Slashdot Mirror


Inside the Fake PC Recycling Market

snydeq writes "OSNews' Howard Fosdick reports on the fake recycling market — one in which companies exploit cheap shipping, inexpensive labor, and a lack of safety and environmental law to export computers and other e-waste to China and Africa where it is 'recycled' with a complete lack of environmental and safety rules. 'This trade has become a thriving business. Companies called "fake recyclers" approach well-meaning organizations — charities, churches, and community organizations — and offer to hold a Recycling Day. The charity provides publicity, legitimacy, and a parking lot for the event. On the designated day, well-meaning residents drop off their old electronics for recycling. The fake recycler picks it up in their trucks, hauls it away for shipping, and makes money by exporting it to Chinese or African "recycling" centers. Nobody's the wiser,' Fosdick writes. Of course, the international community has, in fact, devised a set of rules to control e-waste disposal under the Basel Conventions, but the US — 'the international 'bad boy' of computer recycling — is one of four countries that have not ratified and do not adhere to these international agreements."

82 of 320 comments (clear)

  1. Meh by sznupi · · Score: 4, Funny

    Market will sort it out.

    --
    One that hath name thou can not otter
    1. Re:Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Market will sort it out.

      umm... not when there is a price distortion due to a negative externality coupled with information asymmetry.

    2. Re:Meh by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Funny

      Shhh. Those are just a commie conspiracy to discredit the Free Market. Any failure by the real world to precisely replicate the predictions of an Econ 101 student with a B or better average is caused by government meddling and could be solved by cutting taxes.

    3. Re:Meh by Darkness404 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not when the government is involved...

      When you force people to "recycle" their computer equipment, no longer do people really care where it goes so long as they don't have to pay that tax, because of this it opens up a new market for cheap "recyclers" that people will flock to because they are cheap and convenient.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    4. Re:Meh by OldeTimeGeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As opposed to what? Before people were "forced" to recycle? When old equipment almost always ended up in a landfill or was dumped into the ocean, as New York used to do with all of their trash?

    5. Re:Meh by bertoelcon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except that other system doesn't exist, not as long as humans are running it anyway.

      So we just need to let robots sort this out then.

      --
      Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
    6. Re:Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Out of sight, out of mind.

      Why do you think we used to have insane asylums, orphanages and poor houses?

      I miss the good old days.

    7. Re:Meh by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 2, Funny

      and could be solved by cutting taxes

      Could be? That's Socialist propaganda! It will be solved by cutting taxes!

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    8. Re:Meh by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The landfills are full. They're overflowing, and it's getting into the groundwater. We're also using much higher amounts of fascinating and previously very expensive toxins such as mercury and chromium in the manufacture of household goods, and creating fascinating and useful toxins such as PCB's (which are mostly outlawed in the US but heavily used in manufacturing in India).

      This isn't merely a "recycling to preserve resources" issue, although copper, gold, platinum, and varous rare earths used in transformers have become increasingly expensive and valuable to recycle. It's a poison control issue, and while humanitarian concerns make it wise to consider the fate of those who handle these toxins, it's also important to remember that they grow food we buy in some of these places, and they will _lie_ aobut the toxin levels of what they sell.

    9. Re:Meh by kimvette · · Score: 2, Funny

      . Well all you do is write your name on the paper when you drop them off

      What I do is write YOUR name on the paper when I drop them off - and you're right they don't check at the time. You should be receiving the fines in the mail long after the fact.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    10. Re:Meh by skids · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, a better system does exist. You require manufacturers to price in recycling/disposal into the original product price, and use the derived money to run the program. This system tends to ensure that one recycler gets a bunch of identical units, which increases efficiency. Some companies do this voluntarily because they can refurbish turned-in units to fulfill warrantee obligations.

      It's being tried as a legislative requirement in various laboratories of democracy with varying details (some do not front-load the disposal price.)

    11. Re:Meh by djconrad · · Score: 2, Funny

      But we if could reverse the nacelle polarity, we might be able to couple the externality to the asymmerty with a tachyon burst! That might collapse the price distortion! Not that I disagree with you, but it does look like technobabble.

    12. Re:Meh by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In order for your statement to have even a chance of correctness the following needs to hold :

      Do we have EREOI > 0.2 recycling techniques for a reasonable range of goods ? (that way you allow "green" policies to quintuple the price of goods, but no more : energy is by far the biggest expense in the production of just about anything. Oh and don't let this go as an indication that I think the economy has a snowball's chance in hell if prices quintuple : it doesn't)

      Unfortunately the answer is simple : no.

      We have a few (very few) examples of recycling procedures that are worth it, like recovering gold from older electronics, but these are little snowflakes of hope 1000km in-between in the sahara that is our economy. If you somehow manage to implement this rule 90% of humans on earth will have to revert to the stone age.

      Greenies need to understand basic economics. On oil, margins are less than 2% (2.3% is the biggest figure I ever saw, and that was before the price rises). That means that the sum of all policies you implement to mitigate it's impact has to be significantly less than a 2% sales tax on oil or the economy collapses. And if you think we're bad for the environment now, just take a look, say in Azerbaidjan, just how huge the impact of the collapse of the soviet union was even on it's "protected" areas, never mind in the cities.

      And frankly, given the predicted cost of national healthcare, you've just run out of money entirely. We'll be lucky to still exist in 100 years, and the U.S. will sure as hell not cooperate much at all in any global projects. Nor will quite a few of the other nations.

    13. Re:Meh by tophermeyer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      they are a developing country. how are they supposed to have the same standards as the rest of the developed world? remember the west went through the same dirty as fuck industrial stage 100 years ago.

