Procurement to the Rescue of the Right To Repair 2: Chess Game To Future-Proof


While I'm a big supporter of the Right To Repair legislation, a friend in an influential position at DEP (former hire, elevated to my former position) asked the Zoom group whether Right to Repair Legislation should be their top priority.

Fair Use Review

I'm always on my guard against "Group-Think".  Here were 15-20 proponents of reuse, actively engaged in DEFENSE of repair.  What did we all have in common, and how could common thought become a weakness?

In a tweet later, @WR3A (World Reuse, Repair and Recycling Association, my Twitter handle created 12 years ago) I used the words "my one qualm with #RightToRepair [as a movement] is that it is backward oriented. Trying to take back too many chess moves by planned obsolescence which were already played [successfully, by OEMs]... Each new device developed or sold is the next chess game. I recommend government procurement contracts as the opening move."


Ironically, the Right to Repair twitter advocate who responded (a friendly fire incident, if I offended) responded in a quote tweet... "Made the move to influence government buying at least 6 years ago. Have the conference badges to prove it. If only it were that easy. OEMs have made sure that the GSA won't even consider buying used equipment. If only it were that easy..." 

[as if I'd dispute it? I've got them going back to 1990]

My point about Procurement isn't about government buying used equipment. It is about strategically wording FTC-backed warranty language on things the government hasn't even purchased yet. Backward Oriented, Exhibit A?

Draft 2021 Environmentalism 4.0 DRAFT OPEN LETTER. Add your suggestion or comment, live.

As a fan of Harper Magazine's "A Letter On Justice and Open Debate", and as a career professional Environmentalist on "active duty", I humbly ask whether a similar letter may be overdue in 2021 for the Environmental Community.

Professionals are now more aware of systemic bias, cognitive dissonance, wasteful responses, externalization and circular definitions, and outright collateral damage by politically conservative and progressive "environmental causes".  The "easy" press coverage is to interview the person who represents someone most impassioned for and against the proposal. This further creates cognitive dissonance in the democracy. People become "for or against" things like "plastic", or "carbon", or "waste", without considering realistically that society must regulate its expenditures to achieve the most bang for the buck. That consideration is especially sharp in emerging and developing markets, which can now widely afford devices like cars, computers, and consumption of "fast food", but which lack the disposable income for waste collection.

This has at times resulted in First World "grabbing control" of vehicles of export, e.g. investments in equipment to "shred" devices Emerging Markets wish to purchase, in an attempt to assuage the First World's own "liability" system.  As Carbon and Climate community has long acknowledged, the sky which receives climate-changing carbon does not recognize political sovereignty.  And we need to acknowledge the same in disasters such as mining coral islands for tin, or plastic pollution which is not coming from western recycling operations, but from consumption and disposal owing to rising standards of living in the 1960s-labelled "third world".

I'm not sure this is a good idea, but I suspect that if it is, it would take someone headstrong to suggest it. Might as well be me. (Jack Straw, Greatful Dead, Europe '72)


Draft OPEN LETTER: ENVIRONMENTALISM 4.0

(more)

Good Point Recycling in 2020: Smithsonian Immortalizes 3 staff in "Occupational Folklore" Series

For everything else being said about 2020, the vision of my company is finally less blurry.

After 19 years of tirelessly building a viable fair trade recycling and reuse model - with several close calls - we are finally being recognized in the fog, and rewarded.

In our year end letter I'll try to put together a summary, but this week is special.  The Library of Congress has published in-depth interviews and photos of three of our longest-serving staff as part of the "Occupational Folklore Chronicles", a long running effort to pursue for historical purpose what people did for a living.  This series (which features several of our clients as well) is about documentation of what it's like making a living in the waste, recycling, and repair trade.

This subseries is called "Trash Talk: Workers in Vermont's Waste Management Industry: Archie Green Fellows Project, 2018 to 2019 (21)" and it was curated as a grant to Virginia Nickerson, perhaps the most patient person I've ever met.

My favorite of the three audio interviews is Crystal, now in her 12 year at Good Point

Below are photos and links to interviews with Crystal and Sean, and some of the photos the interviewer Virginia Nickerson took as well.  The interviews and photos were taken in October 2018, released this week.  

