One of the issues, as I understand it, is that control
over a given mine can change from day to day. Now, one could argue that that's
the point of all this -- that the world has an obligation to create some
stability for that region. But from a business perspective, there's simply no
way to know which side mined the minerals on a given day.
Best,
Mike
Mike Buetow
PCD&F/Circuits Assembly
w/m: 617-327-4702
@mikebuetow
PCB CHAT: A new way to engage the experts: www.pcbchat.com
The 2012 CIRCUITS ASSEMBLY Directory of EMS Companies:
circuitsassembly.com/dems
Then there's the ethics of the environment. Does the
smelting cause the emissions of greenhouse gases? Does it cause pollution? I'm
sure these kill far more people throughout the world than are killed in the
DRC.
The list is endless
Brian
On 29/03/2012 19:03, Carl VanWormer wrote:
> Maybe we should stop importing oil from countries
with poor human rights policies . . .
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brian
Ellis
> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 8:31 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [TN] Conflict Minerals
>
> I've been having a wee think about this. Firstly,
what is a conflict area? OK, the DRC has been cited but this is world's primary
producer of cobalt and is also high on the list for copper. According to http://www.cfr.org/africa/africas-conflict-zones/p14543,
Africa alone has 16 conflict zones, some of which are very important producers
of minerals, including fossil fuels. So, if a metal is smelted with energy from
a CZ fossil fuel, where does that lead us? And what about tin?
> Colombia springs to mind as an up-and-coming major
producer, but there is also the perpetual conflict between "pirate"
alluvial tin ore miners and the authorities in countries like Indonesia.
>
> Worse than conflict minerals, what about those mined
by kids?
> http://framework.latimes.com/2011/05/14/in-india-coal-towns-many-miner
> s-are-children/#/0 is related to coal but I wouldn't
mind betting that
> some of the gold on those connectors you use was
mined by kids subjected to mercury or cyanide, whether from a conflict zone or
not.
>
> Then there are minerals from countries with a
despotic dictator. Should we support their use?
>
> Introducing ethical standards into the origin of materials,
including conflict zones, is a bottomless can of worms being opened. If it is
to be considered, it must not stop at countries in conflict but extend to all
non-ethical treatment. This includes transport (most conflictual material is
transported using energy from countries which are not ethical by our western
standards, if only because they deny rights to women).
>
> Where does it logically end?
>
> Brian
>
> On 29/03/2012 15:44, Blair Hogg wrote:
>> We have been receiving requests from customers for
statements thta our products do not have any content of minerals from conflict
areas, e.g. Congo. Anyone else getting these? How are you handling them?
>>
>> The point behind this is apparently to avoid
providing funding of aggressors through the purchase of minerals from areas in
conflict. A quick glance at this makes it look even worse than RoHS, now it is
not simply the materials in the components, but from where they originate.
>>
>> Blair
>>
>
>
______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email
Security.cloud service.
> For more information please contact helpdesk at
x2960 or
> [log in to unmask]
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
>
______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email
Security.cloud service.
> For more information please contact helpdesk at
x2960 or
> [log in to unmask]
>
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email
Security.cloud service.
For more information please contact helpdesk at
x2960 or [log in to unmask] ______________
Then there's the ethics of the environment. Does the
smelting cause the emissions of greenhouse gases? Does it cause pollution? I'm
sure these kill far more people throughout the world than are killed in the
DRC.
The list is endless
Brian
On 29/03/2012 19:03, Carl VanWormer wrote:
> Maybe we should stop importing oil from countries
with poor human rights policies . . .
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brian
Ellis
> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 8:31 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [TN] Conflict Minerals
>
> I've been having a wee think about this. Firstly,
what is a conflict area? OK, the DRC has been cited but this is world's primary
producer of cobalt and is also high on the list for copper. According to http://www.cfr.org/africa/africas-conflict-zones/p14543,
Africa alone has 16 conflict zones, some of which are very important producers
of minerals, including fossil fuels. So, if a metal is smelted with energy from
a CZ fossil fuel, where does that lead us? And what about tin?
> Colombia springs to mind as an up-and-coming major
producer, but there is also the perpetual conflict between "pirate"
alluvial tin ore miners and the authorities in countries like Indonesia.
>
> Worse than conflict minerals, what about those mined
by kids?
> http://framework.latimes.com/2011/05/14/in-india-coal-towns-many-miner
> s-are-children/#/0 is related to coal but I wouldn't
mind betting that
> some of the gold on those connectors you use was
mined by kids subjected to mercury or cyanide, whether from a conflict zone or
not.
>
> Then there are minerals from countries with a
despotic dictator. Should we support their use?
>
> Introducing ethical standards into the origin of materials,
including conflict zones, is a bottomless can of worms being opened. If it is
to be considered, it must not stop at countries in conflict but extend to all
non-ethical treatment. This includes transport (most conflictual material is
transported using energy from countries which are not ethical by our western
standards, if only because they deny rights to women).
>
> Where does it logically end?
>
> Brian
>
> On 29/03/2012 15:44, Blair Hogg wrote:
>> We have been receiving requests from customers for
statements thta our products do not have any content of minerals from conflict
areas, e.g. Congo. Anyone else getting these? How are you handling them?
>>
>> The point behind this is apparently to avoid
providing funding of aggressors through the purchase of minerals from areas in
conflict. A quick glance at this makes it look even worse than RoHS, now it is
not simply the materials in the components, but from where they originate.
>>
>> Blair
>>
>
>
______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email
Security.cloud service.
> For more information please contact helpdesk at
x2960 or
> [log in to unmask]
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
>
______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email
Security.cloud service.
> For more information please contact helpdesk at
x2960 or
> [log in to unmask]
>
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email
Security.cloud service.
For more information please contact helpdesk at
x2960 or [log in to unmask] ______________
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
______________________________________________________________________
|
