Japan Begins Recycling Rare Earth Metals From Electronics

Black Gold Alchemist writes "Dowa, a Japanese mining company in Kosaka, has begun the recycling of rare earth metals from used cellphones and computers. This is in response to a recent, temporary trade embargo from China, which is the leading supplier of rare earth metals needed for production of products including hybrid cars, wind turbines, and LCD screens. Because of the shortage of rare earth metals, Japanese trade minister Akihiro Ohata is asking the government to include a rare earth strategy in its supplementary budget for this year."

Comments

about time too...

[advocate_one]

should have been doing this ages ago, but yet again, no pressure to do so while supplies were cheap

Re:about time too...

[MyLongNickName]

Are you 12 or something? Goatse links are so 2000.

Re:about time too...

[Anonymous Coward]

yea... 2000... 1 year before Slashdot died...

Re:about time too...

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet here you are falling for it once again...

Re:about time too...

[Wyatt Earp]

The future is going to be like Against a Dark Background, we'll be going through the piles of debris looking for exotic metals.

That or we go to the asteroids and mine them.

Re:about time too...

[pyrosine]

This of course will lead them to become the lead recyclers for rare metals, helping their economy as the supply decreases

Re:about time too...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, no I didn't click it. Easy enough to check items. But I see this loser has a history of doing this type of stuff.

Re:about time too...

[puppetman]

Maybe I've been mislead, but when I drop a busted motherboard (or other e-device with capacitors) off at my local e-waste recycling depot, isn't it being shipped to China (etc) for this recycling to happen?

Or were the rare earths in the capacitors considered to be of no value given market conditions?

Re:about time too...

[GameboyRMH]

I wonder if goo.gl being associated with goatse and other shock images will have sort of a "google bombing" effect. Maybe it'll push them to add a preview feature like every other URL shortening service.

Re:about time too...

[mattack2]

That's a novel. I had no idea what it was (thought maybe movie, book, video game).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_a_dark_background

Re:about time too...

[Wyatt Earp]

Its a good book too.

Old and advanced civilization that's spread to the entire solar system which is living on the bones of the more advanced civilizations that came before it.

Goes to show how much of recycling is a gimmick

[arivanov]

Well, this goes to show how much of electronics recycling is a gimmick and publicity stunt.

Separating rare earths out of electronics waste is actually not that difficult: hit it with acid; do some basic purification first to get rid of Fe, Cu and a few other "usual suspects"; after that ion exchange chromatography does the deed. Even without initial mechanical separation there should be enough of them in the acid effluent. The fact that it was not done shows how much are we really "recycling" there.

In fact, we should say thank you to China on this one. This may finally make EU, USA and Japan governments put some money behind the electronic waste disposal laws.

Re:Goes to show how much of recycling is a gimmick

[mean pun]

Well, this goes to show how much of electronics recycling is a gimmick and publicity stunt.

Actually, it shows that current electronics recycling is not a gimmick, at least in Japan. The entire infrastructure apparently is already in place, is functioning, and is economical enough to survive. There is more to recycling than just rare metals.

Re:Goes to show how much of recycling is a gimmick

[Asic Eng]

Mainly politics I think. They want to show a response to the Chinese embargo threat. China is punching way above it's political weight, mainly on the assumption that one day they'll actually reach that weight and is becoming increasingly aggressive with (very dubious) territorial claims against many of it's neighbors. They either need to adapt a more cooperative stance, or Japan is better served by being less dependent on China.

Re:Goes to show how much of recycling is a gimmick

[zrbyte]

Separating rare earths out of electronics waste is actually not that difficult: hit it with acid; do some basic purification first to get rid of Fe, Cu and a few other "usual suspects"; after that ion exchange chromatography does the deed.

Separating them from other stuff is easy, usually because these elements are very reactive. Separating them from each other is another, much harder task. Actually, using ion exchange chromatography I doubt you can get tonnes of chemically pure metal. You need a lot of fancy chemistry. Actually this is the most polluting part of the industrial process and one of the contributing factors to closing US and European refining plants.

Re:Goes to show how much of recycling is a gimmick

[Rogerborg]

Uh... if China closed its ports tomorrow, who would blink first: them, or the rest of the world?

Up to now, China has been a most benign economic superpower, certainly far less abusive than Russia, the EU or the USA who engage in round-robin economic blackmail pretty much constantly.

If China ever start punching at their actual weight - for example, asking what exactly they can buy with the trillions of foreign currency that they're sitting on - then we'll all be they beeyatches.

Re:Goes to show how much of recycling is a gimmick

[samkass]

if China closed its ports tomorrow, who would blink first: them, or the rest of the world?

If China tried that, it wouldn't actually happen and would show the lack of power their central government actually wages. It would probably lead to the overthrow of the Chinese government long before it brought down any foreign power.

Up to now, China has been a most benign economic superpower, certainly far less abusive than Russia, the EU or the USA who engage in round-robin economic blackmail pretty much constantly.

China's entire currency system is economic blackmail. By all rights it should have appreciated an extra 50%, and the rest of the world is increasingly unwilling to succumb to such blackmail.

If China ever start punching at their actual weight - for example, asking what exactly they can buy with the trillions of foreign currency that they're sitting on - then we'll all be they beeyatches.

They can't "buy" anything with it. They have to hold on to it in order to artificially affect the exchange rates of the currencies. Their dependence on US debt purchases for this means WE have THEM over a barrel. Relatively minor policy changes on our part could have sweeping effects on the valuation of their entire economic system. Of course, they have nowhere else to dump the money so they continue to rely on US debt purchases despite its weakness. Imagine if 90% of your 401K was also kept in your company's stock... think Enron's employees... that's what China is potentially setting itself up for by buying so much debt from their biggest trading partner and the largest economy in the world.

Re:Goes to show how much of recycling is a gimmick

[Anonymous Coward]

China is punching way above it's political weight, mainly on the assumption that one day they'll actually reach that weight and is becoming increasingly aggressive with (very dubious) territorial claims against many of it's neighbors. They either need to adapt a more cooperative stance, or Japan is better served by being less dependent on China.

This is so ignorant of the situation that I sincerely hope you are not an Asian, otherwise you better brush up on the history for the past half century.

For one, do you realize that China's GDP has already surpassed Japan? So economically, they are on equal footing, with China growing significantly faster than Japan in foreseeable near future.

Second, your "very dubious" comment on China's territorial claim on the Diaoyu Island shows how ignorant you are. China has historical documents should Diaoyu Island being Chinese territory since hundreds of years past. The only claim of Japan for the Island is that US, after controlling it since WW2, gave it to Japan instead of returning it to China. Unless the US is going to recognize territorial claim based only on "might makes right" (which, incidentally, will mean they also recognize China's rule over Tibet, regardless of history), China clearly has better claim based on history.

Thirdly, it is Japan who is taking the non-cooperative stance in the whole debacle. China has proposed "let's put aside the dispute and develop together" stance since decades ago by Deng, it is Japan now suddenly arresting Chinese fishing boat captain, detaining him over 10 days, and insisting on continue prosecuting him based on Japanese local law (and thus firmly establishing precedence of Japan's rule on the island) which forced China back into a corner. The usual practice in the past was for Japanese guard boats to chase and drive away Chinese fishing boats (which, BTW, have been fishing there non-stop for generations already), for which China would have just stayed silent, then none of these dispute would have happened.

Unfortunately, thanks to lob-sided US media reporting (which obviously will neglect to report how US created the whole problem to start with), "OMG! China evil!" theme, and totally ignorant Americans regarding Asian history and US foreign policy, we get Americans who think China is stirring up trouble in the region.

Just look at how other countries are saying. The US is the only country who has said anything remotely in favor of Japan on this issue. No other Asian country spoke a word in favor of Japan. That's telling you something about Japan's goodwill (the lack of) in Asia.

Re:Goes to show how much of recycling is a gimmick

[Anonymous Coward]

This was reported on NPR yesterday. The "shortage" of rare Earth elements was primarily a result of China strategically purchasing companies that extracted valuable elements from ore. Apparently no one was paying close attention to the global supply chain of rare Earth elements. As others have said, rare Earth elements are quite abundant all over the world, so the only competitive advantage is the ability to refine the ore economically with low environmental impact.

Re:Goes to show how much of recycling is a gimmick

[elrous0]

Most "recycling" in the U.S. (probably most of the western world) consists of loading electronics into shipping containers and sending them to some third world shithole where the locals strip them in toxic working/living conditions. Interesting investigative report not long ago from 60 Minutes on the subject (and it's a chance to see the rare bit of actual investigative journalism, before it goes completely extinct).

Re:Goes to show how much of recycling is a gimmick

[petermgreen]

the only competitive advantage is the ability to refine the ore economically with low environmental impact.
Or the ability to refine it economically without giving a fuck about the environmental impact.