The Ptolemy-Liability Trap: Simplified Recycling Lifecycle Narratives Tend to Revolve Around You

The Vermont free-mail, coupon-funded newspaper "Hometown" is published and mailed by the Burlington Free Press - which, with its Headliner newspaper, follows the opposite, paywall approach, online. So I'm in a bit of a quandary in presenting the snapshot, below, of the opening paragraphs of the article. Well, it's a fair use claim, and also it's common practice for newspapers to show the "lede" (opening paragraphs), so here's what catches my attention this morning.

Burlington Free Press Thanksgiving Edition
Burlington Free Press Thanksgiving "Hometown" Edition


Joel Banner Baird
of Burlington Free Press may well have started a "recycling" story for the same reason that @AdamMinter told me those stories normally appear around holidays.... they are easy to write, require little more than a google page one of research, and seem to appeal to everyone. They are not time sensitive, so a reporter can write it a week ahead, and get home for the holidays faster. But at least in the opening paragraphs, Baird bluntly avoids the normal "gotcha" narratives common in holiday journalism (someone made millions of dollars recycling trash was the go-to in the 1980s, your recyclables didn't really get recycled in the 1990s, lather-rinse-repeat for every buyers-market, sellers-market cycle). It leads, but does not bleed.

The opening interview with Michael Noel (nice holiday namesake) of TOMRA, the master-redemption center recycling provider and owner of most supermarket reverse-vendor container machines, avoids falsely choosing between either "It was the best of times."  

...Or, "It was the worst of times".

Which is the most environmentally sustainable Container for my holiday beer?

Michael Noel tells Joel Banner Baird "The short answer is, it's complicated". That is an honest answer to the decades of environmentalists (spoilt brat) privileged demands to "choose" the "best" beer container, vs. the equally misguided alt-right "recycling is Bulls**t" waste-makers. Both camps are uber-susceptible to cognitive dissonance (or perhaps vice versa, those prone to cognitive dissonance probably lean toward extreme positions). The more they choose one answer (only use this one vs. nothing matters, environmentalists are wrong), the louder they both get. Outrage is not Expertise.

[more]

Shame Blowback: Jim Puckett's 2015 Claim to be an Authority on Agbogbloshie

"The #TechSector in #EmergingMarkets honestly believes in the #CircularEconomy. But like Copernicus and Galileo, they do not believe it revolves around you." - Robin Freeland Ingenthron

That's my favorite self-quote from the past 10 years. I got to deliver it to a European Conference on E-Waste, seated side by side with Basel Action Network's executive director, Jim Puckett. 

"Shame Blowback" sometimes takes years. But Karma Occurs. 

After the laughter subsided, I told the audience that it is a bit absurd that they are relying on the advice of two white American men to explain the situation with used electronics in Africa's Tech Sector. Adam Minter later told me that #OwnVoices was a hashtag which framed that dynamic. The following year, Emmanuel Nyaletey was invited to present to the same conference audience. 

2007 Film Falsely Claimed these were illegally dumped. Lie,


Quickie documentary videos of Africa-bound sea containers shocked Europeans into twisting the Basel Convention - which explicitly identifies intent to dump, not intent to recycle or repair, as illegal - to a snare for African and Asian and Latin Americans in the reuse sector. Joe Benson was entrapped in that snare, which was baited by Jim Puckett with false claims, delivered in less than flowering Halloweenish descriptions of African Cities ("A Place Called Away"), that 80% of the trade Africans engage in is a "sham". "Millions of tons" "pawed through" by "orphans" in "the largest e-waste dump in the world".

Hand In Glove - Externalization and Regulation

Former Regulator Hat On.

Environmental Enforcement Dollars come disproportionately FROM the wealthy. The wealthy are concerned, above all else, about their property value, and their backyards. So you have the most environmental enforcement and regulations - even to the extent of NIMBY vs Solar fields - in wealthy counties. And wealthy countries.

The dirtiest, most polluting industry in the world - gold mining - occurs primarily in the most remote places in the world. That is not because there are no gold deposits in the Hamptons or Westchester County. The gold is in the earth. But gold is expensive because you have to dig up massive amounts of earth to get gold. Moving massive amounts of earth, and treating that earth with cyanide and mercury to concentrate the gold ore, is "best done elsewhere".

