Slashdot Mirror
Report is Critical of US For Dumping E-Waste Overseas
coondoggie writes "In what may be the least astonishing news of the day, some major US companies who say they are environmentally recycling electronic waste — aren't. Rather more startling — they are dumping everything from cell phones and old computers to televisions in countries such as China and India where disposal practices are unsafe to people and dangerous to the environment. Controlling the exportation of all of the e-waste plops on the doorstep of the US Environmental Protection Agency which is doing a woeful job, according to a scathing 67-page report issued by the Government Accountability Office today."
The I'm-not-the-only-one-who-does-it excuse is just a shame.
It isn't countries per se that are involved in importing used electronics and taking them apart in an unsafe manner. Rather, it is a bunch of brokers and recyclers.
From the report:
State-of-the-art facilities that can safely dismantle CRTs and other electronic gadgets:
1 Umicore (Belgium)
2 Samsung Corning (Malaysia)
Unsafe dismantling/recycling goes on largely in South-east Asia and parts of West Africa. The following countries are mentioned:
- Cambodia
- China
- India
- Indonesia
- Nigeria
- Senegal
Made in China, dumped in China. What's the big deal?
You mean taking advantage of a situation removes all blame from you? You really think the US companies are dumping this waste without knowing full well what will happen to it? I doubt it.
Then again, we could have another Mattel-lead-paint situation, where they got it done for cheap overseas, without fully looking in to how bad the situation really was.
The US should however be responsible for the regulation of their own companies, ensuring that those companies correctly follow the law of their own country, and ensuring that those same companies do not attempt to deceive the general public.
Nice try.
Its the USA's waste, it is ultimately the USA's hands that are dirty. (metaphorically of course, the poor B'Stards that get trash dumped on their doorstep are obviously going to have dirty hands literally)
This is yet another example of green washing and corporates (in this case US ones) flushing our environment down the toilet for their own short term gain.
However, it is not just the US that engages in this crap. Lots of others do also! Even here in "green NZ", there are instances of "recycling" companies shipping recycling overseas to the more dodgy chinese outlets.
disclaimer: it appears that the majority of ours do the right thing however. (One retail chain even does it FOR FREE! Not to mention E-day www.eday.org.nz )
And these filthy buggers will moan and complain when regulation is forced upon them to stop being little piglets. Sheesh.
Makes one really feel sorry for mother nature to be honest.
So the US goes and allows (or perhaps worse, is complicit in allowing) it's corporations to keep up profits by dumping toxic products in other countries, where it kills and maims children (which is well proven) who struggle to live by supplying their lives to people who use them as slave labour to recover valuable materials from the dumped items through lethal practices, such as burning plastic from wire.
Then some people argue that if the countries allow it, why is that the US's problem?
And then twenty years later they whine like little babies that they can't understand why the survivors of this situation in those countries hate them so much and want to kill them and everyone else they see as a part of the "Western" world...
And they can't even blame the CIA this time. US corporations are doing a far more sinister job that the CIA ever did.
GrpA.
Enjoy science fiction? "Turing Evolved" - AI, Mecha, Androids and rail-gun battles. What more could you want?
Hey there, big computer companies!
I'll gladly take ANY old computer hardware that still works! Finally a chance to replace that old 8bit ISA graphics card... maybe even the FPU! SWEET!
"We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams [...]."
That sounds great. Last I heard the US was not Utopia though. US (and other countries companies) will continue to attempt extracting water from stone and pushing the limits of what they can get away with. As my boss said to me once: "Don't worry what's 'right', this is the way it's done.
Despite this I agree with you; I am becoming a cynic as I age. Although, depsite being a cynic, I can still *personally* choose to choose right from wrong.
Heh... He said "dumping" heh heh.
Anything and Everything about the Net
Recycling pays back money, otherwise they'd dump the stuff in the middle of the ocean instead of going all the way to China.
Sure it pays back money. If you're recycling something that is rich enough in certain materials. Otherwise it isn't worth it in many cases.
Now of course if it isn't cost efficient for you to recycle something, then it may well be that someone in a country where people work for pennies an hour and there are no meddlesome regulators can make a profit off of the recycling process.
So you sell the junk to them and they recycle it. You make money, they make money, the workers even make some money. A win, win situation for all. Unless you want to get all picky and start complaining about the health of the workers and possible environmental damage.
Does that mean those of us in States like California who have payed e-waste fees are owed refunds if they were collected by said companies?