      Well, yeah. The west did go through that stage, and it is pretty clear how dangerous and stupid it would be to allow developing countries to make the same stupid mistakes. Especially considering that the higher populations of these developing will be demanding vastly more goods during their dirty industrial stage than did the west during ours.

      oh and the whole landfills are full is just bullshit. guess why they are full? because governments refuse to build new ones. ergo, they fill up... there's plenty of land to build land fills.

      So your solution is just be to build more landfills? That doesn't solve the problem. In fact, that spreads the problem. As a global society we produce entirely too much waste. And yes, the west is mostly to blame with our rampant consumerism and "dirty industrialism", our B. But that does not give developing nations a pass on destroying the environment as well. In fact, it places responsibility on such nations to develop cleaner industrial process, which involve reusing the vast quantities of resources sitting in landfills.

  2. No surprise... by Mashiki · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Of course here in my home province, they recently added a ECE tax which is supposed to before recycling home electronics and such. Which means that the money goes right into the coffers. Of course I can never find anywhere to drop off my electronics, except at the same places which already did it.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
    1. Re:No surprise... by countSudoku() · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No surprise, the problem is that our country is (over)run by corporations, NOT the citizens, lest we put a stop to this ignorant and greedy behavior. Anything to grease the skids of our corporate assholes, so we don't get it the way of their monopolies and profit making schemes! Fuck the rest of us who don't "get" the bribes, er, lobbyist "gifts for influence." If you disagree, you are probably not a real American anyway, so fuck you too. America is for the people, not asshole corporations. Eventually this will be dismantled, or implode on itself, like the housing and financial markets just did. The problem is STILL HERE and it has nothing to do with repubs or dems. They both suck. It has to do with the clever manipulation of our government away from the proposed design by forces unseen by our Constitution drafting forefathers. It's broken. Please fix.

      --
      This is the NSA, we're gonna geet U h@x0r5! Also, what is a h@x0r5?
    2. Re:No surprise... by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do what I do and throw in in a ditch or lake. You've already paid for someone to fish it out and dipose of it properly.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
  3. 60 Minutes did this story in 2008 - pointer by clem.dickey · · Score: 5, Informative

    Pointer to an old 60 Minutes story on just this. The U.S. recycler in question was shocked that his dumpster-full of CRTs ended up in China.

    1. Re:60 Minutes did this story in 2008 - pointer by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Funny

      Was he also shocked! shocked! that gambling was occuring in his establishment?

    2. Re:60 Minutes did this story in 2008 - pointer by Neoprofin · · Score: 3, Informative

      I work in electronic recycling and I can tell you that there are a great number of recyclers who are doing just this, however the profitability of such operations is always in a bit of flux.

      Commodity prices do not in fact cover the cost of the labor needed to break down most consumer electronics into recoverable waste streams. The cost of labor and the yield is simply not cost effective on most products without the added revenue of charging the producer/consumer or optional resale.

      The price of shipping something to China however, is practically negligible, and once they're rid of it the disposal companies could care less what's done with it.

  4. For the record by TwiztidK · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I held a computer and electronics recycling day in my town. We were able to collect over 50 used computers and many other things. Several of them were refurbished and given to people who could use them, but the majority had to be recycled. We didn't ship them to China or Africa either. I'm sure that there will always be people out there trying to game the system to make a quick buck, but there are a lot of people who are just trying to help out (by reducing "ewaste" in my case).

    --
    Sent from my iPhone 5
    1. Re:For the record by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If the junk didn't go to China or Africa, where did it go? How can you be sure that whoever you sent the junk to didn't just shove it in a container bound for China or Africa?

      --
      If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
    2. Re:For the record by TwiztidK · · Score: 5, Informative

      It went about 5 miles down the road where me and several volunteers helped disassemble, sort, package, and ship the components to somewhat local refineries to complete the recycling process. None of it even left the tri-state area during the whole process.

      --
      Sent from my iPhone 5
    3. Re:For the record by 400_guru · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I pick up several thousand pounds a year of old computers from my customers. My family and I pull them apart and recycle as much as possible. Batteries, Steel. Copper, Aluminum are the primary money makers. By weight at least 95% gets recycled and once broken down is worth money. Last trip to the local recycler was several hundred dollars US. Some lessons learned from this activity. 1) IBM is the very best at building computers that come apart. Few different fasteners mean fewer tool changes. Most materials also separate quite easily. Even their hard disks come apart quite easily yielding their substantial aluminum content. 2) Compaq was pretty good at this as well. 3) Dell PCs are HORRIBLE to get apart with nothing standard whatever. Every model different, every fastener unique. 4) No matter what the brand, power supplies are the worst. Lots of copper and aluminum in them but also lots of capacitors - the number one contaminate in PCs. 5) There is a lot of labor in proper recycling so once old enough to get a real job the kids lose interest quite quickly. Better design for recycling would make the process much more cost effective.

      --
      There are two rules to success in life: 1) Don't tell everyone all that you know.
  5. Re:Of course we haven't ratified... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Please, sir, cease your slander. The invisible hand is colour blind. It would be just as happy for white and asian children to wallow in toxic waste, assuming it is profitable enough. Only a racist, and one with insufficient trust in the market, would apply affirmative action policies to the booming "informal disposal" market...

  6. Money by lymond01 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I was talking with one of my friends who works in the oil business. He was going off how the cleaner energy technologies will never really take off while oil is 3-5 times less expensive. And sadly, I have to agree: efforts are, of course, being made but considering the amount of money that could be put towards green energy (or nuclear fission or fusion), it's very half-hearted. Cheaper is better in our society. And that applies to NIMBY projects too. It took about 20 years for people to really come around to attempting to recycle anything on a regular basis. It surprises me not in the least that people are tossing environmental concerns for cash.

