What is right and what is wrong about the BAN press releases, describing their story on PBS, their partnership with MIT's Senseable City Lab, their investigations with Hong Kong Environmental Protection Department? Home runs require you to touch bases. We are asking the referees - did BAN touch all the bases? Were sabotaged devices not repairable? Is Li Tong Group really not allowed to process OEM material at the state of the art EcoPark in Hong Kong? Are there child laborers in Shui Wai New Town? Are the 86% of Hong Kong called "New Territories" a "cowboy land"? Did MIT find any evidence that a single device they helped track was dumped illegally or repaired responsibly? Does PBS see a link between NGO sponsorship, accusations that workers surprised by cameras are "illegals"? Suddenly the reputations of MIT, Hong Kong EPD, and PBS are being held very, very tightly by Basel Action Network. Public display of affection. Their organization names have been meta-tagged with #trackingewaste.
What's up, ump? Did BAN touch all the bases? Did this expose do the primo non nocere?
Do tell us...
1. MIT QUALIFIES ITS ROLE
Carlo Ratti has just acknowledged our inquiry this morning. He's the director of Senseable City, and a TED Talk expert, and one of the most respected authorities on international city development. His opinion on Hong Kong recycling? On PBS, Ratti stated "One of the surprising things we discovered is how far waste travels. You see these kind of global e-waste flows that actually almost cover the whole planet."