Every time we purchase an "electronic display", or device containing one, we pay a $6-10 fee. Not much per person, but I'm sure it adds up on the companies responsible for this.
If party A is using a service provided by party B that you think is immoral, what's the right way to go about stopping it? Well, at both ends. You try to convince party A not to use the service, and you try to convince party B not to provide it.
In this case, you're right, these countries shouldn't allow unsafe waste-processing, and shouldn't allow importing of waste unless it can be safely processed. That's one place to put pressure. However it's also perfectly legitimate to put pressure at the other end: US companies shouldn't be exporting waste except to safe processing facilities.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
It's what has become the american way. A bit like when US government sends prisoners to countries that allows torture.
So we see countries competing on price of their environment. I understand that one may have ethical problems with the effects, but isn't the current capitalist dogma that corporations must behave unethically if that improves the short term stock price?
So we see countries competing on price of their environment.
Their?
If you wait long enough (centuries, if necessary), this turns into 'ours' quite suddenly.
CC.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
I don't think morals are that black and white. While on one hand it would be nice if we in the west disposed of our own garbage, I don't think it's our duty to keep anyone else from shooting themselves in the foot. Unless you want to go back to the old (and even worse) "mission to civilize" and "white man's burden" doctrines.
If China wants to import garbage for some quick cash, it's China's problem alone. They should fix their own laws, if they don't want it to happen.
There _are_ situations where the west did actual harm, including
- bribes (we practically created the 3'rd world kleptocracies, by making it so that taking a bribe from the western corporations is the most profitable thing one could do, better than any industry or commerce)
- military/CIA interventions
- economic pressures to make some countries destroy their own industry and agriculture (including occasionally to take the same good ol' right-wing measures in a crisis that that would turn a crisis into an all out depression, according to the economics we apply in the west)
Etc.
And for that we are rightfully hated.
But things that they do to themselves for a buck? Why would it be our business to stop them from doing that?
E.g., the west didn't hold anyone hostage to make them take our garbage. It's stuff that someone there figured out would be a good way to make some bucks. And is probably acclaimed as the great entrepreneur and one of the guys doing something for their economy there.
E.g., I don't think many western companies take _slaves_ in China, much less India. While I do find that running some of those sweatshops says something about the greedy fucks who moved there just for that, ultimately it's India's and China's job to decide whether that's ok with them or not. They _can_ give minimum wage and maximum hours per week laws if they want to, you know? If they'd rather get dollars than that, why should the west be the one to blame?
And again in most cases it's not the west who even runs those "slave labour" camps, but some local company who subcontracts for a western company. In most cases the western company can't even control what membranes go into their batteries (see incendiary batteries made in China that have a cheap non-working replacement for the membrane that was supposed to collapse and open the circuit when overheated), or what paint is used on their toys (lead-painted toys made in China ftw), or what glue goes into their beads that are supposed to be wet and stuck to a board and most kids will lick to get wet (replaced by some enterprising Chinese with a toxic and psychoactive glue.) What makes you think that the western company gets much more to say about how a Chinese boss treats Chinese employees at that company?
Or, as I was saying, are we back to the "mission to civilize" (China, India and everyone else) doctrine from the 19'th century?
Plus, even if the western corporations didn't directly subcontract to those, they'd still find ways to exploit each other just the same. Whether it's cheap pens or counterfeit watches or farming gold in WoW, they'll _still_ take advantage of the missing legislation to make each other work 90+ hour weeks for a pittance. E.g., I remember an article from some months ago about WoW gold farmers, and those guys were working 12 hour days in essentially a high-tech sweatshops. I don't think any western corporation made them do that. (Blizzard probably would rather they crawl somewhere and die, for example.)
Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to play the bullshit card that we're some kind of great benefactors for giving them those crap jobs. I'm not _that_ deluded. But I _am_ saying that ultimately they do most of that exploitation to themselves, and they must find their own way and equilibrium point there. It's their own f-ing country, and it's mostly their own sociopaths not ours doing that to their workers or environment. It's not _our_ job to clean up _their_ act.
Blaming the west for that, and doubly so trying to
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
May I invite people to look at the "Story of Stuff"? It's a very well done small movie about the waste economy...
http://storyofstuff.com/
Cheers,
B.
Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
have an excellent feature on ewaste this month for free!
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/01/high-tech-trash/carroll-text
Makes one really feel sorry for mother nature to be honest.