Re:Goes to show how much of recycling is a gimmick

[Pinky's Brain]

It wouldn't have those billions if it hadn't be manipulating it's currency for over a decade ... you are confusing biding their time with being benign. They can not just jank US and EU consumption and go completely domestic ... everything would instantly go to shit. They are not self sufficient in food or raw materials either.

They will just wait for the US and the EU to slowly choke their consumption through austerity while they build up their internal consumption and start profiting from both all the factories we shipped there and all the billions in reserves they hold. I think it will take around 20 years for them to stop running a trade deficit and build down their US/EU currency/securities holdings.

US/EU will go to shit, except for our super rich, and China will go to riches ... but not at the drop of a hat.

Re:Goes to show how much of recycling is a gimmick

[TheLink]

No other Asian country spoke a word in favor of Japan

But I don't think any Asian country has spoken a word in favour of China over this issue either.

I think most of us in Asia don't care very much - not like they'd be crazy to start a war over a few little islands. Yes it does affect the territory (and might have oil and gas), no it's still NOT important enough (don't be stupid just share the oil and gas 50:50 instead of warring). So my opinion regarding this dispute is, whoever starts shooting people first is the bad guy.

It's just like trademark enforcement. They have to defend their claim, otherwise they might lose the right to stake claim over it.

As for the claim itself, it's not so clear that it belongs to China, since apparently China says the islands are Taiwan's, and the last I checked a fair number of Taiwanese don't want to be part of China nor believe they are part of China ;).

Re:Goes to show how much of recycling is a gimmick

[wrook]

it shows that current electronics recycling is not a gimmick, at least in Japan.

Not terribly sure about electronics, but with everything else you'd probably be amazed. I have 7 different garbage categories in my town. I have to put my name and location on my garbage bags. If I make a mistake in sorting the garbage, they send it back to me (it has happened more than once...). And it's not just gross sorting. With pet bottles I have to take the caps off (different category) and the labels off (different category). My yogurt containers are made from recyclable plastic covered with cardboard. I have to separate the cardboard from the plastic and put it in different containers. Etc, etc, etc...

Electronics is easy. You take it to the electronics shop and they take care of it for you. I'm not sure exactly what they do, but I'm assuming it's fairly rigorous. Japan just doesn't have any landfill space...

Re:Goes to show how much of recycling is a gimmick

[Anonymous Coward]

China can do three things to make the world give in to demands:

1: Shoot enough LEO satellites to trigger Kessler Syndrome. Of course, it would affect them a bit, but it would devastate the rest of the world.

2: Take an active role in affecting the balance of power in the Middle East. I'll let peoples imagination take over here.

3: Nationalize all foreign interests on their soil. Everything from iPhones to any chips are now property of the Chinese governments, and any Western contracts are considered null and void. Any foreign businessmen (even corporate officers) would be rounded up as spies.

All three of these are easy to do and will not affect them in any way. Their economy has already reached its critical mass where they really don't need to keep manufacturing cheap tube socks for X-Mart. They do not need the West anymore. Especially if they militarize and start going after low-hanging fruit like Taiwan.

Re:Goes to show how much of recycling is a gimmick

[TheKidWho]

All three of these are easy to do and will not affect them in any way

What world do you live in? Those 3 scenarios are tantamount to declarations of war...

Re:Goes to show how much of recycling is a gimmick

[nedlohs]

If the debt fueled currency manipulation system collapses tomorrow. China is far better off that the US - it would suck for both of them.

What is the difference to China in any of the following:

* Ship goods to the US in exchange for dollars which are converted to. The government then prints some local currency and buys treasuries with it to keep the exchange rate where they want it.

* The government prints some local currency and exchanges that directly fore the goods, which are then dumped in the ocean.

* The local consumers consume the produts of the factories.

Yes the Russian economic collapse really sucked for the holders of Russian bonds. But it sucked more for Russians.

China knows that US debt is garbage, they just can't see an easy way off the merry-go-round yet. Note that while the US is the main destination of Chinese exports, it's not the only one. It accounts for 25% of Chinese exports, and while that's a mighty big chunk China is still fine right now after seeing a 16% decline in exports last year.

Re:Goes to show how much of recycling is a gimmick

[Anonymous Coward]

What you're forgetting is that they can't spend the money. They have enough US currency that if they tried to spend any nontrivial amount of it, it would inflate the dollar. In other words, every dollar they spend makes the ones they're still holding not worth as much. Which also makes Chinese goods more expensive to the rest of the world.

Or put it another way: They can't spend that amount of money over a short period of time without screwing themselves out of most of the value. But as soon as they try to spend a little bit -- as soon as they so much as stop accumulating more of it -- the vector of their balance of trade goes the other way because they can no longer provide cheap labor through currency manipulation. Which means that manufacturing capacity starts to leave, causing internal unrest as people lose their jobs. Not to mention whatever happens based on what other countries do in response: If China starts selling rather than buying US debt any time soon, the US might just realize that it's in their best interest to print currency rather than issuing bonds. The inflation would do the US consumer a solid anyway because it would reduce the real value of their outstanding debts.

Re:Goes to show how much of recycling is a gimmick

[Anonymous Coward]

So you are saying China is dumb for having its money tied up in US debt, which could be worthless because the US is like Enron. Doesn't that make the US even worse off?

Re:Goes to show how much of recycling is a gimmick

[tehcyder]

Their dependence on US debt purchases for this means WE have THEM over a barrel. Relatively minor policy changes on our part could have sweeping effects on the valuation of their entire economic system.

So the China is like a man handcuffed to a potential suicide on top of a skyscraper (the US), and if the potential suicide decides to jump they go with them? I'm not sure you should assume that the potential suicide is in the better position.

Re:Goes to show how much of recycling is a gimmick

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you have any idea how much this shit costs? Buying enough chromatographs to do this on a meaningful scale probably costs more than the estimated value of all rare earth metals on Earth.

Re:Goes to show how much of recycling is a gimmick

[Neoprofin]

Yeah, they were only 5 years behind the curve too.

Basel Action Network

It's unfortunate that the developed world has put pure profit over ethics in disposal of their waste, but keep in mind that in most cases Africa and China are not simply the cheapest place, they are actually paying to have this waste dumped on their shores. China in particular has laws in place to stop the practice that they chose not to enforce because the value of the commodities is great and the cost of labor and health concerns is absolutely nothing.

I work for a more reputable recycler. Almost nothing leaves the country and those things that do are going to reputable vendors. Frankly it is more expensive to do it that way, but some people actually are interested in doing the right thing and thankfully there's a market for it.

Re:Goes to show how much of recycling is a gimmick

[luis_a_espinal]

it shows that current electronics recycling is not a gimmick, at least in Japan.

Not terribly sure about electronics, but with everything else you'd probably be amazed. I have 7 different garbage categories in my town. I have to put my name and location on my garbage bags. If I make a mistake in sorting the garbage, they send it back to me (it has happened more than once...). And it's not just gross sorting. With pet bottles I have to take the caps off (different category) and the labels off (different category). My yogurt containers are made from recyclable plastic covered with cardboard. I have to separate the cardboard from the plastic and put it in different containers. Etc, etc, etc...

Electronics is easy. You take it to the electronics shop and they take care of it for you. I'm not sure exactly what they do, but I'm assuming it's fairly rigorous. Japan just doesn't have any landfill space...

Where in Japan are you? Just curious.

But other than that, you are on point. I was in Yokohama during new years eve, and it is amazing the discipline involved in the proper recycling of garbage (discipline displayed by both the collectors and the general population.) I believe it is not only out of modern necessity, but that Japan has historically been a clean country, much more than any other country as testified by Eastern and Western travelers back in the day.

Re:Goes to show how much of recycling is a gimmick

[MaWeiTao]

I think it's that Japanese have always been meticulous in everything they do. They're also very good about following rules. In many countries, particularly the US, even people who believe in recycling would likely be pissed a the prospect of having to sort their garbage so extensively.

And I can't help but wonder, why is the recycling company not doing this? Aren't these people paying taxes so that their garbage is processed properly?

Re:Goes to show how much of recycling is a gimmick

[SilverEyes]

Electronics is easy. You take it to the electronics shop and they take care of it for you. I'm not sure exactly what they do, but I'm assuming it's fairly rigorous. Japan just doesn't have any landfill space...

Often, it is sent to China http://www.engadget.com/2008/11/10/video-chinas-toxic-wastelands-of-consumer-electronics-revealed/ . It is supposed to be illegal now, and presumably regulations are being enforced http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basel_Convention

Re:Goes to show how much of recycling is a gimmick

[jimmydigital]

Imagine if 90% of your 401K was also kept in your company's stock... think Enron's employees... that's what China is potentially setting itself up for by buying so much debt from their biggest trading partner and the largest economy in the world.

Put another way... If you can't pay the bank back on a 200k mortgage you have a problem. If you can't pay the bank back on a trillion dollar loan the bank has a problem. In this case.. China is the bank.

