Inside the Fake PC Recycling Market 320
snydeq writes "OSNews' Howard Fosdick reports on the fake recycling market — one in which companies exploit cheap shipping, inexpensive labor, and a lack of safety and environmental law to export computers and other e-waste to China and Africa where it is 'recycled' with a complete lack of environmental and safety rules. 'This trade has become a thriving business. Companies called "fake recyclers" approach well-meaning organizations — charities, churches, and community organizations — and offer to hold a Recycling Day. The charity provides publicity, legitimacy, and a parking lot for the event. On the designated day, well-meaning residents drop off their old electronics for recycling. The fake recycler picks it up in their trucks, hauls it away for shipping, and makes money by exporting it to Chinese or African "recycling" centers. Nobody's the wiser,' Fosdick writes. Of course, the international community has, in fact, devised a set of rules to control e-waste disposal under the Basel Conventions, but the US — 'the international 'bad boy' of computer recycling — is one of four countries that have not ratified and do not adhere to these international agreements."
Meh (Score:4, Funny)
Market will sort it out.
Re:Meh (Score:4, Insightful)
Market will sort it out.
umm... not when there is a price distortion due to a negative externality coupled with information asymmetry.
Re:Meh (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Could be? That's Socialist propaganda! It will be solved by cutting taxes!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that other system doesn't exist, not as long as humans are running it anyway.
So we just need to let robots sort this out then.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, a better system does exist. You require manufacturers to price in recycling/disposal into the original product price, and use the derived money to run the program. This system tends to ensure that one recycler gets a bunch of identical units, which increases efficiency. Some companies do this voluntarily because they can refurbish turned-in units to fulfill warrantee obligations.
It's being tried as a legislative requirement in various laboratories of democracy [environmentalleader.com] with varying details (some do not
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sarcasm modded Troll?
I lol'd
sznupi must not be on a roll.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When you force people to "recycle" their computer equipment, no longer do people really care where it goes so long as they don't have to pay that tax, because of this it opens up a new market for cheap "recyclers" that people will flock to because they are cheap and convenient.
Re: (Score:2)
Ahhh, yes, and you wouldn't like them to have such choice - after all, when forgetting yourself for a moment, you turn out to be hardline Soviet-style "communist" who wishes for legislated monopolies. [slashdot.org]
Re:Meh (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Meh (Score:5, Insightful)
The landfills are full. They're overflowing, and it's getting into the groundwater. We're also using much higher amounts of fascinating and previously very expensive toxins such as mercury and chromium in the manufacture of household goods, and creating fascinating and useful toxins such as PCB's (which are mostly outlawed in the US but heavily used in manufacturing in India).
This isn't merely a "recycling to preserve resources" issue, although copper, gold, platinum, and varous rare earths used in transformers have become increasingly expensive and valuable to recycle. It's a poison control issue, and while humanitarian concerns make it wise to consider the fate of those who handle these toxins, it's also important to remember that they grow food we buy in some of these places, and they will _lie_ aobut the toxin levels of what they sell.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
they are a developing country. how are they supposed to have the same standards as the rest of the developed world? remember the west went through the same dirty as fuck industrial stage 100 years ago.
Well, yeah. The west did go through that stage, and it is pretty clear how dangerous and stupid it would be to allow developing countries to make the same stupid mistakes. Especially considering that the higher populations of these developing will be demanding vastly more goods during their dirty industrial stage than did the west during ours.
oh and the whole landfills are full is just bullshit. guess why they are full? because governments refuse to build new ones. ergo, they fill up... there's plenty of land to build land fills.
So your solution is just be to build more landfills? That doesn't solve the problem. In fact, that spreads the problem. As a global society we produce entirely to
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What I do is write YOUR name on the paper when I drop them off - and you're right they don't check at the time. You should be receiving the fines in the mail long after the fact.
Alternatives? (Score:3, Insightful)
I have been seeing stories like these for several years. Although this situation is clearly undesirable, I have still to see anyone proposing a realistic alternative. The bottom line is doing proper recycling costs money, people do not want to pay.
To take something apart and separate the elements used in its construction may cost more than putting it together. Who wants to pay twice the price for anything?
