Slashdot Log In
Report is Critical of US For Dumping E-Waste Overseas
Posted by
samzenpus
on Thu Sep 18, 2008 02:10 AM
from the not-in-my-backyard dept.
from the not-in-my-backyard dept.
coondoggie writes "In what may be the least astonishing news of the day, some major US companies who say they are environmentally recycling electronic waste — aren't. Rather more startling — they are dumping everything from cell phones and old computers to televisions in countries such as China and India where disposal practices are unsafe to people and dangerous to the environment. Controlling the exportation of all of the e-waste plops on the doorstep of the US Environmental Protection Agency which is doing a woeful job, according to a scathing 67-page report issued by the Government Accountability Office today."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Made in China, dumped in China (Score:3, Insightful)
Made in China, dumped in China. What's the big deal?
Re:Made in China, dumped in China (Score:5, Insightful)
Ruthless exploitation at both ends is the big deal.
Parent
Re:Made in China, dumped in China (Score:5, Insightful)
"Ruthless exploitation at both ends is the big deal."
Ruthless competition is how China moved into being an economic powerhouse. The pollution and body count for the US was pretty high too (and so long ago it is largely forgotten) but that was the price of "progress".
Parent
Re:Made in China, dumped in China (Score:5, Insightful)
Ruthless competition is how China moved into being an economic powerhouse. The pollution and body count for the US was pretty high too (and so long ago it is largely forgotten) but that was the price of "progress".
That's the kind of argument that sounds attractive if you don't look too close. But it can be stood on its head with equal justification -- if not more.
Ruthless exploitation has been a permanent fixture of human civilization, and progress has not been its reliable result. I would argue then that ruthless exploiters are not creators of progress. They're parasites on progress. Exploitation in the time of progress is not something new, it's jut the old exploitation robbing a richer bank.
The dire predictions of economic disaster and stagnating innovation have not for the most part come true when society has stepped in to regulate abuses like child labor, food adulteration, inhumane treatment of workers. Rather, progress has on the whole accelerated.
Of course, progressive policies do hurt many exploitative enterprises, but they don't harm innovation. Businesses that require the ability to exploit people or the environment to thrive are fundamentally non-innovative. It's making money the old -- very, very old -- way. First you get some power (in this case capital), and then you look for somebody weaker than you to exploit, either directly or by leaving them holding a very expensive bag.
You can see the architectural proof of the antiquity of this business model in Europe. You find yourself a nice river valley on a trading route and you build yourself a castle to shake down everybody who wants to pass.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Suggested Ammendment:
"Made in China for the US, dumped in China for the US."
I don't know. What is the big deal?
hmmm...Maybe...the 202 billion of electronic exports from china? Sounds like a pretty big deal to me.
Source: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-07/02/content_8478003.htm [xinhuanet.com]
NB: This figure includes information exports, which I assume are a small portion of the total.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Sorry if I'm insensitive by treating the Chinese as adults.
I'm wary of treating the Chinese as adults, who knows how many of them are actually 14 year old gymnasts...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I see this claim a lot, but having looked at some of their factories, I'd have to say it's not really true.
The railcar fabrication workshop we looked at was more modern and mechanised than ours in Australia. They were able to produce the wagons at about 2/3rds the cost of our because they could do much larger production runs, not because they were working dangerously. Economies of scale matter.
Long term ramifications, even if you ignore morals (Score:4, Insightful)
So the US goes and allows (or perhaps worse, is complicit in allowing) it's corporations to keep up profits by dumping toxic products in other countries, where it kills and maims children (which is well proven) who struggle to live by supplying their lives to people who use them as slave labour to recover valuable materials from the dumped items through lethal practices, such as burning plastic from wire.
Then some people argue that if the countries allow it, why is that the US's problem?
And then twenty years later they whine like little babies that they can't understand why the survivors of this situation in those countries hate them so much and want to kill them and everyone else they see as a part of the "Western" world...
And they can't even blame the CIA this time. US corporations are doing a far more sinister job that the CIA ever did.
GrpA.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's what has become the american way. A bit like when US government sends prisoners to countries that allows torture.
I don't think morals are that B/W (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think morals are that black and white. While on one hand it would be nice if we in the west disposed of our own garbage, I don't think it's our duty to keep anyone else from shooting themselves in the foot. Unless you want to go back to the old (and even worse) "mission to civilize" and "white man's burden" doctrines.
If China wants to import garbage for some quick cash, it's China's problem alone. They should fix their own laws, if they don't want it to happen.
There _are_ situations where the west did actual harm, including
- bribes (we practically created the 3'rd world kleptocracies, by making it so that taking a bribe from the western corporations is the most profitable thing one could do, better than any industry or commerce)
- military/CIA interventions
- economic pressures to make some countries destroy their own industry and agriculture (including occasionally to take the same good ol' right-wing measures in a crisis that that would turn a crisis into an all out depression, according to the economics we apply in the west)
Etc.