Re:Goes to show how much of recycling is a gimmick

[blackraven14250]

Oh, right, that's why every single country buys US debt. Literally every country on Earth is a sucker. It doesn't matter that we have the world's biggest economy, the most manufacturing, most R&D, the biggest, most advanced military, the largest entertainment sector, the fact that the US has a lower debt-to-GDP ratio than half the world (including many European countries), and the de facto language of worldwide trade is English.

None of that matters. The US debt is garbage, despite the US Treasury Bonds having the absolute safest debt rating in the world.

Re:Goes to show how much of recycling is a gimmick

[Anonymous Coward]

1: China has been shooting satellites already, and if they make LEO impassible, nobody is going to attack them for that.

2: China has done this against the US in both Korea and Viet Nam, winning wars against the US by proxy.

3: It is a country's right to nationalize anything in its borders. Venezuela has asserted this.

No other country is going to risk a nuclear exchange over these things.

Re:Goes to show how much of recycling is a gimmick

[interkin3tic]

Or the ability to refine it economically without giving a fuck about the environmental impact.

Japan doesn't have much land to just dump toxins in. So you're talking about exporting the problem to a 3rd world country. Which is I guess not much different from what's going on now.

Re:Goes to show how much of recycling is a gimmick

[TheKidWho]

1) Deliberately causing the destruction of billions of dollars worth of US military and civilian equipment is not going to get the Americans pissed off?

2) The Korean War is still going on, and it's not like China won it.

3) Good luck, if they were to do such a thing, business would pull out of China and international trade with their largest trading partners would collapse to a standstill. I don't think you thought your cunning plan all the way through.

Re:Goes to show how much of recycling is a gimmick

[geekoid]

Clearly, if you can break it down to aone sentences it's not hard.

Shheeesh. It is hard.

Re:Goes to show how much of recycling is a gimmick

[Pinky's Brain]

They want to increase percentage of GDP from domestic consumption by 7% over 5 years ... that's a huge amount, they can afford some softening in US demand. As for starting to run trade deficits of their own with mercantist neighbours using China's old tricks and losing their industrial base ... I don't think they will allow it.

China's government might be totalitarian ... but I don't think it will fuck over it's population the same way first world super rich got their governments to fuck over it's populations.

China is a big believer in globalization only when it benefits their country as a whole.

Re:Goes to show how much of recycling is a gimmick

[Pinky's Brain]

"it's" -> "its" ... blah.

Re:Goes to show how much of recycling is a gimmick

[nedlohs]

US debt is popular because international trade is done in US dollars and you might as well earn some interest on the holdings you have to have in order to play that game. And a US treasury is exactly equivalent to a US dollar since the US would print money to pay off those debts before they defaulted - hence no additional risk.

Yes US treasuries are considered the safest debt in the world, but these things move slowly and the world hasn't woken up to the fact that the US can't possibly pay back all that debt without nuking its economy.

It's a self fulfilling cycle, US debt is trusted and hence a country that wants to be able to borrow money, etc will make sure to keep US treasuries/dollars in its foriegn reserves. That in turn pushes up the perceived value of those items. But that works in reverse once things start going south. And the US dollar isn't exactly worth what it used to be....

Sure it's safe as long as someone else buys the next rollover issue. There's a name for such a setup, where the only way to pay back current holders is by bringing in additional holders.

debt-to-GDP is irrelevant, because GDP counts things which are not "P" - and the US has a whole bunch of those.

And no it doesn't matter that you have the world's biggest economy, the most manufacturing, most R&D, and so on. The UK was in the boat not that long ago. The USSR was a super power even more recently. Things change. Sure right now the US is King, but the topic isn't about right now.

I'm also assuming the US isn't evil enough to use it's military to hold the rest of the world hostage. That would obviously change things, but I don't think the US people are built that way.

Re:Goes to show how much of recycling is a gimmick

[mlts]

I think most Asian countries are playing the three-monkey card because they are trying to get their economies moving due to this recession, and they just do not want to see military conflict happen. No country in the Pacific Rim wants to see a replay of "The Guns of August" in their neck of the woods.

If Asia destabilized, it would make the Middle East chaos look like a mere bar-fight.

Re:Goes to show how much of recycling is a gimmick

[hesaigo999ca]

>In fact, we should say thank you to China on this one. This may finally make EU, USA and Japan governments put some money behind the electronic waste disposal laws

Unfortunately, just like the car industry, the manufacturers should already has the means set up to take back your old clunkers and recycle them at no extra cost and use the recycled materials to create new ones from...I understand the car frame needs to be exactly pure steel in case of an accident, but the door handle does not....same as pcs, the motherboard needs to be well made, but the casing and rest of the metal for the box can be recycled metals.

Re:Goes to show how much of recycling is a gimmick

[The Snowman]

3) Good luck, if they were to do such a thing, business would pull out of China and international trade with their largest trading partners would collapse to a standstill. I don't think you thought your cunning plan all the way through.

I don't think you understand what he was saying. For all the R&D the U.S. does, it still needs factories with the blueprints, plans, etc. and those are in China. If they nationalize factories, they are holding all of the IP. If they stop exporting, the U.S. would immediately go into a recession, probably a depression. I'm not sure how many of our manufactured goods come from China, but I know it is enough that if they stopped exporting, we wouldn't have basic necessities. China would definitely take an economic hit, but it is holding all of the cards: they will have the factories, the IP, and enough logistics to keep trading elsewhere if need be. But they would be able to provide for themselves. Sure, they may lose a few million to starvation since they have a hard time producing enough food, but that would also solve their population problem.

China, or more accurately Wall Street's race to the bottom which involves placing our nuts firmly in China's grasp, is the single greatest threat to our nation in this century.

Re:Goes to show how much of recycling is a gimmick

[chowdahhead]

I listened to the NPR segment also. The expert who was being interviewed believed that the US and Australia could provide these materials with little impact on the environment, but the cost would require this to be largely subsidized by the governments. The widespread usage in consumer and defense department applications could make this a reality however, if China became aggressive in denying supplies.

Re:Goes to show how much of recycling is a gimmick

[Deslack]

same as pcs, the motherboard needs to be well made, but the casing and rest of the metal for the box can be recycled metals.

To my experience, among the most short-lived components in a PC are the motherboards and hard drives. For hard drives, it may be inevitable, being mechanical and all but motherboards? it's beyond me.

Re:Goes to show how much of recycling is a gimmick

[angus77]

That all depends on where in Japan you live. Here in Shizuoka people get away with throwing PET bottles in with the regular garbage, even.

Re:Goes to show how much of recycling is a gimmick

[adnonsense]

Yup, I just took my "combustible" garbage out and there was no shortage of PET bottles mixed in with it, even though there is a separate collection day for those.

(As far as PET bottles go, Germany has a very simple solution: a mandatory 50 Euro-cent deposit on each bottle, and suddenly they become worth something, and there will always be someone willing to go round and pick up any dropped / lost ones).

Re:Goes to show how much of recycling is a gimmick

[angus77]

I remember running around pulling glass bottles and beer cans out of people's recycling blue bins on recycling day as a kid, taking them in and getting the deposits back. I really cleaned up!

Re:Goes to show how much of recycling is a gimmick

[siddesu]

While I enjoy the occasional US bashing, this is completely wrong.

If you just look at the structure of China's manufacturing, you'll see why. Their value added is still almost 100% coming from cheap labor. For every $100 of exports, China imports about $95, and adds about $5. Almost anything high-tech is still not manufactured there, just assembled. As for the "IP" ... they hold the schematics, true, but without the US, Japanese and Korean chips to fit in those PCB boards, what good does it do to them?

This is why they try to keep their currency cheap so desperately - with low margins, dependent on cheap labor, pushing wages up even a tad too much can erode their competitiveness totally and send them into a very serious recession.

China also relies heavily on trade for energy and raw materials, and to foreign capital -- that means not some abstract money symbols, but tools and equipment produced elsewhere. They are far from self-sufficient, unless it is the 60s and 70s kind of self-sufficiency.

Also, when people talk about China's "owning" of US, or "dumping" US assets, they seem to forget the central bank of China still carries the huge negatives of the 1998 crisis, and who knows how much in bad assets from the 07-08 financial assplosion. All financed with government money that is now more or less worthless in real terms, government money that China will need 20 years down the road to care for its aging population. They can't afford to devalue what they are holding anymore than US can do so.

If it would close its borders, virtually all of China's modern manufacturing will stop working overnight, and the roughly 300 million people who have made the spectacular growth we have seen in the past three decades will be out of work.

If it would try to devalue US assets, it will condemn to hunger most of its "graying" population 20 years down the road.

In short, it won't work.

Trade isn't a weapon, it is means for people to get more value out of shit than they'd have if they just hoarded it. The sooner people grasp the point, the better things will be. It ain't rocket science.