Years ago, I blogged about auto repair shops in Manhattan which migrated to Queens because of the land value, and subsequent externalization of repair. In the big picture (like the current election) this creates resentment of the regulator - the property value enforcement negotiator - by the regulated. And this has been flipped as "environmental injustice" by the new home to the dirty repair shop, and as "externalization" when it crosses national boundaries.

Both the "environmental injustice" of motor oil changing repair shops in Queens and the "externalization" of gold mining to the Amazon river basin and Congo rain forest are real, and appealing to liberals and intellectuals. At the same time, the increasing regulation of the Queens auto shop, as property values and regulation extend beyond Manhattan, creates a Trumpy backlash among working class, proud-to-self-describe "grease monkey" culture. Liberals herald Repair, but don't associate with them, culturally. Because repair is something poor people do better, and "elective upgrade" is something associated with wealth. Whether the "property" is real estate, or a flip phone, the trade sends value south, and regulation - north.

Through years of blogging, casting for intellectual swordfish rather than perch, I hope I've created an awareness that our white-guilt is being used, corruptly, to make the environmental enforcement disproportionately affect the man-in-the-middle repair and refurbishing industry. The WORST activity humans do - gold mining, e.g. - is the farthest out of sight, never talked about, never see it described on CBS 60 Minutes. But set up a shop in Guiyu, China, to repurpose gold-bearing chips, sold in competition to Intel or Cisco new chips made with mined gold, and you'll be labelled primitive, polluting, externalized, illegal, and counterfeit.

Money doesn't just "talk", it silences.

Orchestrated Environmental Malpractice. Intellectuals need to wrestle back our demonization and collateral damage, and do it quickly. The world needs Environmentalism 3.0 Personal property value (NIMBY) enforcement is 1.0, decrying the reuse practices of the poor, witnessed white-ly as externalization or fetishization of your guilty elective upgrade is 2.0, we need a global view. Carbon trading is a window, a potential breath of fresh air, but expect it to be controlled by the interests of the wealthy and privileged. Ocean plastic comes from countries poor enough to struggle to collect litter, but with the highest rates of product (gold bearing expecially) reuse and repair. White intellectual, you are being tricked into shredding and destroying a device which Africa's Tech Sector will reuse 3 times longer than you did before your upgrade.

Your guilt has been diagnosed as an "opportunity" by Planned Obsolescence OEMs and Big Shred. "Our Circular Economy" (keep metal in Europe) advocates have created a very, very, very evil charity(if un-self-aware) industrial complex (Basel Action Network, run by Jim Puckett), which is doing nothing good, only harming the poor and the net environment.

A big "racketeering" industry (Certification, R2 or E-Stewards) is privatizing the regulatory functions I'm writing about, and de-democratizing them. All the certifications are "pay to play", there is never an Asian or African tech sector on the Advisory Committees in these groups. They change the "problem" when the 1.0 or 2.0 solutions are exposed as fraudulent ("80% of exported - imported - secondhand product was NEVER waste, and CBS producer Solly Granatstein won't account for his unwitting Koolaid).

They are going to try to make it about "counterfeit" (reused and repurposed expensive equipment) and "data breach" (NO, breached data does NOT come from ANY 5 year old obsolete device, it's an insane conspiracy theory that your 2001 Dell or HP desktop is being "harvested" for data by Geeks in Ghana). It's going to create resentment not of the wealthy interests, who greenwash, but of the regulators, resulting in anti-government votes for executive branch "leaders" who make environmentalists the enemy.


Blog reads are declining, maybe I'm repeating myself. From time to time, I want to know if anyone is aware, does anybody care, does anybody see what I see? (1776 Musical, John Adams, who was "obnoxious and disliked")

The Privilege of Recycling Righteousness

 Waste Hierarchy vs. Litter.  Keep Atlantic Beautiful.

There is a privileged disconnect between weathy nations' obsession with recycling rate of plastic, when the emergency is ocean-bound litter in emerging markets. I don't care if it's recycled, I want to see litter collected before monsoons send it to sea.

Visit WasteAid.org 
Over the past two decades, I've been delighted to see hunger decline globally, disease vaccination rates gain, mass communications tech spread across the poorest nations, and, quite significantly, the income per capita in so-called "third world" nations triple. Most scholars now refer to developing countries as "Emerging Markets" based on double-digit annual per income growth and spending.