And for that we are rightfully hated.
But things that they do to themselves for a buck? Why would it be our business to stop them from doing that?
E.g., the west didn't hold anyone hostage to make them take our garbage. It's stuff that someone there figured out would be a good way to make some bucks. And is probably acclaimed as the great entrepreneur and one of the guys doing something for their economy there.
E.g., I don't think many western companies take _slaves_ in China, much less India. While I do find that running some of those sweatshops says something about the greedy fucks who moved there just for that, ultimately it's India's and China's job to decide whether that's ok with them or not. They _can_ give minimum wage and maximum hours per week laws if they want to, you know? If they'd rather get dollars than that, why should the west be the one to blame?
And again in most cases it's not the west who even runs those "slave labour" camps, but some local company who subcontracts for a western company. In most cases the western company can't even control what membranes go into their batteries (see incendiary batteries made in China that have a cheap non-working replacement for the membrane that was supposed to collapse and open the circuit when overheated), or what paint is used on their toys (lead-painted toys made in China ftw), or what glue goes into their beads that are supposed to be wet and stuck to a board and most kids will lick to get wet (replaced by some enterprising Chinese with a toxic and psychoactive glue.) What makes you think that the western company gets much more to say about how a Chinese boss treats Chinese employees at that company?
Or, as I was saying, are we back to the "mission to civilize" (China, India and everyone else) doctrine from the 19'th century?
Plus, even if the western corporations didn't directly subcontract to those, they'd still find ways to exploit each other just the same. Whether it's cheap pens or counterfeit watches or farming gold in WoW, they'll _still_ take advantage of the missing legislation to make each other work 90+ hour weeks for a pittance. E.g., I remember an article from some months ago about WoW gold farmers, and those guys were working 12 hour days in essentially a high-tech sweatshops. I don't think any western corporation made them do that. (Blizzard probably would rather they crawl somewhere and die, for example.)
Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to play the bullshit card that we're some kind of great benefactors for giving them those crap jobs. I'm not _that_ deluded. But I _am_ saying that ultimately they do most of that exploitation to themselves, and they must find their own way and equilibrium point there. It's their own f-ing country, and it's mostly their own sociopaths not ours doing that to their workers or environment. It's not _our_ job to clean up _their_ act.
Blaming the west for that, and doubly so trying to
Parent
Re:I don't think morals are that B/W (Score:5, Informative)
1. Most importantly, that's a bullshit strawman. Laws about drugs are mostly _internal_ laws. E.g., US citizens tell other US citizens what they can't do. Fair enough.
The only point where it becomes equivalent to what I was saying, is when you start telling another country that they're not allowed to do drugs. It happens too. And there I'll have the same position: fucking leave them alone. It's not your job to dictate world morals. Stick to your own country.
2. Actually, I'll make an even stronger claim there: why should drugs be my problem in the first place? Most are harmless enough, and there are millions of people doing drugs that haven't harmed anyone as a result.
And the usual "OMG it's addictive" argument is bull too. We do allow tobacco, which causes some pretty strong physiological addiction. As in, actual brain chemistry changes. Some drugs, e.g., hemp, don't even do that. We allow alcohol, where the withdrawal symptoms can literally _kill_ you. Look up delirium tremmens some day. That's withdrawal syndrome for alcohol addiction.
And I've worked with people who smoked pot before, and they didn't strike me as the kind that'll get violent or delirious. Now tobacco, _that_ can get funny. You keep me in a meeting for 2-3 hours without my cigarettes, and I hope you don't imagine I can still pay any attention. But somehow my nicotine addiction is considered harmless, while that mellow admin who occasionally does pot is a menace to society. Hmm...
So unless you also feel a need to tell blacks (or for that matter whites, asians, and everyone else) that they aren't allowed to smoke or drink any more, why _would_ you care about them selling heroine or coke to each other.
Parent
Re:I don't think morals are that B/W (Score:4, Informative)
Laws about drugs are mostly _internal_ laws. E.g., US citizens tell other US citizens what they can't do. Fair enough.
Right, which is why the US never goes into South America and targets drug production and/or manufacturing. And there's definitely no push to eradicate poppy farming in Afghanistan.
Newsflash - It isn't Columbians and Afghanis doing heroin and cocaine, it's Americans. And it's the US telling those countries what they can and can't do because they don't know how to deal with their own citizens when it comes to drugs.
Parent
Over here! (Score:2, Funny)
Hey there, big computer companies!
I'll gladly take ANY old computer hardware that still works! Finally a chance to replace that old 8bit ISA graphics card... maybe even the FPU! SWEET!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One more thing! (Score:2)
With a turbo button and a left shift key, I can clean boot to DOS 6.0 so I can run Doom (after a few lowmem and xmms tweaks) at full speed!