    I hope, someday, that we will learn that protecting our natural resources are part of the cost of doing business. Right now we're like a bunch of teenagers wondering how trigonometry is ever going to be useful in our lives. So we're being taught, but we're not really taking it in.

    1. Re:Money by AnonymousClown · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It took about 20 years for people to really come around to attempting to recycle anything on a regular basis

      A lot of that was legislated.

      --
      RIP America

      July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001

  7. Re:Use an active volcano by JustinRLynn · · Score: 5, Informative

    "Should We Throw Hazardous Waste Into Volcanoes?". Heavy metals and nuclear waste would just get dispersed into the atmosphere.

  8. Looks like the BAN site rewards hypocrites. by jcochran · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Given the fine article here, I see that China is one of the bad boys in actually doing bad stuff, yet the http://www.ban.org/country_status/report_card.html web site has China listed as "Excellent". So something seems more than slightly fishy. Reading again, the site merely rates how the countries in question perform lip service to a set of 4 treaties and totally disregards how the countries actually act regards limiting pollution.

    Sorry people, but this is a prime example of actions speaking louder than words.

    1. Re:Looks like the BAN site rewards hypocrites. by lyinhart · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yup. This is why the Basel Conventions, like lots of international "treaties" and orgs (*cough*U.N.*cough*) don't do anything. Countries partake in them just for the sake of international politics and don't follow through on their promises. Nope, the best way to stem the tide of ewaste is by making it more beneficial (i.e. $$$) to recycle things the right way and make electronics that don't contain so many hazardous materials.

      --
      Freedom is drinking a beer in the park when you're supposed to be at work.
    2. Re:Looks like the BAN site rewards hypocrites. by Kreigaffe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is one of the things people usually overlook when bashing America.

      We rarely sign on to treaties and accords and fail to honor them; more often, we fail to sign on yet still follow the rules as if we had.

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
    3. Re:Looks like the BAN site rewards hypocrites. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Especially when it comes to torture.

  9. Reduce, Reuse, Recycle: Pick more than just one! by Tackhead · · Score: 5, Informative

    'This trade has become a thriving business. Companies called "fake recyclers" approach well-meaning organizations -- charities, churches, and community organizations -- and offer to hold a Recycling Day. The charity provides publicity, legitimacy, and a parking lot for the event. On the designated day, well-meaning residents

    ...who figure that one big pile of garbage is better than two little piles of garbage, bring in perfectly-functional equipment and sing it with me the next time it comes around on the guitar.

    You can get anything you want at Natalie's Restaurant. (The punchline, half a decade later, is that the 21" CRT I salvaged from a dumpster still works, yet I've gone through one LCD monitor due to a failed inverter and a lack of easily-available spare parts since then.)

    The only thing I've noticed in the five years since I wrote that parody is that it's getting increasingly hard to find surplus equipment these days. Product lifecycles are shorter, so consumption isn't reduced. It's sure as hell not getting reused. And it's only getting "recycled" in the sense that it's being dumped into the homes of people so poor that they melt solder off printed circuit boards over an open pit fire.

    Recycling hardware for which you have no further use is a good idea, but if you're going to recycle your old electronics, do some research and find an organization that's doing it right. ACCRC turns the scrappy scrap into scrap, turns the interesting scrap into art, and the non-scrap into computers that go directly to people in its own neighborhood.

  10. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Did the author of this article, just blame the US, for the fact that China and Africa allow their citizens to poison the environment and dump hazardous chemicals into the water ? He should stop buying computer equipment, or call the African government with his complaint.

    1. Re:Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      ...or call the African government with his complaint.

      I'm sure the President of Africa will be very interested to hear this complaint.

    2. Re:Anonymous Coward by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Funny

      He emailed me quite recently, so I know for a fact he a is pretty approachable and down to earth fellow. His English is not very good though.

  11. Fake PCs? by DWMorse · · Score: 5, Funny

    Who recycles fake PCs? I've seen them at Ikea and other furniture stores, I suppose most of them ARE cardboard...

    --
    There's a spot in User Info for World of Warcraft account names? Really?
  12. "Feel Good" recycling considered harmful by JustinRLynn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    (opinion) Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. The least of which is Recycle.

    People get fooled into thinking they can buy more and reuse less because they practice "feel good" recycling. Recycling at an energy/material loss (such as with paper), is more harmful than simply dumping or incinerating it, partly because of the actual net loss, but also partly because of the smug mindset people enter into. Compare hybrid owners who drive more because they own a hybrid.

    Without "feel good" recycling, people might be more inclined to think about purchases (which comparable food comes in the less reusable less wasteful container), and manufacturers might be more inclined to adjust the market accordingly.

    ~sigh~

  13. Take a moment to look at the squalor by BeforeCoffee · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://ban.org/photogallery/index.html

    Look at the human tragedy. Thank God today you don't live like that.

    And it's no one's fault over here, no unsigned treaty, that could create that kind of depravity. Please just for once put down your politics and look a problem square in the eye: China's just got a bad culture and a worse form of government. It's shameful to allow people to live so rotten, period.

    NO, before you get all guilt-ridden and try to heap the blame on "us": shameful, rotten, PERIOD, end of story! Good day, sir.

