Robin's "Fair Trade" Thesis:
(That) The free market largely avoids "junk along for the ride" and largely creates (or retains) value in developing nations which is otherwise lost in first-world shredding and prohibitions. This value includes not only fully restored appliances, but also value added parts (chips, cartridges, power supplies, rare earth components, electric grade copper) which is otherwise typically "downcycled" in labor-saving mechanical processing.
The retained value from recycling export is as important, or more so, to the development of emerging markets as it is to the balance of trade in wealthy nations.
The key benefit to wealthy or "northern" economies is reduced recycling service cost, resulting in increased recycling rates, income from legitimate "asset recovery", and carbon reduction from usefulness (embodied carbon) of devices and components which would have been downcycled. A tertiary benefit is diversion from MSW of the "fluff" material or shred which is typically generated by shredding, and disposal of items when generators refuse to pay higher fees to support lost "value".
The key benefit of used electronics exports to the emerging market is the value created by "geeks", "techs", and "tinkerers" who salvage working and added value from computers, cell phones, and audio-visual equipment; a tech earning 10 times the labor rate in Africa will still provide 10 times more added value to the "discarded" appliance. The hazardous residuals from the fair trade should be identified and quantified, both as to quantity and actual hazards from "release" (e.g. of solid and inert material). Separately, the "informal" processes should be identified (e.g. aqua regia, which frees non-toxic gold via a toxic additive), and safe process identified for the proper recycling (or re-export if necessary) of those items.
The counter thesis is that free market global trade will result in perverse incentives for avoided disposal or treatment costs of materials which will result in greater releases of toxics into the environment than the benefits of increased reuse, repair, and recycling.
The proposed response to the first thesis is to increase trade, resulting in more choices of supplier for emerging markets, as well as to provide incentives for transparency and reimbursement for incidental breakage, elective upgrade, changes in demand/inventory, and unintended shipments. Investments in dealing with the 15% of residual or unwanted "ewaste" will serve the additional purpose of creating infrastructure for "eventual" waste (when brand new or working equipment is one day "generated" in the emerging market).
The proposed response to the second thesis is greater government control and restriction of "e-waste" exports. This will theoretically result in newer product in emerging nations, shredding jobs in developed nations, without significantly impacting the 85% of exports which are properly repaired, refurbished, reused according to Basel Convention Annex IX.
WHAT IS DEAD / DISPROVED IS THE ALLEGATION THAT 80-90% OF "E-WASTE" EXPORTS ARE POLLUTING JUNK. THIS HAS BEEN SHOWN ECONOMICALLY UNFEASIBLE AND IS NOW QUANTITATIVELY DESTROYED AS A DATA POINT IN THREE SEPARATE UNRELATED ACADEMIC STUDIES. FURTHER, THE ORIGINAL SOURCE OF THE "STATISTIC" HAS PUBLICLY ADMITTED TO MAKING IT UP AND SAID IT INCLUDED SCRAP STEEL AND SCRAP PLASTIC AND WORKING PRODUCT, THAT IT WAS NEVER INTENDED AS A STATISTIC TO DESCRIBE THE PERCENTAGE OF PRODUCT 'PRIMITIVELY' DISPOSED. THIS WAS PRONOUNCED DEAD HERE ON THIS BLOG, AND IT SHOULD BE SOBERING TO ALL ENVIRONMENTALISTS HOW MANY LEGITIMATE JOURNALISTS AND REPORTERS RE-REPORTED THIS FALSE STATISTIC, AND HOW A SINGLE MADE UP STATISTIC, ADDED TO A POSTER-CHILD PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN, COMPLETELY DERAILED THE LEGITIMATE ENVIRONMENTALIST DISCUSSION ABOVE.
(That) The free market largely avoids "junk along for the ride" and largely creates (or retains) value in developing nations which is otherwise lost in first-world shredding and prohibitions. This value includes not only fully restored appliances, but also value added parts (chips, cartridges, power supplies, rare earth components, electric grade copper) which is otherwise typically "downcycled" in labor-saving mechanical processing.
The retained value from recycling export is as important, or more so, to the development of emerging markets as it is to the balance of trade in wealthy nations.
The key benefit to wealthy or "northern" economies is reduced recycling service cost, resulting in increased recycling rates, income from legitimate "asset recovery", and carbon reduction from usefulness (embodied carbon) of devices and components which would have been downcycled. A tertiary benefit is diversion from MSW of the "fluff" material or shred which is typically generated by shredding, and disposal of items when generators refuse to pay higher fees to support lost "value".
The key benefit of used electronics exports to the emerging market is the value created by "geeks", "techs", and "tinkerers" who salvage working and added value from computers, cell phones, and audio-visual equipment; a tech earning 10 times the labor rate in Africa will still provide 10 times more added value to the "discarded" appliance. The hazardous residuals from the fair trade should be identified and quantified, both as to quantity and actual hazards from "release" (e.g. of solid and inert material). Separately, the "informal" processes should be identified (e.g. aqua regia, which frees non-toxic gold via a toxic additive), and safe process identified for the proper recycling (or re-export if necessary) of those items.
The counter thesis is that free market global trade will result in perverse incentives for avoided disposal or treatment costs of materials which will result in greater releases of toxics into the environment than the benefits of increased reuse, repair, and recycling.
The proposed response to the first thesis is to increase trade, resulting in more choices of supplier for emerging markets, as well as to provide incentives for transparency and reimbursement for incidental breakage, elective upgrade, changes in demand/inventory, and unintended shipments. Investments in dealing with the 15% of residual or unwanted "ewaste" will serve the additional purpose of creating infrastructure for "eventual" waste (when brand new or working equipment is one day "generated" in the emerging market).
The proposed response to the second thesis is greater government control and restriction of "e-waste" exports. This will theoretically result in newer product in emerging nations, shredding jobs in developed nations, without significantly impacting the 85% of exports which are properly repaired, refurbished, reused according to Basel Convention Annex IX.
WHAT IS DEAD / DISPROVED IS THE ALLEGATION THAT 80-90% OF "E-WASTE" EXPORTS ARE POLLUTING JUNK. THIS HAS BEEN SHOWN ECONOMICALLY UNFEASIBLE AND IS NOW QUANTITATIVELY DESTROYED AS A DATA POINT IN THREE SEPARATE UNRELATED ACADEMIC STUDIES. FURTHER, THE ORIGINAL SOURCE OF THE "STATISTIC" HAS PUBLICLY ADMITTED TO MAKING IT UP AND SAID IT INCLUDED SCRAP STEEL AND SCRAP PLASTIC AND WORKING PRODUCT, THAT IT WAS NEVER INTENDED AS A STATISTIC TO DESCRIBE THE PERCENTAGE OF PRODUCT 'PRIMITIVELY' DISPOSED. THIS WAS PRONOUNCED DEAD HERE ON THIS BLOG, AND IT SHOULD BE SOBERING TO ALL ENVIRONMENTALISTS HOW MANY LEGITIMATE JOURNALISTS AND REPORTERS RE-REPORTED THIS FALSE STATISTIC, AND HOW A SINGLE MADE UP STATISTIC, ADDED TO A POSTER-CHILD PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN, COMPLETELY DERAILED THE LEGITIMATE ENVIRONMENTALIST DISCUSSION ABOVE.
3 comments:
Post a Comment