Still, they have a ways to go. And environmentally speaking, many African, Asian and South American Communities are at the awkward stage of environmental regulation the USA saw in the 1950s and 1960s, when cars were dumped in American Rivers, and bottle bills were driven by LITTER, not by a heartfelt need to recycle.




There is a reverse normal curve when it comes to recycling and growth of income. Very poor nations recycle the most, because the value of the material is a high wage, they cannot afford to throw it away. In places like Kumasi, Ghana, the metals from cars are segregated into far more categories than an American recycler would ever bother to. 

But when the income of a nation doubles or triples, from very poor to modestly lower class, you start to see disposables being consumed - bottled water in Africa (or plastic bagged) - but not collected. The awkward period when - like my grandparents farm in the 1960s - garbage is being produced by higher and higher levels of packaging, but at best being burned in barrels, and at worst, dumped on roadsides.

And that's what is going on in Emerging Cities, many of which are on the coast, or along one of 7 rivers that dump into the 5 oceans.

Can You Lose 50 Pounds In 12 Months? The Hot New #Clickbait #EWaste Diet!

 Can You Lose 50 Pounds In 12 Months?

Shameless promotion of "e-waist"

Technically, I'm not sure I make it. I've only lost 46 pounds, to be honest (that's strictly going by my physical medical exam, not home scales).

The Editor of Resource Recycling Magazine, Dan Lief*, told me that the staff (Cara Bergeson, Bobby Elliot, Colin Staub, Rick Downing,  Jared Paben, Jef Drawbaugh...) had assigned me a nickname of "Clickbait Robin".  That was a gentle chiding, suggesting that some of my stories - like Retroworks de Mexico, perhaps - were more fluff than substance. Low-calorie fare.

Coming from a journalism family (Dad was Mass Communications Professor at U of Arkansas, his parent and grandparents worked at / owned a County newspaper), I don't take it as an insult that I get my point of view out there any way that I can. Chaz Miller, Jim O'Keefe, Brian Taylor, DeAnne Toto, Rachel H. Pollack, Dan Sandoval, and even Cole Rosengren know that I can be tongue-in-cheek, and deadly serious, at the same time. If you are going to use a weight-loss, or journo name-drop, as your clickbait, you better have really lost the weight, and be truthful if it's 46 (this AM, seems 47 lbs) and not 50 pounds you've lost.

(Mark Hickey at Waste360... have not met anyone there yet, and the trade paper's silence on the controversy over racial profiling of used electronics traders really should be addressed)

Many Blog Posts are Emails To Academics: Urbanization Politics of Agbogbloshie

This is an email I just sent to a European graduate student, who is attempting to do a major research (thesis?) paper on Agbogbloshie.

I always have taken time to encourage researchers. It is part of my "fishing for swordfish, surrounded by perch" philosophy of blogging. The blogs are ignored by most people, because most people don't have the bandwidth to really focus on them, or to do a deep dive, or review ground already covered.

But these emails and blogs reach people who are truly concerned, and who ultimately discover that there is an almost sinister systemic manipulation of "do-gooders" empathy to accomplish monetary gains. I usually talk about the Western (and now Asian) lobbies - Big Shred, Planned Obsolescence, and Charity Industrial Complex.  But in this morning's email to the Swiss based graduate researcher, I like to remind us that Africans have Agency, even if some of their agency is systemically marginalized by the desire for shiny white consciences. 

In Accra, Ghana, it's the land value stupid. Agbogbloshie, for decades (IMF and World Bank papers go back to the 1960s) has been an urban scrapyard next to the Old Fadama slum.  If you want to know what is ultimately going to happen, read about the Kowloon slum in Hong Kong. All the "recycling" story is just using BAN propaganda to leverage demolition and expulsion of some of the most valuable real estate in one of the richest African urban centers.

It's not about you, or your old computer.




Basel Action Network Continues Campaign of Racial Prejudice, Systemic Vocabulary Abuse, GPS Sabotage

 Every BAN press release is a lesson in vocabulary manipulation, not science.  


