February 25, 2002

6:21 PM

We're exporting toxic technologiesto third world countries. We all know computer components contain lots of chemical badness, and it seems that as much as 80 percent of US electronics trash is sent to developing countries, where it is becoming a major health hazard.
posted by brookish (22 comments total)

<sarcasm>Well where else are we going to send it, Jersey?</sarcasm>
posted by mikhail at 6:32 PM on February 25, 2002

we wonder why they hate us.
posted by tcobretti at 6:50 PM on February 25, 2002

We also export jobs, culture, technology, ideas, and hope.
posted by davidmsc at 7:49 PM on February 25, 2002

I had this whole "lead" arguement planned out, but face it, lead is the least of our problems. It's in many consumer homes. It has helped our current technology, and we know its bad. It is not a computer or even international problem.

Lead is bad. Period.

(and it's in everything)
posted by Benway at 7:54 PM on February 25, 2002

Damn.. Argument
posted by Benway at 7:56 PM on February 25, 2002

80 percent my arse.
posted by holloway at 8:13 PM on February 25, 2002

I find it interesting that both the post here and the IHT/NY Times article use the term 'export' exclusively. Unless you're dumping things in the ocean, though, you can't have an export without a corresponding import somewhere in the world. And I doubt that other countries are being forced at gunpoint to recycle our old TVs.

Yet this is seen as an entirely American problem. Gosh.

Do none of the left-wing, U.N., multi-culti types see that this kind of thinking is just a new White Man's Burden? That this worldview presupposes that people in 'developing' countries cannot be trusted to make their own decisions, and that international organizations and treaties are the only way to protect them from themselves.

China, India, and Pakistan (the 'developing' countries mentioned in the article) are poor compared to the United States, yes. But they're hardly so backward that their industries and people should not be allowed to determine their own activities.
posted by tino at 8:16 PM on February 25, 2002

holloway: 80% your arse, 20% computer products. Does that seem a fair polutant mix? :-)
posted by nedrichards at 8:19 PM on February 25, 2002

tino: Most excellent points. Amazing how those market forces work.

Unless we're over there not exporting it so much as dropping it on the Taliban. I imagine a 386 mini-tower dropped from a bomber at 20,000 feet would sting a little.

At least for a second.
posted by ebarker at 8:49 PM on February 25, 2002

I read the CNN article this morning, which said an estimated 50 to 80% of the electronic waste collected for recycling is what gets shipped out of the country.

Sure, there's importing, but that's just a euphemism for "dumping". Of course no one's forced to take the stuff. It's a dump, it's a business, but it's using the cheapest, most expendable labor available and exposing them to god knows what toxic waste. Just because they'll take it doesn't mean we should give it to them.

"...groundwater [in Guiyu, China] is so polluted that drinking water has to be trucked in from a town 18 miles away.... One river sample in the area had 190 times the pollution levels allowed under World Health Organization guidelines." I don't care What Man's Burden it is, that's a mess that needs cleaning up. Is that industry determining a country's activities? We would never tolerate that here, why should they?

Last thing: "...hazardous materials from the world's leading economies often end up as detritus in the world's desperate places. A 1989 treaty known as the Basel Convention restricts such transfers, but the United States has not ratified it." Japan and some European countries have organized recycling systems that work. So to my eyes, it does seem to be an American problem.
posted by Dean King at 9:33 PM on February 25, 2002

Gee, if we export it then we are supposed to be their policeman and their health inspector and look out for them even though they want to make the yanqui dollah for taking it and refurbishing/recycling/making little hats out of it.

If we refuse to export to them we are unfairly denying opportunity to small businessmen from underprivileged nations. Can somebody else be the lifeguard for everyone's morals and concerns for a while since we already get condemned for being the world's biggest, fattest, immoral, low-q flatfoot?

Do you want it buried near you? No. Do you want it shipped out to the desert where a wandering Native American or a thirst-maddened and desperately lost bull Merino might absorb a few too many rads? No. Do you want to dump it in sealed containers into the Marianas Trench where it might lead to the mutation of an enormous, killer anoplogaster cornuta that might stalk into Manilla on giant glowing fins and devour the entire jute harvest? No. Do you want to sell it off cheap to someone who wants to buy it for some constructive purpose, even though they might not be fully in compliance with our nation's OSHA regulations? No.

Do you want to give up your 21-inch monitor?

I thought not.
posted by umberto at 9:55 PM on February 25, 2002

Do you want to dump it in sealed containers into the Marianas Trench where it might lead to the mutation of an enormous, killer anoplogaster cornuta that might stalk into Manilla on giant glowing fins and devour the entire jute harvest? No.

Actually, this sounds pretty cool.

Do you want to give up your 21-inch monitor?

No, and that's the point. Don't throw it out to begin with. But when you are finally done with it, recycle it. For real.
posted by Dean King at 10:11 PM on February 25, 2002

Do you want to give up your 21-inch monitor?

Was anyone asking you to?

This oddly detailed (for the Chron) article gives a bunch of possible solutions, including abiding by the previously mentioned Basel convention and/or adding a 'bottling' fee to certain technology products to provide for their later disposal. Something reasonable along these lines can surely be figured out.

And I'm all for 'unfairly denying opportunity to small businessmen from underprivileged nations' when those businessmen are children being poisoned. Call me kooky that way.
posted by feckless at 10:16 PM on February 25, 2002

So. let's see....