  14. Linux could save the World by AnonymousClown · · Score: 4, Interesting
    One of the reasons these computers are being chucked out is because they can't run the latest software - Linux is just as bad. You have to upgrade the OS to make it secure because after a while, the OS isn't patched for vulnerabilities. ex: I had a machine with RH 8 on it and I wanted to upgrade to Fedora for a more stable release and I couldn't because, the processor being too and lack of memory. I couldn't find any memory for the damn thing - at least reasonably priced (New memory is actually cheaper than the old shit)

    Windows will continue to bloat up and so will Apple's OSes. Why doesn't the Linux community make a nice slim and secure distribution that will run on a 486/586 with only 256M of memory - or less?

    I've been thinking about a non-profit for recycling these machines. Many many poor people could use them.

    --
    RIP America

    July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001

    1. Re:Linux could save the World by natehoy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why doesn't the Linux community make a nice slim and secure distribution that will run on a 486/586 with only 256M of memory - or less?

      Some of the lightweight distros, like Peppermint, Puppy Linux, and several XFCE-based distros, would run quite nicely on a 486 with 64MB memory. If you insist on a heavyweight distro like Fedora, you've already made your feature/performance decision, and you haven't chosen performance.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    2. Re:Linux could save the World by h4rr4r · · Score: 2, Informative

      There are lot of linux distros sized for something with 256MB of RAM. Mind you no 486 will have that much. I run a full linux desktop environment on a handheld device that only has 32MB of RAM. Either you are trolling or uninformed.

      DSL and puppy are both good choices.
      What kind of memory do you need? If I have it I would be happy to mail it to you.

      I would also be happy to help you find a distro that would suit your needs if this is a genuine interest.

    3. Re:Linux could save the World by Neoprofin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The sad reality is that honestly, there isn't any market for equipment beyond a certain capacity. Yes there are people with no computers, but they actually don't want 486s, in the developed world it's because a 486 still can't run modern software or provide what they consider a satisfactory experience, in the developing world it's frequently a matter of infrastructure. People with no drinking water and no stable electrical grid don't see 486s with Linux as a solution to their problems and frankly with the glut of PIII/Athlon machines that were long since throw into corporate storage closets there's no point for even the stingiest of non-profits to buy up old 486 for charity because for pennies more they could have machines five times as capable.

      I work in electronics recycling and resale, and frankly we go through this every day looking at old CRTs and PCs that still function, but quite frankly no one wants them, and even if they did the expected lifespan (especially on monitors) is so short that one has to ask the question "We can recycle this responsibly now, or we can send it to someone for 1 year and pray that they'll do the right thing".

    4. Re:Linux could save the World by h4rr4r · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you come across IBM type Ms lots of people would like to buy them.

  15. Alternatives? by mangu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I have been seeing stories like these for several years. Although this situation is clearly undesirable, I have still to see anyone proposing a realistic alternative. The bottom line is doing proper recycling costs money, people do not want to pay.

    To take something apart and separate the elements used in its construction may cost more than putting it together. Who wants to pay twice the price for anything?

    The market pressure is all against any environmentally and safe recycling. The biggest part of most electronic equipment is plastic with very low value as scrap. Fiberglass, for instance, is nearly worthless, what could anyone possibly do with the fiberglass from an old circuit board? This fiberglass is mixed with small but significant amounts of lead, how would you remove the lead before sending the fiberglass to a landfill?

    The market isn't working? OK, but would the government work either? Try telling people that their $50 phone will have a $100 tax added for properly recycling it.

    1. Re:Alternatives? by c6gunner · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Fund more biotech? We've already seen bacteria that evolved to feed on nylon. It should be possible to engineer a strain that can eat fiberglass, plastics, rubber, whatever. Depending on what the byproducts are, you might even be able to harness them to make energy.

      So, ok, I'm not a geneticist, but this seems like a lucrative line of research. I'd be surprised if there aren't already people looking into it.

    2. Re:Alternatives? by AdamWill · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It works (for a suitably small value of 'works') elsewhere. There's a recycling levy on all consumer electronics where I live (British Columbia). It gets pretty large for big items - complete computers, big TVs, fridges and the like. Several other countries and territories have them now, too. It's technically illegal to put a defined list of electronics in the municipal waste system any more, you take them to retailers who are obliged to accept them for recycling.

      It's almost a good system. I say 'almost' because the company that got the contract to do the 'recycling' is one of the big multinational waste disposal companies which, we're fairly sure, just ships it all to China anyway. But hey, nearly made it!

      Such a system can certainly work. People will bitch and whine and then just pay the fee anyway because they can't possibly *not* own the latest 89" 3D plasma monstrosity. Rabid consumerism can be made to work both ways, sometimes anyway.

      If you want a practical alternative for you personally, most major towns have a Free Geek or similar organization which will take old computers for *genuine* recycling. I believe there's a couple of phone recycling schemes that are on the level too. Not sure beyond that.

    3. Re:Alternatives? by cduffy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Doesn't make economic sense? Then don't recycle it... yet. Eventually materials used will become harder to come by (this is already happening quickly for numerous rare earth metals) and recycling e-waste will become economically viable.

      Admittedly, this leaves is the (admittedly not at all trivial) question of safe storage in the interim.

    4. Re:Alternatives? by RsG · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not sure how well biotech would work for fibreglass. Nylon is hydrocarbon derived, meaning it shares the same basic building blocks as carbon based life, so microorganisms can make use of it. Firbreglass is silicon based. So far as I know, nothing eats that.

      Plus, the fibreglass itself is less of a problem than the lead contaminates. If you could weed out those, then you could probably bury the rest safely. So far as I know, bio-remediation of lead is problematic, since it can't be broken down or rendered harmless the way that, for example, petroleum products can.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    5. Re:Alternatives? by Khyber · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Fiberglass, for instance, is nearly worthless, what could anyone possibly do with the fiberglass from an old circuit board?"

