Again, here is some film of Indonesia CRT refurbishing and repair factories. BAN has described this factory as villagers who burn the monitors and CRTs for copper.
The first photos show dumping. Most of the presentation, however, is professional refurbishing jobs. Why does BAN want to take these jobs away from these poor people? They say it is pollution, they say it is illegal, but it is neither.
Environmental Hypocrisy
This article in Newsweek, which explains how self-righteousness corresponds positively to arrogance, struck a chord.
IT'S THE RAIN FOREST STUPID
While your average environmentalist pontificates on the Boston Globe allegation that CRTs exported to Indonesia are 80% bad vs. the recycler claiming they are 90% good, here is a real story about the real issue in Indonesia.NPR's Living On Earth reporter Ingrid Lobet visited the forests in Indonesia, and documented not only that cutting down the rain forest eliminates trees that consume carbon, but how it exposes centuries of peat which by itself belches carbon into the atmosphere.
The "burning environmental issue" is the rain forest and coral reefs, which are headed down the path of the Mediterranean shores (Turkey used to have redwood-forest scale timber, and the Adriatic sea was once teeming with life). Mining lead or tin or copper to make new electronics is not happening much in the developing world - it happens in Indonesia.
Some environmentalists are making the story about the negatives of the most sustainable alternative jobs Indonesians have - reuse and repair and refurbishment and recycling. Recyclers are not the bad guys. Let's cut the friendly fire. Basel Convention explicitly allows the factory refurbishing which is done in Indonesia, the allegation that it is all bad stuff does not hold water (who pays 7000 per container to ship junk?), and the outcome is a ban on exports.
A ban on exports increases mining and destroys rain forests.
Holy moly. NRDC, Obama, Greenpeace! Stop with the friendly fire! Help us raise the standards of recycling through fair trade, allow the reuse and refurbishment to make recycling more affordable, and make recycling the hero that it is - an alternative to mining and forestry. Here I am in a picture with an E-Steward and a University Recycling Coordinator for California, inside one of the refurbishing factories that indisputably refurbish CRTs that Americans are throwing away. How can Natural Resources Defense Council not at least step in and explain that the reuse exists, and then oppose it ... heck, I don't know why they oppose it. Maybe because they got some money from someone who invested a few million in a CRT crusher in the USA. No... that would be cynical. Surely not. Really, it's because they don't believe the factories exist, right? I sent them a letter last week offering to take NRDC on a tour of the factories, no response yet.
2002 Roadmap for E-Waste Export
This is where I met BAN and tried to work with them from 2002-2006. They seemed to appreciate the facts and prices. I thought it was worth reposting. It's dated, especially the reuse prices, but it makes a lot more sense than any statistics or research the anti-export lobby has put out.
Exports of Scrap Electronics - Situations, Principles and Standards
Exports of Scrap Electronics - Situations, Principles and Standards
Boston Globe's Murky E-Waste Reporting
The Boston Globe (reporter Beth Daley) was the largest paper to pick up the story that BAN.org circulated, alleging that recycler CRT Recycling (CRTR) of Brockton illegally exported TVs for dumping to Indonesia.
As I have reported in this blog, there is certainly an opportunity for unscrupulous recyclers to ship junk they must otherwise pay for. But the factories overseas have no incentive to pay for that junk, and they are certainly not "backyard" operations.
The problem here is that the Globe (in an editorial below) has now elevated the BAN allegation, effectively confirming that the containers were bound for dumping. They did so without looking. The containers have arrived back in the port of Boston, still under seal. EPA has been inspecting the containers and is probably withholding judgement until they are inspected. I would hope so.
The Globe however did not make the mile trek to the port of Boston to see for themselves. We shared film of some of the Indonesia factories with the Globe, and I can understand how the Globe may not have the budget to fly reporters across the world. But the containers are in the port of Boston.
CRTR prices have driven me crazy for years. Other recyclers are jumping for joy that the lowest bidder out there is caught in an enforcement action. But I have to ask, what if these were MY containerloads, which I had exported to a legal, permitted, audited, ISO14001 factory? What if BAN sent a letter to the government of the importer, telling them my containers were 80% waste, and the country returned them back to me, under seal? How would I feel if the Globe alleged inaction by EPA based on a false accusation, while EPA finished its inspection? I would probably feel like one of the USA state departement employees accused of being a communist by Senator Joe McCarthy. Where is a Senator Millard Tydings when you need one?