The market pressure is all against any environmentally and safe recycling. The biggest part of most ele
Re:Alternatives? (Score:4, Interesting)
Fund more biotech? We've already seen bacteria that evolved to feed on nylon. It should be possible to engineer a strain that can eat fiberglass, plastics, rubber, whatever. Depending on what the byproducts are, you might even be able to harness them to make energy.
So, ok, I'm not a geneticist, but this seems like a lucrative line of research. I'd be surprised if there aren't already people looking into it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not sure how well biotech would work for fibreglass. Nylon is hydrocarbon derived, meaning it shares the same basic building blocks as carbon based life, so microorganisms can make use of it. Firbreglass is silicon based. So far as I know, nothing eats that.
Plus, the fibreglass itself is less of a problem than the lead contaminates. If you could weed out those, then you could probably bury the rest safely. So far as I know, bio-remediation of lead is problematic, since it can't be broken down or render
Re: (Score:2)
The idea was to break down the fiberglass, which would make it easier to extract the lead. Run the remnants through a centrifuge-type machine or a strainer or whatever, and reuse the lead. However, I didn't realize that fiberglass is silicon based (although it makes sense now that you mention it). You're right, that poses a rather large problem.
Re: (Score:2)
It's silicon based, but binded by organics.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It works (for a suitably small value of 'works') elsewhere. There's a recycling levy on all consumer electronics where I live (British Columbia). It gets pretty large for big items - complete computers, big TVs, fridges and the like. Several other countries and territories have them now, too. It's technically illegal to put a defined list of electronics in the municipal waste system any more, you take them to retailers who are obliged to accept them for recycling.
It's almost a good system. I say 'almost' be
Re:Alternatives? (Score:4, Interesting)
Doesn't make economic sense? Then don't recycle it... yet. Eventually materials used will become harder to come by (this is already happening quickly for numerous rare earth metals) and recycling e-waste will become economically viable.
Admittedly, this leaves is the (admittedly not at all trivial) question of safe storage in the interim.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Find a spot relatively far from sources of groundwater that people need and put it all in a pile there. Maybe cover it with some dirt to deal with the jaggies and keep it from oxidizing quickly.
I'm sure that there's a name for this.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Fiberglass, for instance, is nearly worthless, what could anyone possibly do with the fiberglass from an old circuit board?"
Shred it and make a new circuit board after de-bonding and a re-deposit in the 'hot' oven.
"This fiberglass is mixed with small but significant amounts of lead, how would you remove the lead before sending the fiberglass to a landfill?"
Hi, my name is electromagnetic induction, and today I'll be slowly increasing your temperature to make different materials leach out of you in different
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Alternatives? (Score:5, Insightful)
The realistic alternative is to force people to pay.
Mandatory bottle refunds actually work, despite the dire warnings from the soda and beer industry, and fierce opposition from the reactionary right.
Similar with wreck deposits on cars. Likewise, when car buyers are forced to pay $500 extra, and get that back when they turn it in, far fewer wrecks will be found at the bottom of a lake with the VIN filed off.
We have governments and laws precisely because people are selfish bastards who can't be trusted to do the right thing unless forced. We can intellectually agree with many things, but when it comes to putting up, we aren't all that good at it unless forced with an incentive we can't refuse.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I have been seeing stories like these for several years. Although this situation is clearly undesirable, I have still to see anyone proposing a realistic alternative. The bottom line is doing proper recycling costs money, people do not want to pay
This is resolved here (Switzerland, and I think the EU too) for ages and very simply too.
You pay the recycling fee upfront on a device. Say a couple bucks on a mobile phone 10 bucks or such on a laptop.
This gives you the right to dump the device at any shop (selling such devices) at the end of it's lifecycle.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I.. ok, ok, stop right there. There is no way this comment is not a straight man setup for a racist funny man joke. Just.. just no way. you tried this.
Re:Governkment Meh (Score:5, Insightful)
1. "Regulations" are the mechanism society has for enforcing a common concensus. As a society, "we" decided that cholera was bad. The solution (alongside education and convincing, of course) is regulation: all houses in area "x" must have sewer connections and must not have an outhouse. And there's a team of people to take water samples. And there are regulations on how to test the water.
2. Laws are created by congress. There's too many to talk all at once; the solution they and every other large organization in the world have picked is to make smaller groups. These groups are called "committee"s. Are you objecting to dividing into smaller groups and attacking problems in-depth? Or is your object to the word "committee"? Did you know the libertarian party has a committee?