      Shred it and make a new circuit board after de-bonding and a re-deposit in the 'hot' oven.

      "This fiberglass is mixed with small but significant amounts of lead, how would you remove the lead before sending the fiberglass to a landfill?"

      Hi, my name is electromagnetic induction, and today I'll be slowly increasing your temperature to make different materials leach out of you in different steps, so as to cause as little contamination as possible of what is being recycled and reclaimed from you.

      Oh, and it's *REALLY CHEAP* to do, the morons just don't want to build the facilities to make it work.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    6. Re:Alternatives? by zippthorne · · Score: 2, Funny

      Find a spot relatively far from sources of groundwater that people need and put it all in a pile there. Maybe cover it with some dirt to deal with the jaggies and keep it from oxidizing quickly.

      I'm sure that there's a name for this.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    7. Re:Alternatives? by arth1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I have been seeing stories like these for several years. Although this situation is clearly undesirable, I have still to see anyone proposing a realistic alternative. The bottom line is doing proper recycling costs money, people do not want to pay.

      The realistic alternative is to force people to pay.
      Mandatory bottle refunds actually work, despite the dire warnings from the soda and beer industry, and fierce opposition from the reactionary right.
      Similar with wreck deposits on cars. Likewise, when car buyers are forced to pay $500 extra, and get that back when they turn it in, far fewer wrecks will be found at the bottom of a lake with the VIN filed off.

      We have governments and laws precisely because people are selfish bastards who can't be trusted to do the right thing unless forced. We can intellectually agree with many things, but when it comes to putting up, we aren't all that good at it unless forced with an incentive we can't refuse.

    8. Re:Alternatives? by CaptainZapp · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have been seeing stories like these for several years. Although this situation is clearly undesirable, I have still to see anyone proposing a realistic alternative. The bottom line is doing proper recycling costs money, people do not want to pay

      This is resolved here (Switzerland, and I think the EU too) for ages and very simply too.

      You pay the recycling fee upfront on a device. Say a couple bucks on a mobile phone 10 bucks or such on a laptop.

      This gives you the right to dump the device at any shop (selling such devices) at the end of it's lifecycle.

      --
      ich bin der musikant

      mit taschenrechner in der hand

      kraftwerk

    9. Re:Alternatives? by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 2, Funny

      Just imagine the fun and games when plastic eating bacteria escapes containment and multiplies

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    10. Re:Alternatives? by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Which morons, and can you clarify the process of induction recycling, I can't find much on google.

    11. Re:Alternatives? by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You right about privacy. I completely forgot about that. I'm fortunate, in that I don't really have a lot of information that needs to be private, because I'm not a very significant person. Maybe they should make these phones easy to destroy, so that all memory could be erased.

      As for the free paint, yeah, I'm shocked at how easy it was. There were no questions asked. You could take everything, if you wanted. I don't know how far you are from BC, Canada, but if you want, just call them when you are in the neighbourhood.

  16. Re:Not the free market... by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is a fine example of the government fucking with the free market where the electronics would probably just be traded via garage sales and thrift stores for a few decades until technology improves to easily recycle them.

    People so ignorant and so determined to foist their "me, me, me, I, myself, mine, all mine, fuck you!" world-view onto everyone else should be exhibits in some sort of "museum of insanity" where researchers into mental disorders could at least get some use out of you.

    I mean, you really suppose that people would "trade via garage sales" all that junk which they actually pay money for to be hauled away into massive, monumental, all-consuming land fills that keep growing year after year around any major city in the developed world? Really?

    The natural state of affairs in the consumer distopia is to, get this, consume without any regard to the consequences. People buy plastic crap, they use it until it breaks (a period usually measured in months) and then they promptly throw it out, followed by a new purchase of cheap disposable crap. And this model is a pivotal element of all the so-called "industrialized economies". Recycling occurs in the fucked-up model of "free market" only if some material in the waste is somehow worth extracting, at a minimum effort possible, which is precisely why it is shipped to China and Africa where children can have the privilege of wallowing in toxic shit to extract traces of raw materials. That is an unregulated "free market" at work. It works as long as the children are disposable and dying of toxic exposure tomorrow beats dying of hunger today. "Freedom" of choice in the "free market", as long as it isn't spoiled by all these "evil communist gubmint" types trying to do meddle doing evil things like trying to stop impoverished kids from inhaling toxic fumes and mountains of toxic crap from growing. The glorious "freedom" to pollute as long as it is somewhere else then you, cause "you got yours and the rest should go get theirs", you mendacious fuck, no?

  17. ...and of course by Estanislao+Mart�nez · · Score: 4, Funny
    Lawrence Summers, back when he was chief economist for the World Bank, wrote and infamous memo where he said he'd "always thought that under-populated countries in Africa are vastly UNDER-polluted, their air quality is probably vastly inefficiently low compared to Los Angeles or Mexico City" (verbatim).

    As his comments about gender and intelligence as President of Harvard demonstrate, the guy has a talent for sticking his foot in his mouth.

  18. Re:Reduce, Reuse, Recycle: Pick more than just one by jackbird · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Nonprofit Technology Resources in Philly does something similar, without the art. A very worthy organization, and one that I am constantly surprised local geeks haven't heard about.

  19. Re:Just like what happened in the USA by gary_7vn · · Score: 2, Funny

    So Africa is going to start shipping its waste to Detroit? Sounds fair!

