Slashdot Mirror


Multiple Studies Show Used Electronics Exports To Third World Mostly Good

retroworks writes "Bloomberg News reporter Adam Minter writes in today's Opinion section that several studies show that there's nothing really remarkable or scandalous about exports of used equipment to developing nations. 'Some is recycled; some is repaired and refurbished for reuse; and some is thrown into landfills or incinerators. Almost none of it, however, is "dumped" overseas.' Minter begins with the most recent study (PDF), released by the U.S. International Trade Commission in March 2013. Several other studies from Peru, Nigeria, Ghana and China show there was never an incentive for overseas buyers to pay money to import junk, and that most of the junk filmed by activists in the dumps in those nations was used for years (Nigeria has had TV since the 1970s). 'A 2011 study by the United Nations Environment Program determined that only 9 percent of the used electronics imported by Nigeria — a country that is regularly depicted as a dumping ground for foreign e-waste — didn't work or were unrepairable, and thus bound for a recycler or a dump. The other 91 percent were reusable and bound for consumers who couldn't afford new products.' The one data source Bloomberg cannot find is a data point for the widely reported 'statistic' that 80-90% of used electronics imported by Africans are burned or dumped. In the comment section, two advocates for legislation banning the exports object to the survey methodology of one of the studies. But the source of the original statistic, reported by Greenpeace and Basel Action Network in their fundraising campaigns, remains a mystery."

27 of 93 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Mostly good except for electronics counterfeiti by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Do you know what you are talking about, sir ?

    "Counterfeit electronics" ?

    The counterfeit electronics that I know of are things like fake resistors and fake capacitors from China and Vietnam --- and they are all ***BRAND NEW***, not something salvaged from old electronics

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  2. Re:No profit for anyone but the kind hearted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    They are going to join the soviet union?

  3. No wai! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Greenpeace making up statistics? That's nearly 100% untrue!

    1. Re:No wai! by durrr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Greenpeace trying to make the lives of humans worse in the name of a nonexistant environment-related issue.
      How ironic that an organization with such a name hides a pitch black heart filled with evil intent.

    2. Re:No wai! by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The whole thing is very sad, when there are plenty of actually horrible things happening in the environment that don't need to be made up. Fake, or overblown, disasters simply weary the world for when the real thing comes along.

      --
      Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
      altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
    3. Re:No wai! by antifoidulus · · Score: 2

      Yup, Greenpeace, aka a bunch of whiny rich kids who are so desperate to have something to scream about in their otherwise sheltered lives, is doing a huge disservice to the environmental movement as a whole. Somewhat ironic that a lot of the rich kids are benefitting off of the destruction of the environment, but critical thinking isn't really their strong suit.

    4. Re:No wai! by fermion · · Score: 3, Interesting
      You know that this is an opinion piece in Bloomberg, a business rag. The USITC is there to promote trade and adjudicate certain trade disagreements, mostly imports. I don't see that it has any jurisdiction to really go to foreign countries to see how products exported from the US are used.

      One can immediately be suspicous of an article that differentiates 'dumping' from being put in a landfill. Also, while there may be no incentive for another country to import junk, there is a lot of incentive for the US to export junk. Containers are sitting there unused at the ports, and it is probably only a few thousand dollars to send a container to the coast of Africa from the Gulf Coast. Once the container is there, any regulatory headaches concerning disposing of the computer equipment will be gone. The cargo ship can auction off the container for additional profit, and the purchase can sell what he can, and incinerate the rest, polluting the air with toxic heavy metals.

      I am not saying this is what happens, but since we are treating opinion as news, who cares?

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    5. Re:No wai! by wvmarle · · Score: 2

      A lot of this electronic scrap is indeed SOLD to overseas customers. Otherwise there is not much incentive, unless dumping on a US landfill costs more than shipping it overseas, dealing with import on the other side, and having it dumped there. If shipping lines would have to auction off every single container of scrap they get, they'd very quickly stop accepting such cargo.

      However the situation is indeed that overseas companies pay for the scrap. And often much more than the shipping cost. That's why there are so many commercial businesses collecting old equipment: it's got value. And at the destination country it will be refurbished and sold as product if anyhow possible, with valuable material recovery (mostly metals, including precious metals) the second option, and dumping when there is really no value left the final option.

  4. Re:Mostly good except for electronics counterfeiti by aurispector · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And greenpeace just making up statistics to support their agenda? Unthinkable!