3. There are no "czars" in this government. Some people are more senior, and have more authority; other people are less senior and have less authority. Are you in favor of everyone having the same authority? Or do you object to the word "czar"? Heaven knows it's an objectionable word, but it's one that the media uses to describe otherwise boring titles.
4. I don't understand your problem with agencies. One of the agencies, for example, is the Presidio trust (I picked them at random). Do you object to a group of people, experts in the Presidio, from managing the place? Or is your objection that this group of people has a common name, "The Presidio Trust". Would you be happier if we called them group 184? Perhaps you think that we should simply sell off this land -- does this mean that you think there should be no parks at all?
Really, I don know why you got moderated as "insiteful". It sounds more like "thoughtless".
No surprise... (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course here in my home province, they recently added a ECE tax which is supposed to before recycling home electronics and such. Which means that the money goes right into the coffers. Of course I can never find anywhere to drop off my electronics, except at the same places which already did it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No surprise, the problem is that our country is (over)run by corporations, NOT the citizens, lest we put a stop to this ignorant and greedy behavior. Anything to grease the skids of our corporate assholes, so we don't get it the way of their monopolies and profit making schemes! Fuck the rest of us who don't "get" the bribes, er, lobbyist "gifts for influence." If you disagree, you are probably not a real American anyway, so fuck you too. America is for the people, not asshole corporations. Eventually
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Do what I do and throw in in a ditch or lake. You've already paid for someone to fish it out and dipose of it properly.
60 Minutes did this story in 2008 - pointer (Score:5, Informative)
Pointer to an old 60 Minutes story [cbsnews.com] on just this. The U.S. recycler in question was shocked that his dumpster-full of CRTs ended up in China.
Re:60 Minutes did this story in 2008 - pointer (Score:5, Funny)
...and of course (Score:4, Funny)
As his comments about gender and intelligence as President of Harvard demonstrate, the guy has a talent for sticking his foot in his mouth.
Re:60 Minutes did this story in 2008 - pointer (Score:4, Informative)
Commodity prices do not in fact cover the cost of the labor needed to break down most consumer electronics into recoverable waste streams. The cost of labor and the yield is simply not cost effective on most products without the added revenue of charging the producer/consumer or optional resale.
The price of shipping something to China however, is practically negligible, and once they're rid of it the disposal companies could care less what's done with it.
For the record (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:For the record (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:For the record (Score:5, Informative)
Re:For the record (Score:5, Interesting)
Money (Score:5, Insightful)
I was talking with one of my friends who works in the oil business. He was going off how the cleaner energy technologies will never really take off while oil is 3-5 times less expensive. And sadly, I have to agree: efforts are, of course, being made but considering the amount of money that could be put towards green energy (or nuclear fission or fusion), it's very half-hearted. Cheaper is better in our society. And that applies to NIMBY projects too. It took about 20 years for people to really come around to attempting to recycle anything on a regular basis. It surprises me not in the least that people are tossing environmental concerns for cash.
I hope, someday, that we will learn that protecting our natural resources are part of the cost of doing business. Right now we're like a bunch of teenagers wondering how trigonometry is ever going to be useful in our lives. So we're being taught, but we're not really taking it in.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It took about 20 years for people to really come around to attempting to recycle anything on a regular basis
A lot of that was legislated.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I was talking with one of my friends who works in the oil business. He was going off how the cleaner energy technologies will never really take off while oil is 3-5 times less expensive. And sadly, I have to agree: efforts are, of course, being made but considering the amount of money that could be put towards green energy (or nuclear fission or fusion), it's very half-hearted.
Where's the problem? If oil really is that cheap, then it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to go with "green energy". And I'm unclear why you think insufficient money is being spent on renewable energy research. My take is that it's very ample and we're seeing diminishing returns on investment (for example, more efficient solar cells don't necessarily mean cheaper cost per watt of solar generating capacity).
I hope, someday, that we will learn that protecting our natural resources are part of the cost of doing business.
And how much would it cost to "protect our natural resources"? Suppose I chose to pay that cost rath
Is this fake? (Score:2)
So how does one make a profit in this model. I understand that the likea of HP and Dell and Apple might use these fake recycling services as all they need to get material out of the country and have it end up in someone else's landfill. There is no expectation of profit, just minimization of the cost needed to generate good will. But to make a profit?