On principle, I am with you. However, you may adopt the view that it is probably not a big problem for the planet to survive a couple of million years of bad influence from humanity.
CC.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
"This is yet another example of green washing and corporates (in this case US ones) flushing our environment down the toilet for their own short term gain."
Yes. The west has cleaned up it's act over the last few decades but the illusion breaks down when you realise much of that has been achived by throwing it over an international fence. In general the EU/AU/NZ have slightly better laws to deal with this kind of thing. What I find strange about the US is there seems to be a much larger proportion of the general population who are outright hostile to environmentalists. These people (and we have them here in Oz aswell - so untwist those patriotic nickers), also seem to rant about "UN totalitairianisim", "intellectual elitisim" and "freedom".
Personally I want to restict the the "freedom" to pillage and plunder, not because I grew up in the 60-70's (when totalitarians really were a big problem), but because I grew up surrounded by farms and can appreciate where our food comes from. The farms and surrounding bush have all but dissapeared under the sprawling suburbs of a city famous the world over for looking green from the window of a passanger jet.
I selfishly want enough arable land with a stable enough climate to feed myself, my kids, and from March next year my grandkid(s). I want my offspring to experience and appreciate both the benifits of the industrial revolution AND the awesome natural wonders in this country and elsewhere. Pretending we are green by denying we are both culpable in, and affected by, (say) West Papua or the Amazon is the height of "elitisim" that will come back to bite EVERYONE on the arse and hard!
I understand the world is a messy place and there is always a trade-off, but I think the "freedom" to blatantly pillage and plunder are "rights" that should be denied to all players in a globalised economy, those "rights" are as distastefull to me as the "freedom" to trade slaves.
So come on and hit me without hiding behind an anonymous troll, who thinks enviromentalists are the scum of the earth and why?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Just saw a mini-documentary on this a couple days ago. Turns out many electronic parts are simply burned to get at the precious metals.
http://current.com/items/76355482_toxic_villages
Is there any way to get at the metals via shredding and then panning? Any material or mining engineers have any input?
You may also realise that WE may not be around to enjoy it in a few centuries.
I am 100% sure the planet/universe will be around for a long time to come.
I should add that my comments on "doing the right thing" were ONLY for recycling efforts. Most NZ companies throw out the trash randomly like everybody else in the world.
The main point was about greenwashing and fake-recycling.
Heard an interesting speaker recently on developing products from cradle to cradle and near 100% recycling. I believe they are starting the initiatives in Sweden. (god I love Sweden...)
ref:
http://greenhome.huddler.com/wiki/cradle-to-cradle-design
One of his main comments was on how future generations will look down on our era as a sockingly wasteful society. Sort of how we look down on medievil times and their beliefs and way of life.
I'm not going to disagree. But I'll add that it's ironic that the west decries and bemoans the lack of human rights in these "slave" countries, but then actively participates in the denial of those rights.
It is a human right to have clean water and not be poisoned by toxic chemicals, especially by those that are specifically manufactured for human use. It's just two faced to complain about Chinas human rights record and then deliberately use them to a) produce shit cheaply (keeping the labourers poor) and b) export the waste back to them to suffer the consequences of that cheapness.
And because they are poor they have no option other than "thank you sir, may I have another". Colour me disgusted.
There is such a thing as moral leadership.
Thankfully, this situation cannot continue for much longer, as we are running out of places to relocate our dirty habits to. As the third world gets more of our business, they also get more of our money, and then they start demanding their rights. So we move to less demanding countries. That list of alternatives is dwindling, so IMHO, we ought to be biting the bullet now, and cleaning up our act before we are forced to.
Not only "capitalist dogma" but the obligation to shareholders and stock price is a legal one.
That is a LOT of raw resources. There is oil, lead, silver, gold, copper, Lithium, etc. in these. There are a number of expensive raw earth materials. Sending it elsewhere is basically buying raw materials, mixing them, and then sending them to another country. Instead, we would do well to research what it takes to recycle these. If we can extract these for a low costs, then we can keep these material for future use. May sound hookie, but there will probably come a time when it will be expensive or difficult to get certain materials (say a cold war in which the items are located in russia).
This needs to be turned into an opportunity, not a problem.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
"isn't the current capitalist dogma that corporations must behave unethically if that improves the short term stock price?"
I believe this is more the domain of the misinformed. Maybe you should go back to ideology school, and listen to a lecturer who actually is a capitalist, rather than go to the "Capitalism As Interpreted By Marxists" ones?