  20. Re:Perhaps This Is The Best Option For These Peopl by magarity · · Score: 2, Insightful

    they start DEMANDING cleaner environments and standards
     
    Here's the tricky part: both the environmental and workplace conditions in the photographs of the Chinese sitesare all already against the law in China because Chinese people have demanded that this kind of thing not be allowed. What is not pictured is the recycling center owners in their Benzes and the local party bosses in their Audis (bought with bribes from the owners). Enforcing the demands for better conditions will require not different market choices or even new elections but a complete political revolution. The situation is too far out of control for normal market forces to correct when the government utterly fails to enforce laws or contracts.

  21. Can't be done by nbauman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't think PC recycling can be done.

    It takes more work to disassemble a PC than it did to assemble it from those parts in the first place. When you're done, there isn't much of a market for old 128MB RAM chips, 30GB hard drives, 500 MHz motherboards, etc.

    Is there a viable technology that shreds computers with giant steel rollers and sorts the flakes according to material, and sells aluminum flakes, etc. and sells them? Is there a safe heat process? There must be something, since there are companies that claim to provide certified recycling to meet government regulations. But I can't find one. All I can find is stories of third-world dumping.

    It may be safer and better for the environment to dump old PCs in U.S. landfills than to send them to parts unknown for "recycling." We should be able to make landfills that can take appliances with heavy metals and electronic plastics without passing it on to the water supply.

    1. Re:Can't be done by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It isn't clear that PC recycling can be done cheaper than just letting expendable kids do it over open fires; but that isn't the same as saying it can't be done.

      Compare your average PC, in terms of metals content, to the sorts of ores that are considered economically viable to extract. Particularly once you consider that somebody with a selection of common screwdrivers, and maybe a prybar, can do substantial material separation mechanically(or, if labor costs bite, shredder + magnets). With either screwdriver work or shredding + electromagnets, most of the steel that went in can be recovered fairly easily. The remaining scrap is, in percentage by weight, substantially richer in things like copper, gold, lead, and tin than many ores that are considered commercially viable.

      The real nuisance is a lot of the plastics. ABS+dyes+possibly plasticisers and other application specific additives isn't worth all that much, Ground fiberglass composites are probably worth even less.. However, with a lot of electronics, both of those will have enough halogenated flame retardants baked in that you can't really safely burn the stuff, and burying it is just an invitation to the local groundwater for any lead you didn't manage to extract.

    2. Re:Can't be done by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2, Informative

      In terms of energy output, I have no doubt that such a system would work just fine. Even quite primitive combustion technologies will get you net-positive energy out of all but the most combustion resistant plastics.

      Assuming their claims are roughly accurate, they may also avoid some of the nasty side effects of crude incineration: many plastics, and organic combustibles generally, will put out a grab-bag of nasties (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and other carcinogenic deliciousness) if their combustion occurs at too low a temperature, or is incomplete. A properly designed and operated pyrolytic system would, presumably, avoid that, assuming it actually spends its life running to spec, not necessarily to lowest operating cost.

      Where my skepticism and concern kick in, though, are with plastics that have high odds of being nasty no matter how you burn them. PVC, for instance, is ~50% chlorine by weight. Chlorine has some really vicious combustion products(dioxins being the most famous). Those guys explicitly claim support for "highly chlorinated plastics". Where does the chlorine go?

      Even plastics that sound like they should be pretty harmless when burned properly(like ABS) virtually always have a number of processing aids, additives, fillers, pigments, flame retardants, and stabilizers in them by the time they hit the real world. Depending on the precise application, manufacturer, date of manufacture, and other variables pretty much impossible to economically determine at disposal time, that can mean all kinds of curious chemicals. With electronics, chlorine or bromine based flame retardants in the plastic parts are practically a given. Neither has combustion products that I would want to breath. Heavy-metal based inorganic pigments(good old cadmium yellow and friends) cannot be ruled out. Organonickel UV stabilizers are a possibility. Lead based heat stabilizers may show up as well.

      It could be, I am not a toxicologist, that all this stuff is less nasty than what you would get by generating the same amount of energy with coal, which would make it a net win compared to current practice; but some plastics are not to be incinerated lightly, including some that show up almost across the board in consumer products.

  22. "fake recycling" by khallow · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Looked to me like a lot of recycling was going on in the photos. Burning "e-waste" isn't recycling, but the other three pictures showed people in the act of recycling electronic waste. So what makes recycling, "fake" recycling? At a glance, it is recycling in a developing world country where environment laws of developed world countries don't exist or aren't followed, if they do exist.

  23. More than 4 countries haven't ratified by mdmkolbe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The summary says the US is "one of four countries that have not ratified" but the link just lists four notable countries. Scroll down a bit and you will see that they list 15 countries haven't ratified any of the "International Toxics Agreements" (only 15 have ratified all). But is it worse than that since they only list 163 countries when there are 195(*) countries in the world. Assuming the countries they don't list haven't ratified on then that means there are a total of 47 countries that haven't ratified.

    Technically the US is "one of four countries that haven't ratified", but technically it is also one of five countries that haven't ratified, and one of three, one of 12, one of 18 and one of 47 countries that haven't ratified.

    (*) The UN has 192 member countries but excludes Vatican City, Kosovo and Taiwan.

  24. Re:Is this fake? by grahamwest · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Fake-recycler gets hardware donated for free.
    They pay $X in collection costs.
    They pay $Y to ship to China.
    Chinese company pays $X+$Y+$Z to buy the hardware.
    Fake-recycler makes $Z profit.
    Chinese company pays $A to strip hardware to components (copper wire, metal cases, individual chips).
    Chinese company sells components for $X+$Y+$Z+$A+$B to whoever is buying the wire and so on.