I pay for a truck. I pay someone or personally recruit legitimate firms to provide cover. I or one
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Fake-recycler gets hardware donated for free.
They pay $X in collection costs.
They pay $Y to ship to China.
Chinese company pays $X+$Y+$Z to buy the hardware.
Fake-recycler makes $Z profit.
Chinese company pays $A to strip hardware to components (copper wire, metal cases, individual chips).
Chinese company sells components for $X+$Y+$Z+$A+$B to whoever is buying the wire and so on.
$X probably isn't very much. It's not like it's a delicate operation.
$Y is low because there are so many otherwise-empty containers g
Looks like the BAN site rewards hypocrites. (Score:5, Insightful)
Given the fine article here, I see that China is one of the bad boys in actually doing bad stuff, yet the http://www.ban.org/country_status/report_card.html [ban.org] web site has China listed as "Excellent". So something seems more than slightly fishy. Reading again, the site merely rates how the countries in question perform lip service to a set of 4 treaties and totally disregards how the countries actually act regards limiting pollution.
Sorry people, but this is a prime example of actions speaking louder than words.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not familiar with how ot
Re:Looks like the BAN site rewards hypocrites. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Looks like the BAN site rewards hypocrites. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is one of the things people usually overlook when bashing America.
We rarely sign on to treaties and accords and fail to honor them; more often, we fail to sign on yet still follow the rules as if we had.
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle: Pick more than just one! (Score:5, Informative)
You can get anything you want at Natalie's Restaurant [slashdot.org]. (The punchline, half a decade later, is that the 21" CRT I salvaged from a dumpster still works, yet I've gone through one LCD monitor due to a failed inverter and a lack of easily-available spare parts since then.)
The only thing I've noticed in the five years since I wrote that parody is that it's getting increasingly hard to find surplus equipment these days. Product lifecycles are shorter, so consumption isn't reduced. It's sure as hell not getting reused. And it's only getting "recycled" in the sense that it's being dumped into the homes of people so poor that they melt solder off printed circuit boards over an open pit fire.
Recycling hardware for which you have no further use is a good idea, but if you're going to recycle your old electronics, do some research and find an organization that's doing it right [accrc.org]. ACCRC turns the scrappy scrap into scrap, turns the interesting scrap into art, and the non-scrap into computers that go directly to people in its own neighborhood.
Re:Reduce, Reuse, Recycle: IN THAT ORDER (Score:2)
Reduction in consumption creates no trash and no need to expend energy to refresh/recycle
Reuse eliminates the energy required to collect, sort, reform, and resell
Recycling is only a step better than trash, since the cost of creating the raw materials is not borne, but is offset somewhat by the need for all the reprocessing. It still uses a lot of energy. The biggest advantage is that the materials don't have to be mined.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The recycled stuff is too expensive (Score:3, Interesting)
As recently as 3-5 years ago you could go to a hamfest get a reasonably up-to-date laptop computer and save $500-700 from a new computer.
Now with new laptop with good specs going for $400-500, the margins are gone, so the hamfest guys are selling laptop computers for $300$400. There's no sense in buying used in that case since it has no warranty and will probably be less energy efficient than a new one.
The issue really is that we're getting so efficient at building new computers that it makes the old stuff
Anonymous Coward (Score:5, Insightful)
Did the author of this article, just blame the US, for the fact that China and Africa allow their citizens to poison the environment and dump hazardous chemicals into the water ? He should stop buying computer equipment, or call the African government with his complaint.
Re:Anonymous Coward (Score:5, Funny)
I'm sure the President of Africa will be very interested to hear this complaint.
Re:Anonymous Coward (Score:5, Funny)
He emailed me quite recently, so I know for a fact he a is pretty approachable and down to earth fellow. His English is not very good though.
Fake PCs? (Score:5, Funny)
"Feel Good" recycling considered harmful (Score:3, Insightful)
People get fooled into thinking they can buy more and reuse less because they practice "feel good" recycling. Recycling at an energy/material loss (such as with paper), is more harmful than simply dumping or incinerating it, partly because of the actual net loss, but also partly because of the smug mindset people enter into. Compare hybrid owners who drive more because they own a hybrid.
Without "feel good" recycling, people might be more inclined to think about purchases (which comparable food comes in the less reusable less wasteful container), and manufacturers might be more inclined to adjust the market accordingly.