Re:Goes to show how much of recycling is a gimmick

[blackraven14250]

You have a point, but consider - the UK and the USSR were both at the height of their power while the US existed (the USSR didn't even exist before the US, while the UK was at the height of its power in the early 1920's) , and they both fell out of that position while the US existed, both largely because of the influences of the US. They also both still exist in incarnations that are internationally strong.

You also assume that the Chinese government doesn't collapse before the relatively small weight of the US debt to China (curently about 800b, if memory serves) grows to proportions that crush the US economy. With current policy measures, the national debt is being pushed in a direction where it won't grow very quickly over the next 50 years. I don't think they will, but it's always possible.

The US doesn't even need to have someone else buy more debt. It's not like 56% GDP debt is a totally unmanageable figure, even without drastic measures like the ones instituted in Greece (look at Japan for proof that you can claw out of any debt situation if the country is determined). A relatively small changes, like letting the Bush tax cuts for > $250,000 earners, brings the US very, very close to a 0 deficit budget. All it takes is $600b (deficit numbers for the past 2 years are hugely inflated because of stimulus). It's predicted that the Bush cuts (if all are left to expire) would net 3.3 trillion over 10 years - that's half our real budget deficit, and the other half is being poured into wars against the stone age.

Just imagine what would happen to our deficit if SS and Medicare are reformed in a significant way. We'd have 0 debt within a decade

Re:Goes to show how much of recycling is a gimmick

[wrook]

That's funny, because I live in Shizuoka. Actually, it all depends on the city/town. My town is very strict. But my friend in the next town over can mix his burnable and non-recyclable plastic. I'm absolutely amazed that there's anyplace here that accepts pet bottles in burnable trash, though.

Re:Goes to show how much of recycling is a gimmick

[wrook]

I'm in a very small town in Shizuoka prefecture. As someone pointed out further down, what they will accept depends a lot on the town (or the local garbage men). Mine is fairly strict and I have had my garbage returned for fairly minor mistakes (like accidently including non-recyclable plastic in my recyclable plastic bag).

Re:Goes to show how much of recycling is a gimmick

[penguinchris]

In Southern California the poor/homeless still run that racket. In some towns and cities all trash and recyclables go in just one bin - it's all sorted for you later at a processing facility. To get your 10 cent deposit back for bottles you have to find a place to return them, which are not that common and are open during fairly limited hours. So many (most?) people just toss them in the bin since the city will recycle them anyway. If your town has you sort trash and recyclables, most people just put the bottles in with the recyclables rather than go get their deposit back. I see people picking through garbage bins big and small for bottles almost every day.

In western NY where I grew up it's a lot easier to return bottles - most every grocery store takes them back, as well as other stores that sell food. Most have the automated return machines you feed your bottles into (though these are more common in some parts of the state than others) which are available 24/7 since almost all grocery stores are open 24/7 - which also isn't true in California.

I'd be interested to see statistics regarding recycling in the two states - I think despite the 10 cent CA deposit people in CA are less likely to pay much attention to recycling because of the way the bottle return and trash collection is set up, while in NY with only a 5 cent deposit, it's much easier to return bottles so people do that, and most people take separating trash from recyclables (most towns provide the different bins) seriously.

Re:Goes to show how much of recycling is a gimmick

[nedlohs]

I'm not saying the US is going to cease to exist. Germany is still an economic powerhouse even after it's inflationary woes between the wars. Argentina is doing fine after it's more recent inflationary woes. The Netherlands still exists, sure it isn't exactly a world economic power anymore, but it's people have a great standard of living. Same with France.

The government debt levels of the US aren't really the issue anyway, that just puts the US at more risk of external factors. Japan was (and is) in a very different situation, they're high domestic savings rate makes a big difference.

The problem for the US is that you can't sustain an economy on debt fueled consumption forever. At some point you have to pay back those debts, which means producing and saving instead of consuming. The US has the benefit that those debts are in US dollars which they can issue as much of as they like, so they can print their way out. But for the people in the US that "solution" is possibly worse than defaulting...

Yes the US can get out of this reasonably easily, the politicians just need to let the debt unwind and the standard of living plummet for a time. But that doesn't win them the next election so that seems an unlikely choice. They can keep kicking the can down the road so the next guy gets to have the problem, but at some point you reach a tipping point and can't delay it any further (for the US that happens if foreigners get spooked enough to get out of treasuries for whatever stupid trigger reason).

They have been doing the exact opposite recently, actively trying to stop debt from being reduced. And that tipping point has to be getting close. Of course I'm *really* bad at picking such points - I expected the US housing bubble to crash in 04 since it was clearly at ridiculous levels, but it was only half way done inflating...

SS and Medicare are a different issue, since that is internal debt. But there's no way the government can ever meet the payments on those in the future. Either they cut back those benefits or they have to run up yet more huge foreign debts (or print of course).

I might be wrong on all of that of course, smarter people than me disagree with me after all. But I really think we are at the "could crash suddenly and completely overnight" point with respects to the US economy - though we could stay on that edge for 20 years of course. And I don't see the politicians doing anything to turn around. I am still in the US so clearly I don't expect the end of civilization as we know it or anything. Just a Russian style collapse - which is simple enough to recover from, but very unpleasant for the people living through it.

Re:Goes to show how much of recycling is a gimmick

[angus77]

I'm in Shizuoka City. I've heard Numazu's pretty strict and will actually return your garbage bags (is that where you are?). Not sure about other municipalities.

Here, they don't accept PET bottles per se. They just don't give people shit if you do throw them in with the rest of the garbage. And so, people do (even the 2L bottles, and lots of them).

Re:Goes to show how much of recycling is a gimmick

[santax]

Oh man, I feel so silly after reading all the replies to this post. I thought he was from California!

Not exactly a first

[spectrokid]

The technology has been around for years. I guess what is new is that the suits no longer see it as a "green" thing but as a necessary supply line.

Re:Not exactly a first

[arivanov]

The tech described there is metallurgy. It is good for recovering Fe, Cu and Pb (which is nowdays banned anyway). I have some doubts about its ability to recover rare earths effectively.

Re:Not exactly a first

[txoof]

I wonder if we will see landfill mining in our lifetimes? It seems like we'd need a pretty astounding shortage of Cu and Fe before it would be energy efficient to start digging through the landfills for old TVs and washing machines

Re:Not exactly a first

[GameboyRMH]

Landfill mining is sort of already happening. Copper "dealers" buy or "liberate" certain parts from cars in junkyards for the copper. Try finding the main battery leads for any BMW with a rear-mounted battery. A junkyard may price these 15' long thick copper cables the same as the 6"-3' long battery leads (which are often made of steel instead of copper) on most cars.

Also try finding copper piping in any abandoned house in a bad neighborhood.

I've heard that transmission casings are one of the most highly prized objects to scrap hunters. They're great big hunks of sweet, sweet aluminum.

Re:Not exactly a first

[txoof]

Try finding your AC heat exchanger coils anywhere in New Orleans. Those suckers just vanish these days.

other options are also being considered

[siddesu]

like, for example, importing the stuff from mongolia. this may turn out to be the faster and cheaper way out.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704380504575529383600995748.html

The most interesting part of this mini-debacle is how did the idea that there would be a shortage of rare earth elements came about at all, and why did the Chinese believe it, the idea being utter bullshit.

While it is true that China manages to produce these cheaply at the moment, rare earth elements are available basically all over the place in similar proportions.

Using them as a policy-making tool has done no harm to Japan, and potentially a lot of harm to the credibility of China as an economic player, especially to its counterparties in Asia, but also anyone who may have a reason to expect potential future clash of interests.

While the Japanese acted out during the crisis as scared pussies, the Chinese appear to have played the role of the dumber party.

Seeing great Asian powers like Japan and China just learning to dab at foreign relations after 6 decades of American dominance is very interesting.

Re:other options are also being considered

[Anonymous Coward]

Using them as a policy-making tool has done no harm to Japan, and potentially a lot of harm to the credibility of China as an economic player, especially to its counterparties in Asia, but also anyone who may have a reason to expect potential future clash of interests.

I know it is a common theme here to bash China for anything and everything, but restricting exports due to national interest is SOP for every single country on this planet!

Are you going say US restrictions on crypto/hi-tech export is doing "a lot of harm to the credibility of the US as an economic player"? Are you going to say Russia's restricting food export due to projected shortage, or Thailand's restriction of rice export due to poor harvest is doing "a lot of harm to the credibility of these 2 countries as an economic player"?

Restricting export to Japan, which Chinese officials keep denying BTW, is just a simple message to Japan saying "we are not going to let you slap us in our face and then expect business to go on smoothly".

Re:other options are also being considered

[siddesu]

Are you going say US restrictions on crypto/hi-tech export is doing "a lot of harm to the credibility of the US as an economic player"?

It most certainly did. Did you miss the few years in the 90s when it spurred a large body of crypto research and work outside of the US by all parties, who were affected by the ban?