Right. Like I'm the only one who used AOL floppy disks loaded with memory hacks to get Doom running. You all know you did the same thing when you were a kid and sneaker-netted Doom.
Beavis and Butthead (Score:2, Funny)
E-Waste Fee Payers? (Score:4, Interesting)
Does that mean those of us in States like California [ca.gov] who have payed e-waste fees are owed refunds if they were collected by said companies?
Every time we purchase an "electronic display", or device containing one, we pay a $6-10 fee. Not much per person, but I'm sure it adds up on the companies responsible for this.
Storyofstuff (Score:4, Informative)
May I invite people to look at the "Story of Stuff"? It's a very well done small movie about the waste economy...
http://storyofstuff.com/ [storyofstuff.com]
Cheers,
B.
Re: (Score:2)
I wish I could mod that film "overrated".
It is a neat idea, and is very stylish - but its simplifications go way
too far, making some of the stated "facts" just plain wrong. Some come
close to conspiration theories.
The "computer facts" make me cringe.
Unfortunately, this makes it very attackable even where it is right,
making it completely worthless to illustrate any kind of point.
SPAM (Score:2)
"Recycled" electronics are simply burned (Score:3, Informative)
Just saw a mini-documentary on this a couple days ago. Turns out many electronic parts are simply burned to get at the precious metals.
http://current.com/items/76355482_toxic_villages [current.com]
Is there any way to get at the metals via shredding and then panning? Any material or mining engineers have any input?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
US is throwing away opportunity (Score:4, Insightful)
This needs to be turned into an opportunity, not a problem.
Does this debunk the Greenpeace report? (Score:3, Interesting)
So does that mean the old report on "greenness" [slashdot.org] of various tech companies is wrong? I remember when this came out, and greenpeace merely looked at the companies policies, not what they actually did. Now it looks like the companies were lying. Biiig surprise. Glad I didn't follow that advice.
Re:Other countries to blame (Score:5, Insightful)
The I'm-not-the-only-one-who-does-it excuse is just a shame.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps China is seeing this as a new, and novel way to help control their (over)population?
Re:Other countries to blame (Score:5, Informative)
From the report:
State-of-the-art facilities that can safely dismantle CRTs and other electronic gadgets:
1 Umicore (Belgium)
2 Samsung Corning (Malaysia)
Unsafe dismantling/recycling goes on largely in South-east Asia and parts of West Africa. The following countries are mentioned:
- Cambodia
- China
- India
- Indonesia
- Nigeria
- Senegal
Parent
Re:Other countries to blame (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Their? [slashdot.org]
If you wait long enough (centuries, if necessary), this turns into 'ours' quite suddenly.
CC.
Re:Other countries to blame (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No freaking way.
There is no obligation to shareholders whatsoever apart from the "you can get voted of the board" one.
Many companies have made decisions to not go for pure maximum cash, but take other things into concideration as well.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not all shareholders think short term.
A company's management can choose to attract different shareholders to hold their stock - and even say so publicly.
If you keep focusing on rewarding short term shareholders, naturally you will end up having a lot of short termers holding your stock.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"isn't the current capitalist dogma that corporations must behave unethically if that improves the short term stock price?"
I believe this is more the domain of the misinformed. Maybe you should go back to ideology school, and listen to a lecturer who actually is a capitalist, rather than go to the "Capitalism As Interpreted By Marxists" ones?
"Capitalism" as an ideology is quite like "socialism" as an ideology - it is immensely broad. Socialism does in my view not provide a clear answer to e.g. "Should we ha
nationalgeographic (Score:4, Informative)
have an excellent feature on ewaste this month for free!
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/01/high-tech-trash/carroll-text [nationalgeographic.com]
Parent
Re:Other countries to blame (Score:5, Insightful)
Then again, we could have another Mattel-lead-paint situation, where they got it done for cheap overseas, without fully looking in to how bad the situation really was.
Parent
Re:Other countries to blame (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Despite this I agree with you; I am becoming a cynic as I age. Although, depsite being a cynic, I can still *personally* choose to choose right from wrong.
Re:Other countries to blame (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice try.
Its the USA's waste, it is ultimately the USA's hands that are dirty. (metaphorically of course, the poor B'Stards that get trash dumped on their doorstep are obviously going to have dirty hands literally)
This is yet another example of green washing and corporates (in this case US ones) flushing our environment down the toilet for their own short term gain.
However, it is not just the US that engages in this crap. Lots of others do also! Even here in "green NZ", there are instances of "recycling" companies shipping recycling overseas to the more dodgy chinese outlets.
disclaimer: it appears that the majority of ours do the right thing however. (One retail chain even does it FOR FREE! Not to mention E-day www.eday.org.nz )
And these filthy buggers will moan and complain when regulation is forced upon them to stop being little piglets. Sheesh.