    --
    I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
  5. Re:No profit for anyone but the kind hearted by Virtucon · · Score: 2

    In Soviet Russia electronics import you.

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  6. It's called "Poverty Porn" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Rich do-gooder takes pictures of poor person in less developed nation, raises funds. None of the funds go to the poor kids. In Africa, they have a different word for it... "Parasites of the Poor". The NGO made up a statistic from whole cloth and raised millions, not a dime goes to the kids in their landfill photos.

  7. Re:Mostly good except for electronics counterfeiti by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 2

    Do you know what you are talking about, sir ? "Counterfeit electronics" ? The counterfeit electronics that I know of are things like fake resistors and fake capacitors from China and Vietnam --- and they are all ***BRAND NEW***, not something salvaged from old electronics

    Read the OP's post again: "remarked and sold on the market as either more expensive or newer parts". That's counterfeit, you think you're buying X when it's actually Y. And if you don't think it's counterfeit, I have a brand new 2013 model Mercedes S550 to sell you (please ignore the fact that it looks like a 1972 280SE).

  8. Re:Mostly good except for electronics counterfeiti by Opyros · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well, they don't just make up statistics; they insert alarmist and armageddonist factoids, too.

  9. Re:Mostly good except for electronics counterfeiti by EETech1 · · Score: 3, Informative

    We purchased some dataflash for a project, and they came with paperwork from Atmel, and an independent chip inspection to prove they were genuine.

    Unless you had your orders in 48 weeks ahead of time, you could not get a few hundred unless someone had excess inventory because production was scheduled so tightly in the fabs, and demand was so high.

    They were sold through certified resellers who provided the lineage and guaranteed they were genuine (for 5 - 10 X the budgetary quotes they gave when we started the design) it was real easy to find counterfeits, but very difficult to find genuine parts!

  10. Consider the years of the studies ... by MacTO · · Score: 2

    I took a quick look at the introductory material of the report, and the data appeared to be for 2011. This is well after regulatory changes were made so the data may reflect a positive outcome from those regulatory changes.

    (I'm no fan of "GreenPeace" and similar groups, but the degree of hate expressed by some people is beyond belief.)

    1. Re:Consider the years of the studies ... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2

      Is it greater or less than the hatred shown by GreenPeace and similar groups towards conservatives? I've read some really sick stuff on this very website, expressed by educated people who consider themselves open-minded and tolerant of other people's opinions.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  11. come on. by wbr1 · · Score: 2
    The statistic driving legislators is that 80 to 90 percent is waste and bound to be trashed. This stat, unsubstantiated of course, comes courtesy of Greenpeace.

    I am all for environmental protections. I am pretty doggone liberal, but greenpeace makes your most extreme tinfoil hat wearing slashdot neck beard look normal.

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
  12. Re:Greenpeace by LWATCDR · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That is not true. Geenpeace does care about the environment. I fear they are at the ends justify the means point. They have to make money to do the work they feel is so important so they must raise it.The people that will give the most are the ones that are most extreme and most scared so you feed the base to get the funds to do your "good works". The problem is at some point the extremists take over and believe the FUD, and enjoy the money and the glory of fighting the uncompromising good fight...
     

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  13. Re:Mostly good except for electronics counterfeiti by Charliemopps · · Score: 4, Informative

    Do you know what you are talking about, sir ?

    "Counterfeit electronics" ?

    The counterfeit electronics that I know of are things like fake resistors and fake capacitors from China and Vietnam --- and they are all ***BRAND NEW***, not something salvaged from old electronics

    It's not resistors and Caps you have to worry about. It's IC's. There's no real profit in counterfeiting a .01 cent part. But there are plenty of IC's out there that are well over $50/chip. It's really easy to pass off an amplifier IC that is of inferior design to a much more expensive one if you just mold it in a similar way and then stamp it with the other chips data. By the time you're done putting it in your design, you wont know for days that you've been ripped off.

  14. Re:Greenpeace by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Informative

    not so long ago Greenpeace found, in the cooling water of a nuclear reactor in a less than waspish country, so much tritium that had it been separated and sold, the GDP of the said country would have doubled overnight ..