Are you going to say Russia's restricting food export due to projected shortage, or Thailand's restriction of rice export due to poor harvest is doing "a lot of harm to the credibility of these 2 countries as an economic player

Having a reason for the restriction (shortage due to a crop failure) is something quite different from using trade limits as a policy tool. I am not sure why you can't see the difference.

For example, the attempts of Putin to use gas exports as a policy tool in Europe has certainly brought more than a few frowns from the EU. With Ukraine, it exploded into a full-blown trade war.

is just a simple message to Japan saying "we are not going to let you slap us in our face and then expect business to go on smoothly".

It is my understanding that the arrested captain tried to ram a Japanese vessel. This is certainly a crime in Japan, and probably one in China. In this case, it seems China is applying laws more selectively than Japan.

Re:other options are also being considered

[vlm]

While it is true that China manages to produce these cheaply at the moment, rare earth elements are available basically all over the place in similar proportions.

Correction, China produces zinc cheaply at the moment. Mostly due to complete lack of environmental regulation.

The situation with indium is weird. If you scooped up a random perfectly mixed shovel full of global average earth crust, its 3x as high concentration as silver, which sounds GREAT. However, unlike silver, it never really accumulates anywhere. The current best source is some of the residue of zinc ore production, where its a spectacular 50 ppm, about 200x more concentrated than average crust composition. Silver sometimes is dug out of the ground in nuggets of more or less pure silver, which is a factor of a million more concentrated than average, plus or minus an order of magnitude. Thats why we have mines for silver, but no mines for indium.

So indium is freaking everywhere, all over, at a very low level. Last I heard, it wanders around a tenth of gold price. You could get about ten oz of indium per thousand tons of "average crust"... At roughly current indium prices thats about a thousand bucks revenue for processing about a thousand tons of dirt. A buck a ton isn't going to do it, even with slave labor in China. But what if the price went up to, say, platinum prices? Thats $20K revenue for a thousand tons of dirt, or $20 per ton. I'm thinking $20/ton is economically viable, maybe even in the USA...

Re:other options are also being considered

[Anonymous Coward]

> It is my understanding that the arrested captain tried to ram a Japanese vessel.

My understanding is the opposite---it is the super-big Japanese vessels surrounded a ultra-small chinese fishing boats, and forcing the fishing boats to collide into their own ships.

If you look at the location where the incidence occurs, you should see that it is an island very close to Taiwan and 10 times far away from Japan. Claiming a location like this as their own territory is outraging.

It is the Japanese government who refused to release the captain of the fishing boats, causing the such a reaction from the Chinese government. Who is the bad guy is pretty clear in this case.

The world should never forget what Japanese did in the World War II. Its crime was no less than the Nazi's.

Re:other options are also being considered

[siddesu]

Your understanding is wrong, here's a video for you with the ships in question. They are of similar size :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVJC-eV8jRA

Re:other options are also being considered

[wrook]

It is my understanding that the arrested captain tried to ram a Japanese vessel. This is certainly a crime in Japan, and probably one in China. In this case, it seems China is applying laws more selectively than Japan.

One thing to note is that there is a video of the event but it hasn't been seen by anyone other than the investigating parties. The Diet has asked to see it and there is a debate over whether or not to let the government see the video. Apparently there is some worries that making the video public (even to just the government) could incite China further. However, part of me wonders if that's the whole story. After all this fuss, I'd certainly like to see it...

Re:other options are also being considered

[Anonymous Coward]

Your insistence on others being paid for suggests me that you're in fact the one that's being paid here.

Re:other options are also being considered

[TheKidWho]

for suggests me

See what I mean?

Yes I am being paid however, since I am at work at this hour.

Re:other options are also being considered

[siddesu]

Me too. I've heard that the Japanese are hiding it in order to defuse the situation, but I'd rather judge for myself.

Still, I can see how it can inflame China further even if it shows that the Japanese vessel is not at fault.

Re:other options are also being considered

[Anonymous Coward]

Better to back off.

If what you think is true, it is pointless to argue about it -- just wasted breath -- the goon won't change the script page he's reading from.

I've stopped wasting time on them when Usenet still ruled. They used to hang out on soc.culture.taiwan en masse and post threats, swears and slander all day long.

Now they are somehow Taiwanese defenders ...

Not even worth the burned karma.

Re:other options are also being considered

[ColdWetDog]

Actually, what that video shows is the damage to both hulls and a cheezy CGI simulation of what was supposed to happen. Clearly, the Chinese vessel (which, as you point out, is approximately the same size as the Japanese patrol boat) hit the other vessel with it's bow, but it isn't clear exactly how the boats managed to get themselves into that particular configuration.

So the troll post you replied to is wrong, but it isn't clear just what happened.

Re:other options are also being considered

[geekoid]

Yes, but when your current supply lines are focused on one place, changing them is expensive and time consuming.

It's not like Japan has a lot of land they can mine on.

Re:other options are also being considered

[WindBourne]

Which is why the Chinese gov. was running around for the last decade trying to buy REE mines and processing. There is more than enough to be dug up. The problem is processing. It is messy and expensive. The west needs to do this though. ANd, the Mongolia idea is total BS. ALl of the ore would still be sent to CHina.

Re:other options are also being considered

[thoughtsatthemoment]

The Japanese don't allow anyone to enter territory waters of the islands, even though they only have administrative rights, meaning they can't arrest anyone simple for entering the waters. So they create crimes by positioning a boat in front of any vessel that is navigating towards the island.

Recently the Chinese fishery authority sent two boats to circle the island and played this cat'n mouse game with 6 Japanese boats. From the articles I read, it was very funny.

Since the Japanese only have administrative rights over the islands, it's aggressive for them to say there is no disputes, hmmm, got to go.

Re:other options are also being considered

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't clear, but it is clear enough the idiot Chink burger flipper is wrong. GP was obviously replying to the amusing "super-big-super-small" part.

Otherwise, the Japanese should just release the video and use those tons of plutonium they store for a good purpose. Building some portable multistage thermonuclear explosive devices, for instance.

Re:other options are also being considered

[Anonymous Coward]

If you look at the location where the incidence occurs, you should see that it is an island very close to Taiwan and 10 times far away from Japan. Claiming a location like this as their own territory is outraging.

Ignoring the other errors in your post, the Japanese islands claimed by the ROC/PRC are about the same distance from either Japan or Taiwan (~170km).

Re:other options are also being considered

[Anonymous Coward]

even though they only have administrative rights,

Quite incorrect. Japan surveyed the islands back in 1880s, found no marks or claims from anyone, and claimed ownership.

The islands were returned to them by the US in 1972 along with the Ryukyu islands.

China (and Taiwan) put a claim to the islands for the FIRST time in 1972, only after it became known there may be something valuable there.

Historically, China has not claimed the Senkaku/Diaoyutai islands ever, except in "ancient" documents that miraculously appeared after 1972.

Re:other options are also being considered

[thoughtsatthemoment]

I think there has to be international treaties between neighboring countries to settle disputes. Until then lets just call each others' evidence miracles.

Re:other options are also being considered

[Anonymous Coward]

You have not presented any evidence, so I am not sure what exactly are you talking about.

In the case of the Senkaku islands, the situation is crystal clear -- there have been no Chinese claims to it whatsoever until 1972. They certainly did not place any claims or objections post-WWII, not until people claimed the islands have value.

There has been Japanese claim on the islands since long before that, claim quite in-line with international law.

All international treaties since the first claim, pre- and post-WWII have acknowledged that the islands are Japanese territory, including the treaty of San Francisco.

China's claims aren't based on any international treaty. If you think otherwise, please produce a treaty that recognizes China's claims. Any international treaty. Thanks.

China has, since the beginning of the 1990s, increasingly used naval power to claim islands as far as Philippines. No treaties, no negotiations, just armed boats.

It is quite obvious who is in the wrong, from the perspective of international law.

Re:other options are also being considered

[thoughtsatthemoment]

You seem to be quite assertive in using strong words as if this is a done deal. But anyone who can read can see what the disagreements are all about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senkaku_Islands#Territorial_dispute

BTW, I said you need treaties to settle disputes, not to support claims.

Re:other options are also being considered

[thoughtsatthemoment]

Oh, in case you missed it in the Wiki article, the Chinese gave names to the islands first. And the Japanese name for the main island, Uotsuri Jima, has the same meaning as the Chinese name. It's not China getting more aggressive, but Japan can no longer bully China. Get over it.

Re:other options are also being considered

[Anonymous Coward]

Wikipedia says basically the same thing I say -- China did not have any claims to the islands prior to 1972.

What else have you got?

Re:other options are also being considered

[thoughtsatthemoment]

Are you a Japanese textbook writer? You seem to be good at spinning.

Re:other options are also being considered

[Anonymous Coward]

the Chinese gave names to the islands first

Yep, that is what they keep saying. After 1972.

It's not China getting more aggressive

This is both factually incorrect, and a stupid thing to claim.

When you lie in forums, you should use subtler lies, that aren't so easy to expose and that play on more complex feelings than just "Japan is bullying China".