Makes one really feel sorry for mother nature to be honest.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
On principle, I am with you. However, you may adopt the view that it is probably not a big problem for the planet to survive a couple of million years of bad influence from humanity.
CC.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You may also realise that WE may not be around to enjoy it in a few centuries.
I am 100% sure the planet/universe will be around for a long time to come.
Re:Other countries to blame (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes. The west has cleaned up it's act over the last few decades but the illusion breaks down when you realise much of that has been achived by throwing it over an international fence. In general the EU/AU/NZ have slightly better laws to deal with this kind of thing. What I find strange about the US is there seems to be a much larger proportion of the general population who are outright hostile to environmentalists. These people (and we have them here in Oz aswell - so untwist those patriotic nickers), also seem to rant about "UN totalitairianisim", "intellectual elitisim" and "freedom".
Personally I want to restict the the "freedom" to pillage and plunder, not because I grew up in the 60-70's (when totalitarians really were a big problem), but because I grew up surrounded by farms and can appreciate where our food comes from. The farms and surrounding bush have all but dissapeared under the sprawling suburbs of a city famous the world over for looking green from the window of a passanger jet.
I selfishly want enough arable land with a stable enough climate to feed myself, my kids, and from March next year my grandkid(s). I want my offspring to experience and appreciate both the benifits of the industrial revolution AND the awesome natural wonders in this country and elsewhere. Pretending we are green by denying we are both culpable in, and affected by, (say) West Papua [youtube.com] or the Amazon [youtube.com] is the height of "elitisim" that will come back to bite EVERYONE on the arse and hard!
I understand the world is a messy place and there is always a trade-off, but I think the "freedom" to blatantly pillage and plunder are "rights" that should be denied to all players in a globalised economy, those "rights" are as distastefull to me as the "freedom" to trade slaves.
So come on and hit me without hiding behind an anonymous troll, who thinks enviromentalists are the scum of the earth and why?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I should add that my comments on "doing the right thing" were ONLY for recycling efforts. Most NZ companies throw out the trash randomly like everybody else in the world.
The main point was about greenwashing and fake-recycling.
Heard an interesting speaker recently on developing products from cradle to cradle and near 100% recycling. I believe they are starting the initiatives in Sweden. (god I love Sweden...)
ref:
http://greenhome.huddler.com/wiki/cradle-to-cradle-design [huddler.com]
One of his main comments was on how fut
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It is a human right to have clean water and not be poisoned by toxic chemicals, especially by those that are specifically manufactured for human use. It's just two faced to complain about Chinas human rights record and then deliberately use them to a) produce shit cheaply (keeping the labourers poor) and b
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So come on and hit me without hiding behind an anonymous troll, who thinks enviromentalists are the scum of the earth and why?
People think that way because everyone has their own definition of "environmentalist." I consider myself an environmentalist. But, others don't consider conservationists as environmentalists, or think only Greenpeace terrorists are environmentalists, or maintain any number of skewed and biased misconceptions.
The problem is that environmentalism of all stripes is largely political
Re: (Score:2)
And how often do you suppose your extremely unlikely sounding hypothetical scenario actually occurs ?
We have been hearing about this problem in the UK for quite a while now where even various councils who were supposed to recyling goods have been caught simply shipping them to India to be dumped in a field. In every case which I've heard reported the entity responsible for employing the recycling firm were completely aware of what was actually happening but assumed that no one would either care or find out
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The scale of these electronics dumps in China defies imagination if you haven't seen them for yourself. This isn't some back ally industry that the Chinese government couldn't stop overnight if they had any mindset to do so. I'd argue that the Chinese government is just as culpable for allowing their country being a dumping ground for hazardous waste as the countries that send it are.
Is it wrong to export the waste? You
pressure at both ends (Score:5, Insightful)
If party A is using a service provided by party B that you think is immoral, what's the right way to go about stopping it? Well, at both ends. You try to convince party A not to use the service, and you try to convince party B not to provide it.
In this case, you're right, these countries shouldn't allow unsafe waste-processing, and shouldn't allow importing of waste unless it can be safely processed. That's one place to put pressure. However it's also perfectly legitimate to put pressure at the other end: US companies shouldn't be exporting waste except to safe processing facilities.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Recycling pays back money, otherwise they'd dump the stuff in the middle of the ocean instead of going all the way to China.
Sure it pays back money. If you're recycling something that is rich enough in certain materials. Otherwise it isn't worth it in many cases.
Now of course if it isn't cost efficient for you to recycle something, then it may well be that someone in a country where people work for pennies an hour and there are no meddlesome regulators can make a profit off of the recycling process.
So you sell the junk to them and they recycle it. You make money, they make money, the workers even make some money. A win, win