~sigh~
...or worse (Score:2)
"Compare hybrid owners who drive more because they own a hybrid"
Or the hybrid owners who trade a perfectly good car, go $20,000 into debt because the hybrid gets better gas mileage (probably save them *at most* $500/year).
I wish people would realize the most environmentally friendly car is one that you already own. There's no pollution involved in making the new car, you're not disposing of the old car, and you won't have car payments. What's not to like?
Take a moment to look at the squalor (Score:2, Informative)
http://ban.org/photogallery/index.html [ban.org]
Look at the human tragedy. Thank God today you don't live like that.
And it's no one's fault over here, no unsigned treaty, that could create that kind of depravity. Please just for once put down your politics and look a problem square in the eye: China's just got a bad culture and a worse form of government. It's shameful to allow people to live so rotten, period.
NO, before you get all guilt-ridden and try to heap the blame on "us": shameful, rotten, PERIOD, end of
Linux could save the World (Score:4, Interesting)
Windows will continue to bloat up and so will Apple's OSes. Why doesn't the Linux community make a nice slim and secure distribution that will run on a 486/586 with only 256M of memory - or less?
I've been thinking about a non-profit for recycling these machines. Many many poor people could use them.
Re:Linux could save the World (Score:5, Insightful)
Why doesn't the Linux community make a nice slim and secure distribution that will run on a 486/586 with only 256M of memory - or less?
Some of the lightweight distros, like Peppermint, Puppy Linux, and several XFCE-based distros, would run quite nicely on a 486 with 64MB memory. If you insist on a heavyweight distro like Fedora, you've already made your feature/performance decision, and you haven't chosen performance.
Re: (Score:2)
fluxbox is a great window manager for something that low on ram.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been using Debian on my SBC's that have 64MB RAM and 200MHz Cyrix (Pentium compatible) CPU. As long as you don't use bloatware like Firefox, it runs just fine. You could probably run it with 32MB RAM if you manage to enable swap during installation, otherwise the installer causes OOM and kills itself. And then there are the various BSD variants, I am sure some of them still run on 486.
Re: (Score:2)
You are correct sir. I run debian on a Zipit z2. That device only has 32MB of ram, but has a whole desktop OS on it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There are lot of linux distros sized for something with 256MB of RAM. Mind you no 486 will have that much. I run a full linux desktop environment on a handheld device that only has 32MB of RAM. Either you are trolling or uninformed.
DSL and puppy are both good choices.
What kind of memory do you need? If I have it I would be happy to mail it to you.
I would also be happy to help you find a distro that would suit your needs if this is a genuine interest.
Re: (Score:2)
My email is my username at gmail.com, in case you would prefer to contact me that way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Linux could save the World (Score:5, Insightful)
I work in electronics recycling and resale, and frankly we go through this every day looking at old CRTs and PCs that still function, but quite frankly no one wants them, and even if they did the expected lifespan (especially on monitors) is so short that one has to ask the question "We can recycle this responsibly now, or we can send it to someone for 1 year and pray that they'll do the right thing".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you come across IBM type Ms lots of people would like to buy them.
Can't be done (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think PC recycling can be done.
It takes more work to disassemble a PC than it did to assemble it from those parts in the first place. When you're done, there isn't much of a market for old 128MB RAM chips, 30GB hard drives, 500 MHz motherboards, etc.
Is there a viable technology that shreds computers with giant steel rollers and sorts the flakes according to material, and sells aluminum flakes, etc. and sells them? Is there a safe heat process? There must be something, since there are companies that claim to provide certified recycling to meet government regulations. But I can't find one. All I can find is stories of third-world dumping.
It may be safer and better for the environment to dump old PCs in U.S. landfills than to send them to parts unknown for "recycling." We should be able to make landfills that can take appliances with heavy metals and electronic plastics without passing it on to the water supply.
Re:Can't be done (Score:4, Insightful)
Compare your average PC, in terms of metals content, to the sorts of ores that are considered economically viable to extract. Particularly once you consider that somebody with a selection of common screwdrivers, and maybe a prybar, can do substantial material separation mechanically(or, if labor costs bite, shredder + magnets). With either screwdriver work or shredding + electromagnets, most of the steel that went in can be recovered fairly easily. The remaining scrap is, in percentage by weight, substantially richer in things like copper, gold, lead, and tin than many ores that are considered commercially viable.
