I have seen the scariest, least healthy-looking restaurants in China,
Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia.
The best restaurants I've ever eaten at in my life were in China, Singapore,
Malaysia and Indonesia.
I have seen the worst recycling practices in China, Singapore, Malaysia, and
Indonesia.
The best recycling operations I've ever seen in my live were in China,
Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia.
Last year we took a representative of a USA recycling company, who was
featured in the BAN video (critical of Guiyu) to visit recycling factories
in China. Very honest guy, after seeing the recycling factories, he had to
say that he felt he had been paying a guy to burn $10 bills all day.
With all that said, the main threat to the well-run Asian refursbishing
factories is NOT Greenpeace or BAN, it is protectionist elements in the
Fortune 500 Electronics manufacturing, who consider refurbishing of
computers and TVs to be "market cannabalization" or "counterfeiting".
China's 2002 "ban" on CRT imports, which we had translated, specifically
excluded working units, and when working or refurbishable units are found at
port, the customs agent orders them smashed, then allowed in as scrap metal.
A novel form of environmental remediation. These protectionist policies
were put into greater force after Europe and USA attempted to put tariffs on
Chinese made CRTs between 12 and 24 months ago. The net effect of all of
this is to drive the recycling business "underground", where standards are
worse, not better.
( http://www.agmaglobal.org/ Check to see if your company is a member of
this organization... if so, your corporate office may be contributing money
to BAN and Greenpeace)
Honest and conscientious USA recyclers, who are able to send ONLY the
working and refurbishable CRTs, back away from supplying them while this
"ban" is in place, and Greenpeace and BAN herald them as fine companies for
charging residents to smash working computers. California CRT recycling
laws specifically require the recycler to "cancel" or "ruin" each CRT, so
that it cannot be refurbished, and charge taxpayers to subsidize the
practice. The vacuum created by the absence of good monitors causes the
smugglers to import from less reputable companies, who ship the junk and
unrepairable CRTs as "toxics along for the ride". The 2/3 which function
and are refurbished and resold disappear into the marketplace, the 1/3 which
are junk go nowhere, the pile gets bigger, and Greenpeace photographs it as
more proof that recycling in Asia is primitive.
Ever see the Michael Douglas movie, "Traffic", about the USA's "War on
drugs"?
Robin Ingenthron
www.wr3a.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "Davy, Gordon" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 9:46 AM
Subject: Re: [LF] Thoughts on RoHS (NTC)
In response to the suggestion that the argument "RoHS makes electronics
safer to recycle" might be new, that argument is made in Articles 5 and
6 of the Preamble to the RoHS directive. Here is an excerpt:
"...In spite of [the WEEE directive], however, significant parts of WEEE
will continue to be found in the current disposal routes. [Further,
e]ven if WEEE were collected separately and submitted to recycling
processes, its content of mercury, cadmium, lead, chromium VI, PBB and
PBDE would be likely to pose risks to health or the environment.
...Restricting the use of these hazardous substances is likely to
enhance the possibilities and economic profitability of recycling of
WEEE and decrease the negative health impact on workers in recycling
plants."
These assertions aren't true, of course, but they aren't new, either.
As for Greenpeace improving the presently unregulated electronics
recycling practices in China and India (and let's not overlook most of
the rest of the third world), let's be realistic. That organization has
proved its ability to cause a lot of mischief, but it couldn't make even
a dent. Those two countries alone have a population of well over two
billion people.
The reality is that, no matter how deplorable, and no matter what anyone
proposes as a solution, unregulated electronics recycling will continue
in much of the third world for the foreseeable future. It helps to keep
some impoverished people alive (certainly a point in its favor for those
who care about human health), and the governments of those countries
(and the UN) are unable to impose effective controls because they are
overwhelmed dealing with problems much bigger than the resulting
environmental damage.
Gordon Davy
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Leadfee
Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
To temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send:
SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16
for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or
847-615-7100 ext.2815
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Leadfee Mail List provided as a service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF Leadfree
To temporarily stop/(start) delivery of Leadree for vacation breaks send: SET Leadfree NOMAIL/(MAIL)
Search previous postings at: http://listserv.ipc.org/archives
Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/contentpage.asp?Pageid=4.3.16 for additional information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-615-7100 ext.2815
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