Go read some Iris Chang for some beginner training in trolling and lying.

Re:other options are also being considered

[Anonymous Coward]

That's all the comeback you can muster?

A wiki article heavily trolled from Chinese IP addresses, and stupid and childish name calling? But still no evidence of China claims before 1972? Not even fakes?

I weep for slashdot. Even the trolls have gotten useless.

Re:other options are also being considered

[thoughtsatthemoment]

I can see you've trained very well. Why only the tips for beginners? You must also know some advanced stuff.

Re:other options are also being considered

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I learned to spot trolls on soc.culture.china long time ago, threatening anyone who'd post something about political protests or prosecutions in the PRC.

Just like you, they wrote stuff from a script, and liked keywords like "Japanese bullying", "Western treachery", "American imperialism" and "sabre rattling" a lot.

Who knows, maybe I've even read something from your parents there.

Non-cycle?

[Smallpond]

What this suggests is that there should be a middle ground between dumping stuff in a landfill and recycling it. We should be segregating material that we don't currently recycle or doesn't make economic sense to recycle, but might become scarce in the future. That will make it easier to recycle when we need it.

Re:Non-cycle?

[martas]

while this is a good idea (ok, a very good idea), the difficulty is implementing it. it's already difficult enough to separate the 5 or 6 kinds of materials that are being recycled today from trash, let alone extending that to a large number or other, potentially recyclable materials (which is, really, almost every kind of trash other than food...). pulling this off would require serious commitment from governments, organizations, and individuals, and that seems unlikely, considering that simply separating plastic bottles and cans from trash already seems to be an incredibly difficult task for many people...

Re:Non-cycle?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not difficult. Most of the people I know of who do not recycle do so out of a conscious malice.

Re:Non-cycle?

[aliquis]

I'm not American, but:

I wonder where all the electronic scrap goes atm? We do collect it.

I assume either it:
* Already gets recycled as far as possible, what happens with the rest?
* Get stored because they think it's bad for the environment.
* Get exported to be recycled or stored and then I guess anything can happen.

If nothing else you can just start mining old waste dumps.

Re:Non-cycle?

[txoof]

In Norway we have plastic, glass, metal, electronic, paper and food scrap recycling and it's pretty popular. I think most everyone just does it because it's the 'right thing' to do. It doesn't hurt that there's curbside for most of it.

Re:Non-cycle?

[Anonymous Coward]

We put them to a place called "Away".

Re:Non-cycle?

[swb]

It's really not that difficult. A waste-energy plant I have as a client already separates out glass, copper, brass, zinc, ferrous metal, and aluminum, and this is an old plant, built in the late 1980s that was really only designed to produce power plant fuel. The material separation is more about protecting the furnaces at the generating plant with a refined fuel product than recycling. I think most of the metal separation is targeted at cash value.

Re:Non-cycle?

[lxs]

Coincidentally, much of it ends up in China, poisoning the local population.

Similar dumps can be found all over Africa and Asia.

Re:Non-cycle?

[demonbug]

Here (California) it varies widely depending on where you are. In the town where I live, we have one container for metals, plastics, and glass, and one for paper (used to have separate containers for metals, glass, plastic, and paper, but they consolidated). Green waste gets picked up separately (no container, you just pile it on the side of the street and it gets picked up once a week), and e-waste you have to cart out to the landfill (it doesn't go into the landfill, you just take it there to drop it off in bins - same with household haz waste, things like paint and such). You're on your own for recycling/composting food waste, though there has been talk of changing that.

In the town where I work, the only thing you need to separate out is paper. Everything else goes in the trash, and gets sorted at the transfer station (though I don't believe they do any composting of food waste). I'm not sure what they do for yard waste.

Re:Non-cycle?

[Thuktun]

Eventually, if prices on these materials goes up enough, we may end up mining landfills for them.

Re:Non-cycle?

[geekoid]

Do you meant ehya re actually recycled? or do you mean they are put in a box for recycling and then taken away?

As recycling gets more and more 'wider', the cost of centralizing the separation becomes better then doing it at the curb.

Re:Non-cycle?

[mlts]

Here in Texas, we have single stream recycling, where everything recyclable gets put into one bin, then gets separated out at the plant. Austin, Dallas, and Houston all have this, and for two out of the three cities, it actually turns a profit. The third city signed a really poor contract with three times the processing fees as the other two cities, otherwise it would actually be receiving a check from the recycler as well.

Re:Non-cycle?

[txoof]

Based on the amount we pay for trash pickup, the 40% tax rate, Norwegian's compulsive honesty I'm pretty sure it's being dealt with appropriately. Every large kommune also has a bio-gas plant where a good deal of the gas-able materials go. As for the E-Waste, I don't rightly know. In the USA, a good deal of the E-Waste is just dumped in third world countries.

But again, based on the typical Norwegian compulsive and inescapable honesty, they probably recycle the computer bits using a method that is five times more expensive and six times cleaner than the international "standard".

The most environmentally unfriendly thing Norwegians do is hunt whales.

Great

[Anonymous Coward]

I have three old hard drives. When can Japan pick them up?

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell with that, wrap them in used panties and they'll buy them off you.

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

I have three old hard drives. When can Japan pick them up?

I'm pretty sure you were making a joke, but the best option is to get off your ass and take them to your local recycler (the EPA has a partial list). I find that a lot of people who crow about how important that we recycle our waste, that is, how other people should recycle their waste, can't be bothered to actually take care of recycling their own crap.

Necessity...

[zrbyte]

THE most powerful driver of change.

Sadly this is the way we overcome our big problems. Not by foresight, predictions and educated action. The shit has to start hitting the fan to get people moving in the right direction. I mean this whole rare earth situation has been foreseen. It was obvious that China was building a monopoly years ago. The same thing happens with the coming helium shortage, energy problems, global warming, you name it. It really has to get nasty for people to do something about these things.

Not Sure, Seems to Be More Territorial Dispute

[eldavojohn]

In fact, we should say thank you to China on this one.

Recent news reports have Japan accusing China of this being over a territorial dispute. The traders are saying that things have resumed but that this is just an excuse for China to harass traders and outbound exports with "preshipment" checks. China denies this has anything to do with the dispute but the timing is more than a bit suspect and why is this only directed at Japan?

I don't know how much of an net positive environmental impact recycling rare earths from circuitry provides (is your acid economically and environmentally friendly? what are the byproducts? are they less damaging than the circuitry to the environment?) but I don't think it's wise to thank countries for exacerbating a territorial dispute. The world has enough of those now, we don't need another escalation or spat between countries.

Re:Not Sure, Seems to Be More Territorial Dispute

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think it's wise to thank countries for exacerbating a territorial dispute. The world has enough of those now, we don't need another escalation or spat between countries.

Are you American? Perhaps it would be educational for you to realize that the whole territorial dispute mess is intentionally created by the US to start with?

Use some common sense here, Japan lost WW2. Why would the losing country still have any territorial dispute with other countries in the region? Wouldn't everything be settled (to the disadvantage of the losing side) when WW2 ends?

Well, consider this imaginary scenario. France was controlled by Germany during WW2 and was eventually liberated, so let's imagine that the US army controlled all France territory when WW2 ends. Now, instead of returning all former France territory to France, the US decided to keep, say, a few islands to itself. At that time, France being devastated after the war, was in no position to protest. Cue 20 years later, imagine France and US being not in very good relationship, but West Germany became a lapdog of the US, so US returned those island, not to France, but to Germany! Now, will it be a surprise to you that France and Germany will have territorial dispute for decades to come?

This was essentially what US did to the Diaoyu Island after WW2, in 1972 they returned it to Japan instead of to China, which has claim over the island since hundreds of years ago. Not surprisingly, China and Japan has been squabbling about it ever since.

Re:Not Sure, Seems to Be More Territorial Dispute

[DrgnDancer]

I don't per se know much about this particular situation, but I do know enough about generic Chinese history to make a general statement that China pretty much claims all of East Asia. At one point or another in its long (and often, but not always, glorious) history China has managed to conquer just about every piece of the East Asian continent; and has a habit of considering anything it once owned to belong to it forever.

So again, I'm not going to comment one way or the other on this specific situation and whether an injustice was committed here, but as a general rule of thumb any country claiming sovereignty over any piece of Asia (up to and including their own countries in some cases) risks offending China. If they're going to engage in economic warfare every time they think they have a claim to bit of territory, we could be in for a long century.

Re:Not Sure, Seems to Be More Territorial Dispute

[TheKidWho]

How much does the PRC pay you to make these posts?

Re:Not Sure, Seems to Be More Territorial Dispute

[Anonymous Coward]

5 mao.

Re:Not Sure, Seems to Be More Territorial Dispute

[Anonymous Coward]

Preshipment - assay how much of each element is used in a finished product?
Could it be a dispute about taxes owed by mine owners and refiners?

Re:Not Sure, Seems to Be More Territorial Dispute

[molnarcs]

In fact, we should say thank you to China on this one.