NGO sanctimonious vocabulary demands a rebuttal


For example, an enormous predictor that Jim is exaggerating are the words "waste" and "likely".  Jim of all people knows that "used goods" and "waste" are defined separately in international law, and that the key to guilt is intent. Otherwise, every brand new item that landed overseas - if it failed under warranty, or was damaged in shipping - would be a violation of international law.

BAN has, for two decades, tried to erase the fact that the most knowledgeable actors, the ones most in control of the trade, the purchasers least likely to waste money, are the oveseas buyers. They do not pay to ship "waste" with the intent to avoid costs they would certainly not incur, in the rich nations where they purchase surplus goods. The Action Network was exposed for fabricating a high percentage of waste (80%) (GPI blog, 2013) They did so in order to cause journalists and environmentalists to skip the side of the story from Joseph "Hurricane" Benson, and the overseas Tech Sector he came to represent. BAN issued macabre photos of dumps, where the junk being processed is mostly automotive and mostly was imported to those countries when Joe Benson would have been an apprentice TV repair tech in Nigeria... decades earlier. 

Plastics Recycling's Burdensome New "Narrative"

A friend from Carleton College, physican, philosopher, professor and author Peter Ubel, nominated me on Facebook to comment on a new Frontline and NPR series:

 




The headline implies that plastic never would be recycled.  I've seen some other reporting to this effect, harkening back to the Penn and Teller video "Recycling is Bull***t".

How about:

"Some in Big Oil Misled the Public Into Believing More Plastic Would Be Recycled Than Could Be"

The thing is, plastics recycling is not all that complicated to explain, compared to say health care policy. 


"Part of the problem with mixed plastics recycling is insufficient participation. Manufacturers cannot meet % recycled content goals if consumers don't participate. "Another is over-participation. When in doubt, leave it out. Over-eager recyclers contaminate feedstock with mayo. "

Not really that political.

Self-Cancellation in the Era of Public Shaming

Over the decade-plus that I've added to this blog, there have been times I self-censored, and times I lobbed bombs. If anything protects me, it's probably the sheer volume of posts. It's difficult even for me to find the 2010-ish posts on shipping car seats to Africa rather than shredding them. But my experience with trying to do that, during a 2 year stint running Retroworks as a Thrift Store / Electronics Recycler, was an early example of public shaming. A woman on my staff stridently refused, saying we'd be putting African children in danger by exposing them to "expired" car seats.

But increasingly I've had some very revealing draft blogs sit unposted, unpublished. I've learned from Facebook and Twitter that no matter how insightful or pithy a thought, that it runs a high risk of being "cancelled" by someone critical of my privilege and race and gender.


Procurement to the Rescue of the Right To Repair

 I've provided several written and oral testimony on behalf of "Right To Repair" Laws in several states. What prepares me for the discussion is over 3 decades of interest in Warranty Law, Planned Obsolescence, Trademark and Patent Law.

Here's the thing. Most of the testimony in favor of Right To Repair is based on past Planned Obsolescence techniques. Most of the testimony AGAINST Right to Repair is based on scary things that might occur in the future, if OEMs are forced to stop blocking independents (who according to OEM TV ads are far more likely to stalk you than OEM repair shops).

But the VERY SCARY future is based on what Planned Obsolescence has in mind. 


Profile of Critical Thinking, Mistakes, and Systemic Language

Through approximately 13 years of blogs, I've made a number of errors. There are too many blogs now to really go back and change. And arguably it's a mistake to edit the history of the thought, it is a snapshot of evolution.

When my dear friend and co-founder of the company, Yadji Moussa, drowned eight years ago, I wrote a rather passionate eulogy. I wanted to be honest and not cover up some of Yadji's problems - he had lost his family through drinking and in the 12 years he lived in Middlebury and worked with me, he'd spent an enormous percent of his paychecks frivolously. I thought I'd also been equally complimentary about why he'd been my best friend in Cameroon, and why his family in Michigan still loved him as much as I did. 

Well, I didn't accomplish a Neil Young song about the setting sun. And a stranger from University of Vermont chimed into the comment section about all of the ways my tribute/critique of Yadji's life were implicitly racist.


New Rule: Person with most knowledge of a device...

From waste colonialism to environmentalism 3.0
New rule: Person with the most knowledge about repair of, and demand for, the device gets to define if it is waste to her/him. Basel definition of waste originally recognized this, but rich countries exploited power to define it.