The real nuisance is a lot of the plastics. ABS+dyes+possibly plasticisers and other application specific additives isn't worth all that much, Ground fiberglass composites are probably worth even less.. However, with a lot of electronics, both of those will have enough halogenated flame retardants baked in that you can't really safely burn the stuff, and burying it is just an invitation to the local groundwater for any lead you didn't manage to extract.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Assuming their claims are roughly accurate, they may also avoid some of the nasty side effects of crude incineration: many plastics, and organic combustibles generally, will put out a grab-bag of nasties (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and other carcinogenic deliciousness) if their combusti
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of poor folks could buy the computers you are describing, at the right price. A 500Mhz p3 +. 4 128MB ram sticks. would be 512MB total and a 4 30GB drives software raided together all running a lightweight linux distro should be fine for many folks.
"fake recycling" (Score:3, Interesting)
Stop getting your (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you meant "the 3rd episode of the new season of Futurama".
More than 4 countries haven't ratified (Score:3, Insightful)
The summary says the US is "one of four countries that have not ratified" but the link just lists four notable countries. Scroll down a bit and you will see that they list 15 countries haven't ratified any of the "International Toxics Agreements" (only 15 have ratified all). But is it worse than that since they only list 163 countries when there are 195(*) countries in the world. Assuming the countries they don't list haven't ratified on then that means there are a total of 47 countries that haven't ratified.
Technically the US is "one of four countries that haven't ratified", but technically it is also one of five countries that haven't ratified, and one of three, one of 12, one of 18 and one of 47 countries that haven't ratified.
(*) The UN has 192 member countries but excludes Vatican City, Kosovo and Taiwan.
So what real and true PC recyclers are there? (Score:4, Informative)
I got a lot of old computer parts from the 1990's. Motherfracking Recycling companies near me are a darnned joke and refuse to take tech made before 2002. Then calls me picky and unreasonable when I ask them to take my 90's tech.
Then some want $50 to haul off a $15 CRT tube monitor that do.
Any ideas or suggestions? I don't want to throw them in a dumpster and have mercury leaks and all that, I don't want to harm the environment. I don't want to pay $50 a monitor to get rid of them either.
Are those types of businesses scams and frauds as well? How can I find one to take them for free. The Freecycle group in my area is a joke BTW, get a lot of no shows and then nothing happens and nobody cares.
Re: (Score:2)
You need to find out what companies are doing. Here we use a local recycling firm that does everything in the USA and Canada. The charge $14 per broken monitor though. I suggest asking at work or using google.
Re:So what real and true PC recyclers are there? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Really? I've had no problem taking them old towers (with the hard drives removed), video cards, power supplies, and speakers. Do they not abide by the rules they have posted [bestbuy.com] for your state?
There is more value in recycled electronics than . (Score:2)
.. in mining, pound for pound.
Feel free to mod me down... (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's be fair... I don't want anyone, especially children, being exposed to chemicals involved in e-waste. But I'm of the mindset that if you want to take our jobs away and make a product cheaper than we (Western countries) can make it, then why shouldn't you (China) get it back when we don't want it or it's no longer useful? This treaty basically states that countries that manufacture items get the benefit and profit of manufacture, while incurring little-to-none of the costs of disposal. US landfills have had to deal with e-waste since the early days of radio and TV--most of which were manufactured here...
To add, I have little sympathy for countries that can't or won't control what they import. Each country is responsible for what comes across its borders. It's not like someone's hiding 2 CRT monitors in the trunk of a car & driving them into China--we're talking about huge shipping containers full of these items. If Chinese officials are too corrupt, unwilling, or inept to stop the flow of e-waste, then they get what they deserve...
[End of rant...]
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Best Buy (Score:4, Informative)
To elaborate on what an AC already posted [slashdot.org], Best Buy has an electronics recycling program [bestbuy.com] in the US which will take all manner of products, regardless of where they were purchased. Use the drop-down menu on the right to see the rules for your particular state.
Generally they insist that hard drives be removed from computers -- apparently they don't want the responsibility of dealing with sensitive data. They also charge $10 to take CRTs, but they give you a $10 gift card in return. Say what you will about Best Buy's other practices; this is a very useful program.