Recent news reports have Japan accusing China of this being over a territorial dispute. The traders are saying that things have resumed but that this is just an excuse for China to harass traders and outbound exports with "preshipment" checks. China denies this has anything to do with the dispute but the timing is more than a bit suspect and why is this only directed at Japan?

China is in territorial dispute with every SE-Asian country that has a shoreline. They claim sovereignty over every island down to the Philippines. For example, they have claims over Paracel islands which in theory, belong to Vietnam. Recently they started to harass fishing boats, hold them at ransom, very similar to what Somalian pirates do. Vietnam has historical documents to prove their claim - irony is, that actually some of the documents the Chinese produced to prove their point turned out to be validate the Vietnamese claims (they mention these islands as "foreign lands" in their records). Also, they threatened foreign companies (oil exploration) that had contracts with Vietnamese oil companies to back out. Finally - this started this year - they began to organize "tours" to these islands, showing the beauty of these "most remote Chinese lands." In reality, there's nothing to see there actually. Except Vietnamese fishermen who lived there for generations. Well, not anymore, actually, but you get the point ... just trying to illustrate how territorial the Chinese are... and how arrogant.

Re:Not Sure, Seems to Be More Territorial Dispute

[hcdejong]

I don't know how much of an net positive environmental impact recycling rare earths from circuitry provides

As I recall, separating ore into rare earths isn't a clean process either, so it may still come out ahead.

Re:Not Sure, Seems to Be More Territorial Dispute

[thoughtsatthemoment]

Paracel islands which in theory, belong to Vietnam

In theory, they belong to the Earth. Everyone is arrogant in claiming land. What you said about China is the same as what Japan has been doing to China, and what Russia has been doing to Japan. But this time China found a way to challenge Japan because Japan positioned itself as "there is no territorial disputes between the countries".

Re:Not Sure, Seems to Be More Territorial Dispute

[thoughtsatthemoment]

What the GP said is quite insightful, except to those who don't see their own bias.

Re:Not Sure, Seems to Be More Territorial Dispute

[thoughtsatthemoment]

but as a general rule of thumb any country claiming sovereignty over any piece of the world (up to and including their own countries in some cases) risks attracting the nose of the USA.

FTFY

Re:Not Sure, Seems to Be More Territorial Dispute

[Dishevel]

Fucking environmental wackos.

Re:Not Sure, Seems to Be More Territorial Dispute

[thoughtsatthemoment]

lol. Your environmental awareness is better than mine.

Re:Not Sure, Seems to Be More Territorial Dispute

[TheKidWho]

What the GP said is quite insightful to those who don't see their own bias

FTFY

Re:Not Sure, Seems to Be More Territorial Dispute

[thoughtsatthemoment]

What the GP said is quite insightful to those who are aware of everyone's bias. FTFY

FTFY

Re:Not Sure, Seems to Be More Territorial Dispute

[ThatsNotPudding]

It's also interesting to remember, on the last two or three attempts by (Imperial) China to invade Vietnam, they had their heads handed to them. The French and the US were not the first to find out that the Vietnamese do not go gently into that good night.

Re:Not Sure, Seems to Be More Territorial Dispute

[TheKidWho]

The GP's post is hardly insightful and by assuming so you reveal your own bias and ignorance. Those islands were controlled by Japan after the first Sino-Japanese war in 1895, 4 decades prior to the start of conflicts that led to WWII. The Chinese government of that era even officially recognized them as being administered by the Japanese government, they had never officially claimed them. The GP's point was that all land Japan gained during WWII should be returned to their owners, however as I've stated, they claimed those lands well before WWII. The US rightfully assumed control of the islands after WWII and they were hardly in a position to return them to communist China in 1972 during the Cold War. Fearing a loss of Taiwan to mainland China, the US government would also not want to hand them over to Taiwan, hence the passage of the islands to the Japanese.

There are two main reasons why China wants control of those islands, the first is the extensive oil and natural gas deposits that are claimed to be within the 200 mile EEZ. The other reason is that with control of those islands under a US friendly power(Japan), China has little military access to the Pacific Ocean. Any other reason is a bold faced lie.

Re:Not Sure, Seems to Be More Territorial Dispute

[thoughtsatthemoment]

Fearing a loss of Taiwan to mainland China, the US government would also not want to hand them over to Taiwan, hence the passage of the islands to the Japanese.

If they belonged to Japan all along, why would the US consider returning them to Taiwan?

Any other reason is a bold faced lie.

Did the CIA pay you to post that?

Re:Not Sure, Seems to Be More Territorial Dispute

[TheKidWho]

If they belonged to Japan all along, why would the US consider returning them to Taiwan?

I don't believe that was ever officially considered an option by the US Government. However many Chinese nationalists believe it should have been given to Taiwan.

Did the CIA pay you to post that?

No. You can go through my thousands of posts on slashdot if you want proof that I'm not a CIA shill or any shill for that matter, unlike the other anonymous poster.

Re:Not Sure, Seems to Be More Territorial Dispute

[thoughtsatthemoment]

I don't believe that was ever officially considered an option by the US Government.

But your previous statement implied that. Since you are not ignorant, you should know the US position at that time. Or do you just speak without knowing the facts?

Re:Not Sure, Seems to Be More Territorial Dispute

[TheKidWho]

The GP's post referred to handing over the islands to Taiwan, I simply addressed it.

Re:Not Sure, Seems to Be More Territorial Dispute

[TheKidWho]

I take that back, I'm assuming he's the same anonymous coward who has been making other posts in this thread in which he did mention that.

Re:Not Sure, Seems to Be More Territorial Dispute

[TheKidWho]

If you're curious as to the official stance of the US government during this time period, here it is from the Starr Memorandum.

The position of the United States was set forth by the State Department in connection with the 1970 Hearings before the Subcommittee on United States Security Agreements and Commitments Abroad of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations (91st Cong., 2d Sess.):

"Legal Status of Taiwan as Defined in Japanese Peace Treaty and Sino - Japanese Peace Treaty
            "Article 2 of the Japanese Peace treaty, signed on September 8, 1951 at San Francisco, provides that 'Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores.' The same language was used in Article 2 of the Treaty of Peace between China and Japan signed on April 28, 1952. In neither treaty did Japan cede this area to any particular entity. As Taiwan and the Pescadores are not covered by any existing international disposition, sovereignty over the area is an unsettled question subject to future international resolution .... "

Re:Not Sure, Seems to Be More Territorial Dispute

[Anonymous Coward]

Nor were the French and Americans the last. China tried AGAIN after the US had left.

Re:Not Sure, Seems to Be More Territorial Dispute

[davester666]

> I don't know how much of an net positive environmental impact recycling rare earths from circuitry provides (is your acid economically and environmentally friendly?

I don't think it matters how environmentally unfriendly it is to recycle these elements. They are by definition, rare, hence expensive, and now highly desirable for all manner of devices, large and small. With other reports saying most working mines of these elements are in China, everybody else should be jumping on retaining and reusing every last scrap of these elements that they can.

Misnomer

[srussia]

Rare earths aren't really that rare. The noble gases actually live up to their family name to a much greater extent.

Re:Misnomer

[Anonymous Coward]

Lots of inbreeding and bloodshed?

Re:Misnomer

[i.am.delf]

This is exactly right. Rare earths aren't that are at all as you'd think. The only reason we are all depending on China for them is that they seem willing to sell them to everyone else for less than anyone else can produce them. If they want to give away their natural resources, that is fine with the rest of the world. The US is sitting on one of the world's largest reserves, but it is not economically viable to pull them out of the ground vs China. On the other hand helium is much more of a problem...

Garbage dump reclamation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do we act like dumps are black holes? It may not be economical at the moment. But, I don't see any reason we can't mine garbage dumps for minerals in the future. Hence I don't see why we need to get self righteous about moving minerals from one hole in the ground to another while using it as a cell phone in between.

Re:Garbage dump reclamation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you want to pick through 20 bags of used diapers, decomposing refried beans, used syringes, old bottles of DDT or whatever hazchem someone thought no-one would notice in the trash. For every few phones or old VCR out there, there's all that delicious organic waste.

The DeBeers of rare earth

[Anonymous Coward]

  China's move to this position would put DeBeers to shame. While I'm no fan of swadeshi, this certainly shows what happens in co-dependent relationships between nations.

I thought

[chomsky68]

that they have actually been doing recycling for a while (like copper, gold, silver etc) from motherboards.

Coal power station ash dams

[dbIII]

You've all heard the "fly ash is nuclear waste too" bullshit from the 1970s from the Oak Ridge newsletter article that also suggested that terrorists could build nuclear bombs from coal ash. Stepping a little closer to reality there are other impurities in larger amounts. At coal fire power stations you can see whopping great big dams filled with water and light ash from the scrubbers. Most of the stuff in there is silica but heavier compounds sink and there should be some layering from gravity separation to concentrate things nicely.
There's bound to be some rare earths in there and it should be as easy to mine as sand. This was suggested to me by an engineer involved with the pollution control at a power plant in about 1994.
There is also the ash that comes out of the bottom but it would be more difficult to process and not concentrated (clinker etc).