This is "systematic". The privileged folks with the most knowledge of the Basel Convention SYSTEM are able to knock out competitors in reuse, repair and re-manufacturing. Planned Obsolescence and Big Shred financial interests amplify boneheaded false statistics based NGOs, in a #CharitableIndustrialComplex.

German and Vermont Plastic Bans - Go Fund Me a Mountain

So first the headline - Germany takes the initiative to ban all single use plastics by July 2021. It's being applauded and heralded all over Linkedin, Facebook and Twitter. See coverage on ABC News this morning:

Germany bans single-use plastic straws, food containers

Germany is banning the sale of single-use plastic straws, cotton buds and food containers (AP)



Here is a better idea. Support our Fair Trade Recycling Offset plan. I've been talking about it for years, and have now set up a GoFundMe page with a goal of $25,000.  We will then pay for litter collection out of Ghana streets in the weeks before the monsoon rain washes thousands of tons of plastic litter into the ocean we all share.

(Ed. - Originally, FTR's Offset Program was launched specifically for e-waste recovery. We now see ocean-bound plastic as the main target. Our estimate is that it costs $1000 of effort to collect one additional ton of properly sorted plastics from a mature USA recycling program. By contrast the same $1000 would pay to divert ten tons of ocean-bound plastic from Africa's cities, before a monsoon washes that plastic out to sea, where it will cost $10,000 to capture the one ton again).

Vermont's plastic bags are not the problem. Voting to ban the plastic is little more than virtue signalling. Recall where ocean litter comes from.

Plastic recyclers in Tamale, Ghana

2020 GlobalEwaste Statistics Partnership. Fresh Start? Hmmmm

First, let me apologize if I got off on the wrong foot with Dr. Ruediger Kuehr of United Nations University. We were introduced to one another about 15 years ago, through indirect networks (EPA DC contacts etc). He was presented to me as a more moderate voice on the E-Waste Export debate than Jim Puckett of Basel Action Network, or Ted Smith of Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition.


That's kind of typical of official reactions when one hysterical account (BAN.org) that "80% of E-Waste exported 80% of the time, and 80% of that is dumped and lost to the circular economy" is questioned sharply by someone (yours truly) who had a certain degree of credibility at the time. Regulators try to find someone at a median between Robin and The Ayatollah of EWaste, and fund them to get at the truth.

Ruediger's been at the receiving end of research funding for over a decade. And he's filled the role of compromise chef, admirably. A compromise between talented tech sector importers, and the bigots who labelled them "primitive recyclers"...

I haven't finished starting the 2020 "Global E-Waste Statistics Partnership" report, "Global EWaste Monitor 2020" yet.  But in the introduction, this paragraph stood out.


"Only 17.4% of this was officially documented as properly collected and recycled."

I see what you did there. It's a very precise statistic, down to the decimal, about what data you have. But it also continues a backhanded European narrative about the so-called "informal" sector (which I call either the Tech Sector or Scrap Sector according to what is happening).

This is #whitesplaining why the Africans I filmed (below) are not to be trusted. If they were trusted, the charitable industrial complex funding might grind to a halt.



De-Friended Moderates: The Collateral Damage of Cancel Culture

How many times this year have I seen a frustrated political post like this one (on Facebook)?

"If you believe X, just de-friend me now!"
Or this?

"I've de-friended people who continue to post about X, and will do so again"

 As someone who loves a good argument (I prefer to lose, as I learn more when I was incorrect to start with), I have enjoyed parrying with old friends over the past decade. My kids grew up as I did - as critical thinkers - thanks to the habit of always checking {"speed bumping"} their convictions. A lot of this goes back further than my high school debate team. My dad would explain what a "fallacy" was starting when I was 4 years old, and I'd hear him explain it again to my younger brother and then younger sister (so I got it 3 times).

Unfortunately, as Socrates learned, the majority of people prefer confirmation bias, and get irritated if they are on the losing side of an argument. This is playing out in social media, and I'm observing a consequence in "cancel culture".

Thesis: As people click to de-friend opposition opinion, they lose antibodies. Like a too-clean floor (no longer recommended for toddlers), they lack exposure to true disagreement. And consequently, they go after moderates.