    Really? Then how come neither Google nor Greenpeace's own website has any mention of this? There are plenty of Greenpeace articles complaining that Canada has the worst tritium contamination in the world, but I don't think Canada is either non-waspish nor low GDP. There is also an article about tritium contamination in India, but that was a case of deliberate sabotage. So could you please explain what you are talking about, and maybe provide an actual citation?

  15. Re:Mostly good except for electronics counterfeiti by RoboRay · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You must not have been around for the Great Motherboard Capacitor Rupturing of 1998, when just about every major motherboard manufacturing company fell victim to the hordes of fake caps being sold around Asia. Well, not fake exactly, but fake in that they were not as specified and only worked for a few months before bursting.

  16. Re:Mostly good except for electronics counterfeiti by speedplane · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is a huge problem, and I cannot believe counterfeiting was not even mentioned in the ITC report. Fake chips have shown up in military equipment, threatening untold number of lives. Here's a presentation by an Analog Devices rep reporting on the problem (pdf): http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2011/11%20November/Toohey%20Slides%20B%2011-08-11.pdf

    --
    Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
  17. statistical details: the percentage is of "value" by Ragica · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Anyone look at the original report? My scanning of it indicates that all the percentages being give are based on the "value" (i.e. money) of the UEPs (used electronic products). Am I wrong? In this light one would certainly expect that the most valuable and fully functional of the UEPs would remain domestic and be resold!

    And, if true, this is quite possibly/probably not actually related at all to the 10+ year old statistic given offered by BAN, which gives me the impression to have been by volume (i.e. physical amount of junk); though the BAN report is not specific about this. The statistic in Bloomberg linked BAN report is offered hardly more than anedotally in a mere pull quote, attributed to "Informed recycling industry sources".

    On the topic of data sources, I noticed in the new report, especially around the topic of "export", the data seems to be basically self-reported by the industry, and in places is guessed at as no one really knows what happens with a lot of the stuff that leaves the country. And probably not a lot of people in this industry in the US are anxious to give the impression that they are dumping on 3rd world countries, when reporting their data. Not to say the data isn't good or interesting data, but still there is room for questions as to the meaning and depth of some of the data.

    It would also be interesting to know if things have changed significantly in the UEP industry in the last 10+ years. I'd imagine that it would have since the explosion of personal electronics. Surely there is a vastly greater amount of upgrade grind going on now, where people discard working devices just because their phone contract seduces them to upgrade, and the much higher prevalence of other devices such as laptops, tablets, audio players, etc. The percentages may have indeed significantly changed since BANs 10+ year old report.

    It seems rather interesting how so many here are taking this as an opportunity to immediately attack Greenpeace, comparing a 10+ year old statistic (which may not even be based on the same units) with a brand new (probably well funded) industry report, reported via Bloomberg (not exactly a publication known for it's defense of the environment, or even science). This seems a little ridiculous, if not entirely pathetic.

  18. Re:Mostly good except for electronics counterfeiti by wvmarle · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In case of military stuff, if it prevents weaponry from working, it may just as well SAVE lives.

  19. Anecdotal experience in Uganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    I live in Uganda, where it is illegal to import used electronics. From my day to day experience this seems to have been a very good policy. There used to be a huge hassle with junk parts being palmed off to consumers; it would be very difficult to know what to trust. Since there are basically no effective consumer protection laws here, this was a big problem.

    Donations of used computers to schools etc also had negative consequences. The first effect of that would be to undermine the business of Ugandan electronics dealers. The second was that a lot of donated stuff would end up on the market anyway (and often be sold as "nearly new" or "refurbished" to any buyers who could be tricked into it), creating the problems above. Basically, if you're thinking you should be giving your old laptop to the poor kids of Africa, first imagine it being sold off by the underpaid headmaster of the school, and secondly somebody using their scarce personal resources to buy it, having been promised by the seller that it is "good as new".

  20. Re:Greenpeace by emilper · · Score: 2

    it's not on their site because their accusations were ridiculous

  21. Re:Greenpeace by Krigl · · Score: 2

    Here.

    Also, absence of anything on Greenpeace's pages should be outright disregarded beforehand as a proof of anything. We're talking about organisation which threw it's founding member down the memory hole: Patrick Moore of the original Don't Make A Wave Committee is missing now, though still listed as a crewmember of the ship. I vaguely remember he used to be completely vaporised from the pages but not sure and don't have time for Wayback Machine magic.

    --
    Troll 2.0 Fear my asocial networking!