide, or that the New York Times and Chicago Tribune et al should be forced to build paper recycling plants nationwide. This is unfair and ludicrous.

Where does it stop? If I am a small buisiness owner making $30,000 a year profit manufacturing widgets that use mercury, should I be forced to bild a wdiget recycling plant? I would much rather see some sort of tax impossed on new PC sales to have PC drop-off places around the nation. I for one cannot recycle my old PCs 'cause I have no earthly idea where the hell to send them. This is never mentioned to anyone who buys a PC, and down here in the Georgia swamps, most people can't afford to ship a heavy metal box hal-way across the State or country.

Re:Basement

[_ph1ux_]

"Why should they be shouldered with the burden of disposing of YOUR waste properly"

MY waste. You need to re-think your whole frame of reference here. First of all do you know how toxic chip fabs are?

Do you even have any idea how many superfund toxic cleanups there are in silicon valley? Do you know where the most toxic (based on superfund site density) place in the country is.

It is not MY waste. You think that just because i buy a computer from them - that now the toxic product that THEY created is now solely my responsibility? "sorry buddy - to bad you have cancer. You bought the machine - you opened the EULA. Its not our fault that your water table is polluted to the point of being undrinkable" Why is it the responsibilty of any company to be even remotely concerned with the full LIFE CYCLE of a product they create.

You my friend are clearly an idiot if you think that the full life cycle of any product simply ends when a company either sells that product or just decides to no longer support it.

Since you have the view that nobody should care - especially not the companies that made the product in the first place - you should have to live on land that gets the benefit having all this crap dumped onto it.

And yes - I have long though that all container companies should have to be at least partly involved in the responsibility of recycling their products - like coke and pepsi. However the significant difference here is that toxicity factor of the components under discussion - and if you are to naive to notice or even admit the difference - you should refrain from participating.

thankyouverymuch.