    $X probably isn't very much. It's not like it's a delicate operation.
    $Y is low because there are so many otherwise-empty containers going back to China.
    $Z doesn't have to be very much for the business to be worthwhile - it's not like it employs a lot of skilled people.
    $A is very low. There's a large surplus of unskilled labour in China.
    $B is probably low, but it's not like the company is doing the dirty work itself.

    As long as $X+$Y+$Z+$A+$B comes out cheaper than the cost of buying the stuff new everyone's getting paid. I honestly don't know how cheap new copper wire is or exactly what chips can be reused in this way.

    A lot of this is due to externalities, after all.

    --
    Graham
  25. Re:Recycling is extremely expensive by h4rr4r · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I have no idea where you are getting your info, but you are wrong on plastic bottles. They sell them as regrind.

  26. So what real and true PC recyclers are there? by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 3, Informative

    I got a lot of old computer parts from the 1990's. Motherfracking Recycling companies near me are a darnned joke and refuse to take tech made before 2002. Then calls me picky and unreasonable when I ask them to take my 90's tech.

    Then some want $50 to haul off a $15 CRT tube monitor that do.

    Any ideas or suggestions? I don't want to throw them in a dumpster and have mercury leaks and all that, I don't want to harm the environment. I don't want to pay $50 a monitor to get rid of them either.

    Are those types of businesses scams and frauds as well? How can I find one to take them for free. The Freecycle group in my area is a joke BTW, get a lot of no shows and then nothing happens and nobody cares.

    --
    Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
    1. Re:So what real and true PC recyclers are there? by lawpoop · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you have a FreeGeek near you, take it there. The Columbus one charge a fee of $10 per monitor.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    2. Re:So what real and true PC recyclers are there? by Nick+Number · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Really? I've had no problem taking them old towers (with the hard drives removed), video cards, power supplies, and speakers. Do they not abide by the rules they have posted for your state?

      --
      Promote proofreading. Don't mod up sloppy posts.
  27. Re:Governkment Meh by rsclient · · Score: 5, Insightful

    1. "Regulations" are the mechanism society has for enforcing a common concensus. As a society, "we" decided that cholera was bad. The solution (alongside education and convincing, of course) is regulation: all houses in area "x" must have sewer connections and must not have an outhouse. And there's a team of people to take water samples. And there are regulations on how to test the water.
    2. Laws are created by congress. There's too many to talk all at once; the solution they and every other large organization in the world have picked is to make smaller groups. These groups are called "committee"s. Are you objecting to dividing into smaller groups and attacking problems in-depth? Or is your object to the word "committee"? Did you know the libertarian party has a committee?
    3. There are no "czars" in this government. Some people are more senior, and have more authority; other people are less senior and have less authority. Are you in favor of everyone having the same authority? Or do you object to the word "czar"? Heaven knows it's an objectionable word, but it's one that the media uses to describe otherwise boring titles.
    4. I don't understand your problem with agencies. One of the agencies, for example, is the Presidio trust (I picked them at random). Do you object to a group of people, experts in the Presidio, from managing the place? Or is your objection that this group of people has a common name, "The Presidio Trust". Would you be happier if we called them group 184? Perhaps you think that we should simply sell off this land -- does this mean that you think there should be no parks at all?

    Really, I don know why you got moderated as "insiteful". It sounds more like "thoughtless".

    --
    Want a sig like mine? Join ACM's SigSig today!
  28. The recycled stuff is too expensive by tkrotchko · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As recently as 3-5 years ago you could go to a hamfest get a reasonably up-to-date laptop computer and save $500-700 from a new computer.

    Now with new laptop with good specs going for $400-500, the margins are gone, so the hamfest guys are selling laptop computers for $300$400. There's no sense in buying used in that case since it has no warranty and will probably be less energy efficient than a new one.

    The issue really is that we're getting so efficient at building new computers that it makes the old stuff worthless pretty quickly.

    --
    You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
    1. Re:The recycled stuff is too expensive by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2, Informative

      What we're actually 'efficient' at it producing needless sofrware bloat that assures the old gear won't seem useful to anybody. Even here in a nerd haven like slashdot the meme is 'get a new machine' and almost never do we ask ourselves what computing resources are really needed for a task. Instead, 'code re-use' philosophies are trumpeted and object-oriented coding is championed with the result that big blob code modules are pulled in and little parts get used. Memory fills up fast and old hardware becomes inadequate.

        When I first started using Linux a good usable desktop would run on a 486 with 16 megs of memory. For the everyday stuff that is still the norm for many people that wuold still be a useful desktop. Don't try it with a modern distro, of course. Many of us hoped that there would be a code convergance; the more something gets worked on, the more it should improve, and the same software, as it advances, should perform better and faster on the same hardware. Unfortunately egos aren't as rewarded from improving somebody else's old code as they are from getting your new code merged into the stew and/or by starting over with a new more bloated program using the latest all singing and dancing bloated software tools.

      I can't make the claim that I've done my part in helping the convergence along, have any of us? But it is something that sadly hasn't happened. I still use old 486 laptops for productive things, but only if I run older software on them and/or the current version of classic powerful tools (i.e. good old current NetBSD on a 486 laptop runs vi and the classic Unix tools quite well, even X11 with the Tab WM or FVWM)

  29. Re:Recycling is extremely expensive by NJRoadfan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    $25,000 for a car with $10,000 for recycling it.

    Cars are already one of the most recycled items out there. When they are taken out of service (usually after 150-200k miles worth of driving), the parts tend to land up in other cars. When all the good parts are gone, they are turned into cubes, melted and turned into cars again.