Re:Coal power station ash dams

[Anonymous Coward]

Coal power plants emit more Uranium and Thorium than a nuclear power plant needs to generate the same amount of electricity. Sure, the isotopes are not quite the same, but it's still Uranium and Thorium. Coal is typically 2 ppm U and 3-4ppm Thorium.

Secondly, coal is responsible for virtually ALL mercury in lakes and oceans. You eat more than 1 can of tuna a week, and you may or may not be heading for Mercury poisoning and kidney failure. And it's only getting worse. Mercury is not caught very well by precipitators. Most escapes.

Finally, just because you don't get it, doesn't mean it's not true. You may want to read on on the facts.

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

Re:Coal power station ash dams

[Khyber]

"Mercury is not caught very well by precipitators."

Uh, duh, because you want to CHELATE it, not precipitate it.

Sounds like you may want to brush up on your basic chemistry.

Re:Coal power station ash dams

[dbIII]

It's a divide by zero error - an ideal nuclear plant should not be releasing measurable amounts of those materials.
Also notice how all of those "facts" come out of Oak ridge and can be traced back to a rant in a NEWSLETTER from the 1970s. Meanwhile peer reviewed coal geologists can't find the stuff and nobody is seeing it come out of the stacks despite the technology to find it being around since at least 1880.
Forget precipitators, it's the scrubbers that get the mercury along with the far more difficult to remove NOx and SOx.

Re:Coal power station ash dams

[dbIII]

How about just condensing it in the scrubbers?

Re:Coal power station ash dams

[Khyber]

Really, there are all sorts of things that can bind mercury.

Re:Coal power station ash dams

[dbIII]

No, I was calling attention to what is already done as a side effect of other pollution controls. It's still a liquid metal by that point and I'm not sure what happens after in places where there is measurable mercury in the coal, but either way it's not getting off the site.

Fiscal MAD?

[way2trivial]

great.. you know how well that worked with the housing market-- right?

A buttload of debt, and this system work so long as the borrowing continues-
it'll keep working right? we just increase the value of our home(country) and
refinance and buy a motorcycle or boat?

what is that you say? real estate crash? when did that happen?
what is this term? underwater? what does that mean?

how does it feel to know that the US is propped up by it's debt structure.
that if we were fiscally responsible, well- we'd be propped up by ya know, value.
not the threat of 'taking everyone down with us'

Other than food?

[way2trivial]

what- you have something against compost?

Find the shiney!

[walterbyrd]

Isn't that how it works?

http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?title=e-waste-delivery&videoId=314027

new at foreign relations???

[Anonymous Coward]

Seeing great Asian powers like Japan and China just learning to dab at foreign relations after 6 decades of American dominance is very interesting.

These countries have been doing foreign relations with each other long before U.S. was ever around, and before many European nations were around too!

Re:new at foreign relations???

[siddesu]

Both countries have had their governments and government bureaucracies ripped apart and rebuilt basically from scratch post-WWII.

In China, the communists removed KMT, sent Chiang to Taiwan and started from zero. Three times, actually, if you count the Cultural revolution, and the subsequent removal of the Maoist wing by Deng.

Some countries refused to acknowledge the existence of PRC until the 70s, and China started to really perceive itself and try to act as a superpower very recently.

In post-war Japan, the US occupational authority rewrote the constitution, made quite a few changes in the way government was run, engaged in a serious redistribution of wealth via the land reform, etc. US retained full control of the country until 1952, and partial control until 1972.

Some Japanese even say the country still has no independent foreign policy, and indeed it almost seems so at times.

Just last year a party that is quite new to being a government party was elected with a landslide and fresh ideas as to how bureaucracy and foreign relations should work.

It already had one major foreign policy crisis (the clash of sorts with US over an Okinawa base), which was an important reason why the PM stepped down this summer.

Besides, Chinese-Japanese relations weren't all that rich in the past. Japan was a closed society (because of fear from China) until the mid-1800s, and most of the relations they've had with China since then would qualify as "diplomacy" only if you use the von Clausewitz definition thereof.

Asteroids have lots of REMs

[Anonymous Coward]

Near Earth Asteroids and Space Junk have lots of Rare Earths...not far out when it becomes strategic...

The problem

[sean.peters]

While this sounds like a good idea, the problem is that segregating and storing all this stuff would be tremendously expensive (the cost of segregating recyclable materials is one of the main reasons why recycling programs have had somewhat of a checkered history). And there's no guarantee that it would ever pay off. So it would be tough to get anyone to invest in something like this.

different way of claim

[floatingrunner]

so they are finally going to start building them gundams and have their turn to claim the territories of Asia (again) ?

Good luck

[atisss]

Let's see how they will do with rare Mars metals :)

reuse better than "recycling"

[GodWasAnAlien]

As with everything else, reuse is most always better than recycling.

Royalty-free standards should be created for battery shapes and connectors, and a garbage tax should be placed on non-standard batteries.

Interchangeable parts were key to the industrial revolution. Sometimes we forget.

Re:reuse better than "recycling"

[ColdWetDog]

As with everything else, reuse is most always better than recycling.

True enough

Royalty-free standards should be created for battery shapes and connectors, and a garbage tax should be placed on non-standard batteries.

Huh? What would this accomplish? By the time the battery is tossed, it doesn't work. So reusing it won't be of much help unless you have a particularly twisted sense of humor. Most batteries can't simply be just put back into production - remember batteries are just enclosed chemical reactions which at some point, can't keep going because of exhaustion of a component or a chemical change such that the efficiency goes to hell. Having everything standardized doesn't help with this.

Interchangeable parts were key to the industrial revolution. Sometimes we forget.

Tue, but completely unrelated to the topic at hand.

Re:reuse better than "recycling"

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you saying that you always use all batteries until they cannot hold a charge?

Stepping back a little, consider cell batteries. Imagine if there were no AA or AAA battery standards, and we instead had sony batteries, and panasonic batteries, samsung batteries and many batteries which are not compatible. Would there be more or less battery waste ?

Re:reuse better than "recycling"

[mlts]

We are already there. Take laptop batteries or batteries for phones. There are so many different types of batteries. It would be nice to have a standard across all of them, but device makers rather engineer (or have the fellas over in China do the designing) the battery around the object than making something around standard size cells.

Of course we do have battery waste from these because in a year or so, the warranty on laptop batteries expire and shortly after, the batteries themselves do. Perhaps the way to combat the problem of these polluting landfills is a deposit similar to what sane countries have on bottles so they end up being recycled. Or the laptop is chucked and the batteries can't be used in a new one.

Re:reuse better than "recycling"

[poity]

The casings are different but the cells inside are all standardized.
Laptop batteries are made of multiple cylindrical lithium ion cells just a bit larger than AA batteries.
Cell phone batteries are made of multiple flat rectangular lithium ion cells the size of a nickel.

recycling is un-American

[luis_a_espinal]

I think it's that Japanese have always been meticulous in everything they do. They're also very good about following rules. In many countries, particularly the US, even people who believe in recycling would likely be pissed a the prospect of having to sort their garbage so extensively.

And I can't help but wonder, why is the recycling company not doing this? Aren't these people paying taxes so that their garbage is processed properly?

We in the US have a cultural problem where people get pissed off at anything that involves them moving a finger outside of their 9-5 work schedule.

I hear ya. What you are describing is one of the many symptoms of a malady affecting the US. There is this parochial, not-in-my-backyard backward mentality where the government/something/somebody must solve all their problems so long as it does not involve them physically or financially (.ie. taxes.)

Minimal government that can solve everything, including turning lead to goal. Anything else is labeled un-American. Any attempt to change is labeled unchristian socialism (even though they are hardly christian.) Despite the fact that they want it to solve all the job-related and financial problems to the point of implementing the most entrenched of market protectionist schemes (the very definition of a socialist state which is what they blindly deride.) Everything that they do not understand (or involves them to move a bit out of their fatass comfort zones) is labeled as the very thing they actually would end up having if they had their way.

Unlike the previous generations, nowadays, this country is at its position of financial and industrial primacy not because of its people, but despite of them. Asking them the most innocuous of things, like recycling, is a bit too much an affront of their personal freedom, a most un-American thing.

The entire west needs to do this

[WindBourne]

Basically, it is insane that the west (esp. America) buys goods from China, and then pays china to take them back. Instead, it is better for us to do some R&D and build up cheaper automated recycling to get various things back

School of Mines

[minstrelmike]

I saw a grad project at the Colorado School of Mines that basically ground up circuit boards into sand which ends up having a much higher ore content than what we're pulling out of mines. Ramping it up to industrial proportions will take a little while but if the economics change (and it always does), ramp up occurs sooner.