Their standards statement [bestbuy.com] indicates they don't do anything dastardly with the stuff once they collect it. I'd be interested to know if anyone has direct experience with how they deal with it all.
Re:Of course we haven't ratified... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Use an active volcano (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Shouldn't we nowadays blast it toward Oracle instead?
Re: (Score:2)
Considering all the PVC and other polymers used in the manufacture of various electronics (at least parts of it) dumping it all into a volcano where the PVC breaks down into some really nasty byproducts like Hydrochloric acid and various chlorinated organic chemicals, I wouldn't recommend doing that. Also just dumping all that potential raw material seems to me to be extremely wasteful.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Volcano Gods will be angry. They don't want your outdated desktops with corrupted XP installations.
Throw in the last version of iPhone (the one that doesn't have reception problems) and the Gods will be pleased. But no more PCs!
Unless you install Ubuntu first.
Re:Not the free market... (Score:4, Insightful)
People so ignorant and so determined to foist their "me, me, me, I, myself, mine, all mine, fuck you!" world-view onto everyone else should be exhibits in some sort of "museum of insanity" where researchers into mental disorders could at least get some use out of you.
I mean, you really suppose that people would "trade via garage sales" all that junk which they actually pay money for to be hauled away into massive, monumental, all-consuming land fills that keep growing year after year around any major city in the developed world? Really?
The natural state of affairs in the consumer distopia is to, get this, consume without any regard to the consequences. People buy plastic crap, they use it until it breaks (a period usually measured in months) and then they promptly throw it out, followed by a new purchase of cheap disposable crap. And this model is a pivotal element of all the so-called "industrialized economies". Recycling occurs in the fucked-up model of "free market" only if some material in the waste is somehow worth extracting, at a minimum effort possible, which is precisely why it is shipped to China and Africa where children can have the privilege of wallowing in toxic shit to extract traces of raw materials. That is an unregulated "free market" at work. It works as long as the children are disposable and dying of toxic exposure tomorrow beats dying of hunger today. "Freedom" of choice in the "free market", as long as it isn't spoiled by all these "evil communist gubmint" types trying to do meddle doing evil things like trying to stop impoverished kids from inhaling toxic fumes and mountains of toxic crap from growing. The glorious "freedom" to pollute as long as it is somewhere else then you, cause "you got yours and the rest should go get theirs", you mendacious fuck, no?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
they start DEMANDING cleaner environments and standards
Here's the tricky part: both the environmental and workplace conditions in the photographs of the Chinese sitesare all already against the law in China because Chinese people have demanded that this kind of thing not be allowed. What is not pictured is the recycling center owners in their Benzes and the local party bosses in their Audis (bought with bribes from the owners). Enforcing the demands for better conditions will require not differen
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So, a girl who can earn a months wage in a factory in just three nights on her back is far worse then the Bhopal disaster?
This is not insightful at all. It is a terrible justification for keeping people in terrible conditions and it's wrong, people want to believe it because it makes them feel better.
You're ran
Re:Recycling is extremely expensive (Score:4, Insightful)
I have no idea where you are getting your info, but you are wrong on plastic bottles. They sell them as regrind.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
$25,000 for a car with $10,000 for recycling it.
Cars are already one of the most recycled items out there. When they are taken out of service (usually after 150-200k miles worth of driving), the parts tend to land up in other cars. When all the good parts are gone, they are turned into cubes, melted and turned into cars again.
Re:Recycling is extremely expensive (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone should know about paper recycling - it costs more to use recycled paper than new. The quality is questionable as well. The result is that most paper is dumped into an incinerator or a landfill by recycling centers because it is pointless to attempt to recycle post-consumer paper.
Plastic bottles can be recycled... except if one tiny little bottle cap or ring gets into the mix the entire batch is worthless. Since this happens most of the time again plastic bottles are not generally recycled.
Fortunately, this being Slashdot, you can make a bunch of off-the-cuff, bullshit claims with no support whatsoever, and bam! +5 insightful.
Really, it's an excellent Slashdot-style karma-whore-post:
1) Derides environmentalist/"green"/liberal ideas,
2) Has an anti-establishment bent, with a "the people are stupid" twist,
3) Heavy dose of smug superiority.
You couldn't have played it any better. Kudos!
Re: (Score:2)
We are, I sell used ram to someone who does just that.