  30. Re:Stop getting your by Yvan256 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think you meant "the 3rd episode of the new season of Futurama".

  31. Feel free to mod me down... by BUL2294 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So why is it such a bad problem for countries that make this stuff to get it back when we (Western countries, not just the US) no longer need/want it? I'm singling out China but not Africa here...

    Let's be fair... I don't want anyone, especially children, being exposed to chemicals involved in e-waste. But I'm of the mindset that if you want to take our jobs away and make a product cheaper than we (Western countries) can make it, then why shouldn't you (China) get it back when we don't want it or it's no longer useful? This treaty basically states that countries that manufacture items get the benefit and profit of manufacture, while incurring little-to-none of the costs of disposal. US landfills have had to deal with e-waste since the early days of radio and TV--most of which were manufactured here...

    To add, I have little sympathy for countries that can't or won't control what they import. Each country is responsible for what comes across its borders. It's not like someone's hiding 2 CRT monitors in the trunk of a car & driving them into China--we're talking about huge shipping containers full of these items. If Chinese officials are too corrupt, unwilling, or inept to stop the flow of e-waste, then they get what they deserve...

    [End of rant...]

    --
    Windows 3.1x calc: 3.11 - 3.10 = 0.00
  32. Must see movie by cjjjer · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you want a good glimps into the whole recycling of electronics in 3rd world countries check out the movie Manufactured Landscapes. Some pretty incredible shit...

  33. Re:Recycling is extremely expensive by Abcd1234 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Everyone should know about paper recycling - it costs more to use recycled paper than new. The quality is questionable as well. The result is that most paper is dumped into an incinerator or a landfill by recycling centers because it is pointless to attempt to recycle post-consumer paper.

    Plastic bottles can be recycled... except if one tiny little bottle cap or ring gets into the mix the entire batch is worthless. Since this happens most of the time again plastic bottles are not generally recycled.

    Fortunately, this being Slashdot, you can make a bunch of off-the-cuff, bullshit claims with no support whatsoever, and bam! +5 insightful.

    Really, it's an excellent Slashdot-style karma-whore-post:

    1) Derides environmentalist/"green"/liberal ideas,
    2) Has an anti-establishment bent, with a "the people are stupid" twist,
    3) Heavy dose of smug superiority.

    You couldn't have played it any better. Kudos!

  34. Re:Perhaps This Is The Best Option For These Peopl by mjwx · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sure, these people might have no protection against toxins...but the alternative choice might be starvation or prostitution or even more horrible jobs like stone crushing. (yes, that is a job)

    So, a girl who can earn a months wage in a factory in just three nights on her back is far worse then the Bhopal disaster?

    This is not insightful at all. It is a terrible justification for keeping people in terrible conditions and it's wrong, people want to believe it because it makes them feel better.

    You're rant against "do gooders" ignores all the people who work to establish sustainable farming and industry with safety that meets most western standards. That means workers aren't standing around in toxins, have helmets and gloves as well as several other simple safety measures like training (e.g. spot the hazard). It helps you to belittle people actually trying to make lives better as that means you aren't being as selfish as you really are. It may come as a surprise to you but most people involved in "doing good" in poorer nations actually want to help develop sustainable communities, these are people like non-religious private aid agencies and the UN amongst others. I used to work for a company that formed a non-profit charity organisation after the tsunami in Asia, for the most part all this organisation does is zero interest loans and business advice (supporting the people who take the loans).

    Note that when 3rd worlders start making more than 10K USD per person in Per-Capita

    You really have no clue about the third or developing world. The problem isn't when the average wage out of 100 people is 10K, I can show you that in Thailand and 80 of the 100 people will be subsistence farmers. The problem the developing world has is that the distribution wealth is so terribly lopsided, a few people make billions whilst most of the population makes little.

    Do you honestly think that factories in China, Vietnam and Thailand operate without the consent of the local politicians or business leaders? No, of course not they're involved and getting their cut.

    I'm sorry to interrupt your free market drivel, but ignoring the problem will not make it go away, it took 20 years just for the Indian people to get to declare Union Carbide exec's guilty, they were fined US$2000 and let go, not a single exec ended up in jail, not a single western exec was even charged.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  35. Even National Geographic distorts E-waste by wallydallas · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I just want to thank the folks at Slashdot for posting e-waste stories like this. I've got 45 bookmarks on e-waste http://delicious.com/joerowe/e-waste I'm looking for other teachers to develop lesson plans for e-waste education. For example: National Geographic published a good story, but it contained some major myths. I've contacted NG and they refused to admit it's only a myth that computer screens from Monitex in Texas are turned into in low cost TV sets in Thailand. See the 5th picture in this set. http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/01/high-tech-trash/essick-photography BTW: This story was well documented by the TV show 60 minutes, which you can watch online. See my bookmarks.

  36. Best Buy by Nick+Number · · Score: 3, Informative

    To elaborate on what an AC already posted, Best Buy has an electronics recycling program in the US which will take all manner of products, regardless of where they were purchased. Use the drop-down menu on the right to see the rules for your particular state.

    Generally they insist that hard drives be removed from computers -- apparently they don't want the responsibility of dealing with sensitive data. They also charge $10 to take CRTs, but they give you a $10 gift card in return. Say what you will about Best Buy's other practices; this is a very useful program.

    Their standards statement indicates they don't do anything dastardly with the stuff once they collect it. I'd be interested to know if anyone has direct experience with how they deal with it all.

    --
    Promote proofreading. Don't mod up sloppy posts.