{Good Essay by Elizabeth Bernstein in WSJ}

Blemished Smartphone Screens - Exported To Smarter People than You



Was reading a certification program's "rules" about "ready for reuse, ready for repair", and the great white bosses who are ready to save Dark Techies from buying something they want.

The ad above (from Mobile Centrix) links to a video explaining "Grade A, B, and C" of "Blemish Screens".  Grade A has just some bad pixels (like you'd take your phone back to the shop you bought it from yesterday, dissatisfied, for replacement).  Grade B has "bleed" discoloration at the edges. Grade C has visible chip-out black spots on the edges and corners.

A Rich Person's Broken Thing (Chapter of Adam Minter's Secondhand, after an explanation from my Grandpa Clarence Fisher) is the smartest thing a poor person can buy.  I've seen absolutely cake-smashed screens in everyday use in Africa.... no one is without a smart phone, but no one is paying $250 for screen repair, either. Instead, they buy these from their cousins who run the kiosk for phone repairs out of your local shopping mall.


A Separate Peace: E-Waste Activism's Collateral Damage

Amsterdam #GeorgeFloyd Protest May 31 2020



"Nothing endures, not a tree, not love, not even death by violence"

For over 10 years, this blog has thoroughly documented the false narrative that "exports" are driven by "waste externalisation" and "avoided costs" rather than by "importers" in the "Tech Sector" of emerging markets.  The blog managed to land a few "swordfish", such as Adam Minter, Reed Miller, Josh Goldstein, Josh Lepawsky, NPR Marketplace, USA Today, and many more Ph.D's and press. 

The false statistic that 80% of used electronics was "sham" recycled has been exposed. - not least importantly by the main NGO itself. Despite trying to rig their last EU GPS tracking study by not affixing GPS to things Africa doesn't want, BAN.org found only 5% export. Despite embarrasing MIT and Oregon PBS with the rigged 2016 GPS tracking study, the NGO E-Stewards racket continues to bring millions of dollars into the lush Seattle offices. Despite questions on the bare faced exploitation of children's photographs in the "third world" dumps, who receive nary a penny from the millions raised, the NGO stands unapologetic. 

"Sodom and Gomorrah", "primitives", "ghoulish", and other halloweeny words remain slurs against the talented valedictorians of the Tech Sector in emerging markets. It was racial profiling by the left. That's what structural racism and implicit racism is all about.

The NGO has largely found they don't have to promote lies as fervently, that OEMs with anti-gray-market designs and "big shred" investors who don't like competing in the Good Enough Market will fund them anyway. Why issue lies today, if the money tree is shedding fruit from the lies you told (about Agbogbloshie, Guiyu, etc) a decade ago? 

Add Citizens Right to Bear Cameras to the Second Amendment

Watched #GeorgeFloyd arrest / murder video over the weekend. Libertarians and urban minorities seem united, somewhat...

On the "bright side", abuse of authority (extending far beyond police violence) occurs every day in every country I've visited... and at least in the USA citizens are not afraid to film it and protest wherever and whenever it occurs.

The trend in totalitarian governments is to put the right to film solely in the hands of the Party. Cameras, and facial recognition, is everywhere... but you don't see people in Communist China filming police brutality, or abuse of muslim minorities.

#righttobearcameras

Revenge of the Certification - SERI, E-Stewards Make Threats

As a former regulator, I know better than to let a regulated party "get my goat" and draw me into a pissing match. While I had the power of "you can't fight city hall", the regulated party merely has to create the "appearance of impropriety", not prove impropriety itself.

I've been glared at and - in the case of E-Stewards - directly threatened. "Stop saying bad stuff about us. I don't want to have to go after you." Promise, that was said.



Three Truths and a Lie at SERI - Is R2 Certification the Enemy of the Good?

Most followers of the Good Point Ideas Blog already know that the R2 (Responsible Recyclers) Certification program was developed over a decade ago by US EPA.  EPA's Clare Lindsey and Bob Tonetti hired a professional consensus mediator, John Lingelbach, to moderate the development of agreed upon standards that would achieve better results in reuse, repair and recycling of used electronics. Lingelbach later incorporated the Sustainable Electronics Recycling International organization to "house" the new standard. SERI realized that the original standard developed by EPA would be a public document, not copyrightable... so SERI tweaked the R2 Standard in order to establish a way to earn revenue.