It is unfair that I am in a position of defending an arch competitor, who may or may not be guilty of shipping junk, based on shoddy journalism. My ideal self says that CRTR, the EPA, and the factory in Indonesia CRTR shipped to, all deserve an actual investigation by a real life journalist, and that the proof will be in the numbers - how many pieces in the containerload, if any, were junk, and what happens if junk arrives in Indonesia? That is the story that has yet to be told, that is the question the Boston Globe has yet to ask.
As I have reported in this blog, there is certainly an opportunity for unscrupulous recyclers to ship junk they must otherwise pay for. But the factories overseas have no incentive to pay for that junk, and they are certainly not "backyard" operations.
The problem here is that the Globe (in an editorial below) has now elevated the BAN allegation, effectively confirming that the containers were bound for dumping. They did so without looking. The containers have arrived back in the port of Boston, still under seal. EPA has been inspecting the containers and is probably withholding judgement until they are inspected. I would hope so.
The Globe however did not make the mile trek to the port of Boston to see for themselves. We shared film of some of the Indonesia factories with the Globe, and I can understand how the Globe may not have the budget to fly reporters across the world. But the containers are in the port of Boston.
CRTR prices have driven me crazy for years. Other recyclers are jumping for joy that the lowest bidder out there is caught in an enforcement action. But I have to ask, what if these were MY containerloads, which I had exported to a legal, permitted, audited, ISO14001 factory? What if BAN sent a letter to the government of the importer, telling them my containers were 80% waste, and the country returned them back to me, under seal? How would I feel if the Globe alleged inaction by EPA based on a false accusation, while EPA finished its inspection? I would probably feel like one of the USA state departement employees accused of being a communist by Senator Joe McCarthy. Where is a Senator Millard Tydings when you need one?It is unfair that I am in a position of defending an arch competitor, who may or may not be guilty of shipping junk, based on shoddy journalism. My ideal self says that CRTR, the EPA, and the factory in Indonesia CRTR shipped to, all deserve an actual investigation by a real life journalist, and that the proof will be in the numbers - how many pieces in the containerload, if any, were junk, and what happens if junk arrives in Indonesia? That is the story that has yet to be told, that is the question the Boston Globe has yet to ask.
GLOBE EDITORIAL
Quit dumping old TVs overseas
March 10, 2010
THE MURKY afterworld of dead electronics was brought home this winter when a massive shipment of old televisions from Brockton’s CRT Recycling was rejected by the government of Indonesia and returned to Boston. Old cathode ray TV tubes contain several pounds of lead, mercury, cadmium, and other toxins. The blowback from Indonesia is evidence of why the US, the world’s largest producer of electronic waste, should sign the Basel Convention that bans dumping in developing countries. The United States’ own Government Accountability Office says American regulations are “among the weakest in the world,’’ allowing a “virtually unrestricted’’ flow of old TVs and computers to the Third World.
My response:
"Murky" is a good word, in that it cuts both directions. The Editorial is murky, the allegation is murky. Where are the facts? There is a factory refurbishing TVs in Indonesia, there are several such factories. There is an opportunity for an unscrupulous exporter to mix bad and unrepairable TVs into loads shipped for those factories. The CRTR containers arrived back in the USA in sealed containers, neither the environmentalists nor the Indonesian government opened the containers to see what kind of TVs are inside. They are here in Boston. This is your opportunity to find out the truth. While I am a competitor of the company in Brockton, and do not like the prices he competes at, I am shocked that the Globe would reprint the allegation when the nation expects you to be there and to look at the containers, and beyond shocked that the Globe would elevate this to the Editorial section. You have formed an opinion that the load was not as CRTR represented and that the refurbishing factory is a "backyard" operation, when you have an invitation and film to view. That is indeed murky journalism. Several journalists who have reviewed the initial press release paused in their coverage and are willing spend the time the Globe is not willing to spend to see the operation in Indonesia, look at the records of the containerloads of used electronics, and report the truth. If the Globe's opinion turns out to be right, consider yourselves lucky. If you are wrong, consider yourselves "murky" rumor repeaters, not reporters. You have up until now reported nothing but an allegation, and have done nothing to investigate it.
--
Robin Ingenthron
--
Robin Ingenthron
Basel Convention Doesn't Say That. Does too. Does Not. Does so too.
What DOES the Basel Convention say about Export for reuse, repair and refurbishment? This is Annex IX, B1110, which specifies "what is the good stuff", the language describing those things that are definitely not banned for export under Basel Convention (which USA has not ratified anyway).
"B1110 Electrical and electronic assemblies:
This pretty clearly says that CRT glass is bad if it is not exported for reuse, repair, refurbishment and upgrading, but that if it is for those re-uses, that it is not an illegal waste.
