Bev:

>(In effect, rich countries also pollute third-world countries by buying
>metals mined there, but he hasn't called for a ban on importing such
>metals - so far.)
>- Good point!
>
>
Have we considered the human misery and premature deaths plus
environmental damage resulting from poverty?
Let's take inventory here - we don't want third-world people to mine
their lands for metal, don't want them to cut their  trees for wood
products or to clear land for agriculture, we don't want to put western
factories their because it exploits labor, we don't want them to build
dams for flood control and power generation. So, let us just keep buying
their charming hand-woven baskets, crudely carved wooden statuettes, and
cheap metal trinkets at our local Pier One Imports store so we can all
feel good about how wonderful we are.

>Mr. Smith's solution is to prohibit the export of e-waste from the US.
>He likes to say that the people engaged in this recycling should not
>have to choose between poverty and poison. What he does not say is that
>since he can't get them to recycle responsibly he wants to choose for
>them - poverty.
>- I think this is too simplistic, on both sides of the argument.  I'm
>not very good at debating, Gordon, and you stopped me dead with this one
>when we met last time.  I expect no one has even tried to educate the
>people to do it even a marginally better way.  If we are going to ship
>stuff, someone should be providing some how-to's (not just out of sight,
>out of mind).  And when were we responsible for their poverty?  And I
>still think we should be responsible for our own mess.  If we like
>pretty shiny things like crows, then we should put it in our own nest,
>or at least under our own tree.  Why should we ship things that help
>make it worse, even if we are not the ones wacking the ends off CRTs by
>hand?
>

Saying that people shouldn't have to choose between poverty and poison
may make certain people feel good, but it is merely the observation of a
naturally occuring fact.  There are lots of things that "should not" be,
but they are and they need to be dealt with with real solutions and not
nonsensical platitudes such as those employed by Ted Smith and his ilk.
In the real world things are done either by labor or by capital.  If you
are going to engage in recycling then it either has to be done by people
who will then be exposed to the chemicals in the materials being
recycled or it is done by machines that  will suffer the exposure and
deal with it.  Machinery is capital, and that means diverting resources
from some other uses.

Consider this, what if all the time, labor and physical  resources spent
on lead-free had instead been spent on creating the capital that could
be used in recycling electronics in the third world?

And, by the way, many times (not always) identifying a problem, and it's
causes is simple - and there are times when the solution is simple as well.

Chuck

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------