SERI's R2 Standard gives prescriptions for electronics recycling practices.  The practices are developed by the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC, the ongoing advisor team from the industry). The TAC standards, if passed by the SERI Board of Directors, create new rules (red tape) for Certified Recyclers to follow.


Without even a formal change in the rules, SERI can issue guidance to reflect a change in interpretation of the original rules.  That's right, a TAC can act like a radical Supreme Court, with no tether to precedent. A clear example of this took place during this year's audit of Good Point Recycling, which passed 99% of the Audit with flying colors. However, the auditor called foul on a trade which passed R2 audits the previous 9 years... a trade that has taken place with the same downstream vendor for 17 years. A new "interpretation" of the old rules may cost my Vermont company $356,000 dollars per year, while achieving zero environmental benefit.

This is messed up. The rules have not yet been changed, but the "interpretation" of the old rules has.

Anti-Anti-Liberals: Moore (In)digestion of "Planet of the Humans"


Renewable energy is only necessary, certainly not sufficient. Planet of the Humans is too harsh on its arguable over-emphasis, but anti-Moore reaction misses an important point... Carbon policy needs to share Earth Day's platform with rain forest action, emerging market litter collection, palm oil plantation reform, and other environmental causes. People don't care about 4 degree average temperature, even if that would be fatal. People care about baby animals, and extinction, and those thinks are disappearing at a rate that 350.org is not addressing.  To boil it all down to a tweet:

Planet of the Humans? Bushmeat hunting + overfishing + burning rainforest for pastures + palm oil demand + wet markets + shark fin soup adds up to a disaster is more critical than carbon. But none of those crises add to anti-corporation thesis Fixing climate is necessary, not sufficient

That's the best I can do at defending, and de-fanging, Planet of the Humans. As a documentary, it sucks. The reporter is trying to be at the center of his own story. Second, it's a case study in "gotcha-ism", the presentation of anecdotes for the sole purpose of damaging the personal reputations of decent people, not just the flaws in their positions. That's a recipe for bad journalism.

Here is a link to addressing @MMFlint (Michael Moore) and @JeffGibbstc and their army of detractors, harvesting the best arguments from both sides... Followed by my meta-comments.


Bill McKibben Responds to Michael Moore and Jeff Gibbs "Planet of the Humans"

As I said in the last blog,  it's a mistake to tell environmentalists not to watch "Planet of the Humans". Scientific Method, and Socratic Method require we rid ourselves of confirmation bias. 

That said, I agree with very much of Bill McKibben's response in Rolling Stone today... that is when he sticks to dialectic. Calling producer Michael Moore (he ignores Gibbs) a terrorist is just as bad as the ad hominem attacks BK complains about. From McKibben's letter to Rolling Stone:
Basically, Moore and his colleagues have made a film attacking renewable energy as a sham and arguing that the environmental movement is just a tool of corporations trying to make money off green energy. “One of the most dangerous things right now is the illusion that alternative technologies, like wind and solar, are somehow different from fossil fuels,” Ozzie Zehner, one of the film’s producers, tells the camera. When visiting a solar facility, he insists: “You use more fossil fuels to do this than you’re getting benefit from it. You would have been better off just burning the fossil fuels.” 
That’s not true, not in the least — the time it takes for a solar panel to pay back the energy used to build it is well under four years. Since it lasts three decades, it means 90 percent of the power it produces is pollution-free, compared with zero percent of the power from burning fossil fuels. It turns out that pretty much everything else about the movie was wrong — there have been at least 24 debunkings, many of them painfully rigorous; as one scientist wrote in a particularly scathing takedown, “Planet of the Humans is deeply useless. Watch anything else.” Moore’s fellow filmmaker Josh Fox, in an epic unraveling of the film’s endless lies, got in one of the best shots: “Releasing this on the eve of Earth Day’s 50th anniversary is like Bernie Sanders endorsing Donald Trump while chugging hydroxychloroquine.”
McKibben goes on to call "Planet of the Humans" a sewer, implying there is certainly absolutely no reason to watch it. That goes too far, and avoids answering important questions raised about the way greenwashing can exploit "groupthink" and "bias confirmation". I would instead suggest Bill hold a public viewing of the documentary, and allow himself to pause and annotate it at will.