"Capitalism" as an ideology is quite like "socialism" as an ideology - it is immensely broad. Socialism does in my view not provide a clear answer to e.g. "Should we have a United Nations", and neither does Capitalism. You will naturally find people who profess to be either Capitalists or Socialists (without being strongly challenged as being something else) and who profess views on that, in either direction.
To take it to the extreme you take it is like saying "Patriotism involves placing a high value on your country, ipso facto patriots say that you should kill and dissect ten million children in poor countries and make the organs into an organ bank for the leaders of your own country. Not to do so is not patriotic." Exaggeration and hyperbole does not make for a good discussion.
On the specific subject - like Patriotism does not say anything about dissecting babies, Capitalism does not say anything about behaving unethically. Google is not behaving "uncapitalistically" for failing to sell person tracking services in every country where the law allows them to - they have simply chosen not to do it. Another element which the discussion here has failed to touch on - if people work in hazardous ways to dismantle electronics and ships, it's probably because they would not afford food or clothing for themself and their families otherwise. Which has to do with a lot of issues again, population size being one of them.
Perhaps China is seeing this as a new, and novel way to help control their (over)population?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
No freaking way.
There is no obligation to shareholders whatsoever apart from the "you can get voted of the board" one.
Many companies have made decisions to not go for pure maximum cash, but take other things into concideration as well.
Make a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life
Most of the large and even not so large "recycling" companies in the US are now owned by the Chinese. In addition to shipping e-waste back to China for processing, they are also behind the large stolen copper wire/plumbing industry that's sprung up in the past 3 years.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
Yeah, but shareholders can and have successfully argued that management did not put their priorities, as owners, high enough - receiving compensation. Not only is that a right enshrined in law, common law has tested it quite a few times.
So does that mean the old report on "greenness" of various tech companies is wrong? I remember when this came out, and greenpeace merely looked at the companies policies, not what they actually did. Now it looks like the companies were lying. Biiig surprise. Glad I didn't follow that advice.
Yeah, but I'm a shareholder of companies too, and I don't like companies that think short term.
Not all shareholders think short term.
A company's management can choose to attract different shareholders to hold their stock - and even say so publicly.
If you keep focusing on rewarding short term shareholders, naturally you will end up having a lot of short termers holding your stock.
So come on and hit me without hiding behind an anonymous troll, who thinks enviromentalists are the scum of the earth and why?
People think that way because everyone has their own definition of "environmentalist." I consider myself an environmentalist. But, others don't consider conservationists as environmentalists, or think only Greenpeace terrorists are environmentalists, or maintain any number of skewed and biased misconceptions.
The problem is that environmentalism of all stripes is largely political and has its share of hypocrisy. The Sierra club has oil wells on their nature preserves, Al Gore has a $4k/month electric bill, and everybody flies and drives. It's easy to scorn hypocrisy and disregard any of the larger ideals.
I would personally stop short at "scum of the earth," but some people who label themselves environmentalists are misguided. You say you know where food comes from - I do, too. Both of my parents, and their parents, and their parents unto the time when Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to church on Sundays, were farmers.
But, food comes from a store. You'll say, "Wait, you idiot! Someone has to grow it!" But, if the store has food, somebody somewhere is growing it. If the food is inexpensive, it's an indicator that a lot of somebodies somewhere are growing it. The miracle of the modern era is that farms are more productive - less land feeds more people - and that food can be shipped almost anywhere.
The lack of green space is simply a side effect of A) existing land being used more efficiently and B) food being grown elsewhere, where it's more productive to do so. No pillaging and plundering involved, unless you count the misguided who label themselves as protectionists/intellectuals/whatever who lock the third world out of our marekts with tariffs.
DATABASE WOW WOW
I think you missed the point of the comment about the Chinese getting of scot-free.
The scale of these electronics dumps in China defies imagination if you haven't seen them for yourself. This isn't some back ally industry that the Chinese government couldn't stop overnight if they had any mindset to do so. I'd argue that the Chinese government is just as culpable for allowing their country being a dumping ground for hazardous waste as the countries that send it are.
Is it wrong to export the waste? You bet, I work for a recycling company that doesn't, that regularly has to compete with companies with much lower overhead because they do, I'd be a lot better off if it wasn't legal, but until countries stop accepting it (and many countries particularly in Africa are banning the importation of non-functional electronics) is the blame really one sided?