• Electronic assemblies consisting only of metals or alloys
• Waste electrical and electronic assemblies or scrap(13) (including printed circuit boards) not containing components such as accumulators and other batteries included on list A, mercury-switches, glass from cathode-ray tubes and other activated glass and PCB-capacitors, or not contaminated with Annex I constituents (e.g., cadmium, mercury, lead, polychlorinated biphenyl) or from which these have been removed, to an extent that they do not possess any of the characteristics contained in Annex III (note the related entry on list A A1180)
This pretty clearly says that CRT glass is bad if it is not exported for reuse, repair, refurbishment and upgrading, but that if it is for those re-uses, that it is not an illegal waste. BAN has said that I am not qualified to read or interpret this. When I have said we have legal authorities from overseas nations who agree with us and grant import permits in writing, BAN says to tell them who they are so that BAN, the small Seattle NGO, can write to them and dissuade them.
Here is BAN's argument (regarding MPPI, the mobile phone issue). Please read it. In my opinion, it's extremely not entirely very clarifying, but in their own words is best. Here is why the Convention actually says "tested working" and "no export for repair", according to Basel Action Network.
Someone needs to not pretend these guys know what they are talking about. I can grab the Doha round and start a non-profit around that obscure international treaty, and form a consensus around my protest opinions, based on the phenomenon that no one else reads it. This is insane.
Three Good Ideas for "Solving E-Waste Problems"
Unfortunately, it has now been a decade since I began promoting the three good ideas below. After 10 years, no one shows interest. I get an occasional glimpse of "oh yeah, I remember that" from some state and federal officials. Now that I am going ninja on Basel Action Network (in response to their deliberate attacks on good foreign operations), I would like to find another NGO to replace me as the chief advocate for three ideas BAN gives lip service to but which need to be raised.
These 3 Great E-waste Ideas babies are floating down the Nile... (psst! Miriam! Wake up!)
1) SPARE TIRE OS LICENSE. Instead of making MAR refurbishers pay $5 for a MAR license, get the original buyer of the product to buy a second "spare tire" license. See page 8 of this 2000 EPA JTR Report on the recycling infrastructure in MA, search "spare tire". Fabulous idea.
EPEAT could do this. When a state or federal or corporate buyer orders $20M in new PCs, they can ask for a second MS license to be affixed to the side of the computer (like the OEM licenses of old). When their PCs are decommissioned, the IT people could take the PC online and enter in a password and a remote wiping code, reinstalling the new Microsoft Windows or other license. Now any used PC would have a legal license.
The economics are win-win-win. The cost of an OEM license relative to the cost of the new PC is maybe $10 to $400, or 2.5% of the purchase. By comparison, the cost of a $5 MAR license is to a $50 used PC is 10%. The OEM version does not really compete with re-installations and bootlegs that the MAR refurbishers do. Finally, the OEMs who negotiate a Microsoft OS license down to $10 would be in a position to pay even less for the second license - maybe $11 for two licenses per machine. Microsoft wins because it gets paid for the "MAR" license up front (3-4 years cash flow) and is collecting an extra dollar on some machines that will never even get refurbished.
2) MINING CLEANUP = RECYCLING CREDITS. The General Mining Act of 1872, which leases for $5 per acre federal lands for mining (and polluting - those mines become Superfund sites, a doubling taxpayer jeopardy on each "land lease").
The cleanup of the mining sites ($1.5B settlement with ASARCO, e.g.) is going to be money down a rathole, they are not going to be able to clean up those sites by sending Haliburton men in moon suits with mops. Instead the money should go for alternative mining - mining of urban ore - ewaste recycling programs in the communities which suffered the pollution. An even better idea is to reform the General Mining Act of 1872 - legislation has already passed the House of Representatives - and increase the royalties on metals from 0% to something percent and have part of that money go to e-waste recycling. There is probably a danger that this money will be used like SB20 money to destroy reuse (obsolescence in hindsight) but if there is a competitive bidding we may be able to control that.
3) RECYCLED CONTENT GOLD. I already orphaned this idea in June 2009 by dropping my patent application. When I dropped the patent app, it did not take long for someone to promote the idea with these Olympic medals. The problem is minimum content has not been defined well enough. If we set up a program to restrict the claims to significant percentages of recycled gold, recyclers will benefit more and that money will go to getting more e-waste out of the waste stream.
These are the best ideas being discussed in E-Waste right now, if I do say so myself. I declare them orphans. I have two other fabulous ideas which I intend to become a millionaire with.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