"...require manufacturers to take responsibility, one way or another, for the products they sell. "

Meaningless populist claptrap. And to make this vaporous legislation real, we can implement the...

"..."Bottle Bill" [which] would require consumers to pay an "advance disposal fee" when they purchase any electronic device with a CRT. The funds would then be distributed to local governments, nonprofit agencies and others who handle recycled electronics."

Although we have just learned...

"...if you make a good-faith effort to get your unwanted hardware recycled, you may be contributing to the problem."

But there's good news on the horizon...

"SB1619...is much broader in scope, applying not just to CRTs but to all "hazardous electronic devices" -- which is to say, virtually all high-tech devices."

So, we may get to pay a tax--ahem, excuse me-- an "advance recovery fee" on all high-tech geegaws so that companies can go to the effort and expense (passed on to whom? one wonders, but only rhetorically) to achieve a result we already have and are lamenting.

If you want the stuff, you are going to end up dealing with the trash. The trash has to go somewhere. You can legislate away some things but trash is not one of them. Either you want it in your back yard, or you want it somewhere else. And if someone wants to pay for the privilege of mining our trash, then let them do so.
posted by umberto at 11:13 PM on February 25, 2002

"We also export jobs, culture, technology, ideas, and hope."

Other places don't have their own culture? Vacationing is sure going to be fun when there is one single culture and set of ideas all around the world.

"And if someone wants to pay for the privilege of mining our trash, then let them do so."

So tidy, such neat solutions. We consume, they tidy up our mess.

Do you want to give up your 21-inch monitor?

Yes, unless you live in the gutter and sleep on a piece of cardboard (do you want to give up your cardboard? Thought not) you can't have a say in ethical matters such as this. It's all or nothing, guys.

"Amazing how those market forces work."

Yes, there's a dreamy quality about it all. Mesmorising.
posted by lucien at 2:49 AM on February 26, 2002

There are plenty of electronics recycling programs that sell collected scrap to the highest bidder so that the valuable (and often poisinous) metals can be salvaged. Many salvage operations overseas are not subject to the same environmental protection laws that we have here in the US, making it cheaper for them to carelessly dispose of their hazardous waste and therefore outbid other salvagers.

This is especially upsetting to those of us who take the time and energy to responsibly dispose of our hazardous electronics, thinking that our waste was not simply headed for another landfill. Rather than simply blame our "evil" government, however, I think it's fair to say that the blame does not rest exclusively with the US.

Recycling is still a nascent industry, and we are all struggling to minimize our impact on the environment. While we may not have perfected the process, we are making progress. Now if we could just dig a hole deep enough to reach the earth's mantle...
posted by johnnyace at 5:37 AM on February 26, 2002

Recycling also needs to be dealt with in the design phase, as a part of "Design for Green." For example, if the specs for monitors spell out explicit requirements for the process of "cracking and dumping of cathode ray tubes laden with lead," it might become evident that some design configurations facilitate easier disassembly.
posted by sheauga at 8:05 AM on February 26, 2002

I just love how people can justify their involvement in creating a problem by claiming that it's actually the responsibility of someone else.

That sort of logic would make it okay to give a child to a pedophile, knowing that he's going to rape the kid, but you can ease your conscious: it's not your fault.

It'd be okay to supply nukes to some wigged-out fundamentalist country with a massive hate-on for its neighbour, knowing they'll punch the big red button. It'd be okay, because it wouldn't be your fault.

And it is okay to send heavy-metal laden garbage to a starving, ignorant, and corrupt region of the world, knowing they'll be tossing the shit in the river, because, hey, it's "Market Forces" at work. Ain't your fault.

Sheesh.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:32 AM on February 26, 2002

There was a good article in The Atlantic a while back about shipbreaking in India. It's a very similar situation.
posted by jaek at 8:47 AM on February 26, 2002

I just love how people can justify their involvement in creating a problem by claiming that it's actually the responsibility of someone else.

yeah, that sentiment just reminded me of this other sort of related article, "White House won't tax corporations for Superfund cleanup" which seems completely wrong to me. like doesn't that just encourage more pollution by basically subsidizing companies not to be responsible for their waste products?

there was also this related slashdot article, which i think makes more sense.
posted by kliuless at 8:48 AM on February 26, 2002

"Vacationing is sure going to be fun when there is one single culture and set of ideas all around the world."

But what else is being promoted here? One set of laws, one set of ethics, one set of ways of dealing with a problem. You want to export just our regulations? I don't think that is going to go over very well.

And you can always count on pedophiles and nukes entering an argument about recycling. Can we embargo imflammatory pedophile comparisons for awhile? It's as bad as Bush (or any other politician) explaining away every action 'cause he's 'doing it for the children.'

Plus, I thought we were all weepy and concerned about the poor inhabitants of foreign lands being in danger from our mean old trash, but apparently we're just concerned with them dumping it.

The design for green argument is nice and makes sense, but there is only so much that can be done in that direction despite the good intentions of those demanding it. Good intentions do not engineered products make. "Let's makes all high-tech gadgets edible." Well, that would be nice. And if we ever move to Fantasy Dream Land we can do that. Until a pack of the eternally indignant started bemoaning the poor nutritional value of the CRTs we send overseas.

In which case we would be arguing about it in here.
posted by umberto at 9:47 AM on February 26, 2002

"Let's makes all high-tech gadgets edible." Well, that would be nice. And if we ever move to Fantasy Dream Land we can do that.

Now you're just being silly.
posted by Dean King at 11:42 AM on February 26, 2002