In My Opinion: Published in E-Scrap News
Photos below, article in link above.
Showing posts with label Solution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Solution. Show all posts
How To Pay For Africa E-Waste Cleanup? Part 3
 |
| Africans have a better idea about which view of Africa's the fine one |
A month living with Africa's Tech Sector is like the opposite of the movie "The Matrix". In the matrix all the humans think they are living in a normal world, but in reality dwell in torrid humid dystopic conditions. Take the red pill, and you see the horror of reality...
Africa's Tech Sector has been described in halloweenish, dystopian, horrific terms by agents of the Charitable Industrial Complex, Big Shred, and Planned Obsolescence. Take the blue pill, and you find a bunch of intelligent, happy, funny people living in a normal world of value added, growing standards of living, and healthy teledensity.So just close your eyes, count backwards from Three, and when I snap my fingers, we'll solve Africa's real e-waste problems efficiently, fairly, and fairly quickly.
It's time for the good news!
Morpheus's "dirty little secret" isn't the truth.
The Truth in Africa isn't "Sodom and Gomorrah" or "Eden" either. But it's a lot more like "Avatar" than it is "The Matrix". Once you live here and see people are kind of the same, the solutions become easier to do.
There are simple and friendly and affordable solutions here. (And the EU can still get all the unobtanium it wants.) America is teaching Africa and Europe to "Dab" together, trade together, cooperate together. With a little Interpol "community policing" we'll suffer less "collateral damage".
 |
| Dabbing to the Blue Pill! Africa Dey FINE! |
The Joy of Fair Trade Recycling, continued
Waste Perception Creates Image Problem
Here in Ghana, we are looking at lead and zinc mining streams as a way to "piggy back" CRT glass back to
And there is no "EPA-EU" "Waste" "speculative accumulation" paperwork or R2 or E-Steward #bs to make it economically unfeasible. I keep hearing in the west that CRT glass is "impossible" to recycle in Africa, a continent where primary ores are frequently the number one export. This is a clear case of the EU and USA shooting itself in the foot, and then demanding Africa, Asia, South America follow "equivalent practices" prior to engaging in strategic metals trade.
The difference between recycling and mining is largely an image problem. It doesn't take much imagination to solve problems like CRT glass recycling markets. It means being willing to listen to people outside of your "circular economy" box.
Short Post: Smelters and Financial Assurance.
Want to try something new. Brief brilliant posts. Easy to read.
I've got totally bogged down by BAN.org and MIT. I have pages and pages of unposted blogs defending me and my clients.
Totally quick brilliant blog post starts now.
-
Primary copper, zinc and lead smelters can use CRT cullet instead of feldspar, galena, angelsite.
See my article on why they don't (Time out of Mined)
If the smelters are making a rational decision not to use the CRT cullet as fluxing agent (because of the multimillion, even billion dollar fines history with EPA over Superfund sites), then they need smaller secondary smelters, like NuLife, to manage it.
NuLife and other micro-smelters, which turn CRT glass into lead feedstock, need affordable closure plans.
So the primary smelters - Doe Run, Teck Cominco, Glencore, Southern Copper, Penoles, etc. - which individually could accept 200 tons per day of CRT glass but don't want to - should offer to take NuLife material under a closure plan. A one time clean out situation, they take 60 days of recycled cullet.
EPA would never bother them, they'd be bailing EPA out of an undesirable closure situation.
The smelters would be paid for the "insurance" value. They get say $20,000 per year just to SAY they WOULD take it if the closure was invoked.
The NuLife micro-smelter can make a significant contribution to USA's e-waste problem. This is totally a smidge compared to the mining and primary smelting business, but EPA and environmentalists are obsessed with it.
To find out why, you have to read some of the 1,867 older longer blogs. It's guilt, liability, psychology stuff.
BAN can free my genius to create more solutions if they stop being absolute pricks to people like Joe Benson, EcoPark, Net Peripheral, and my clients in Boston.
I've got totally bogged down by BAN.org and MIT. I have pages and pages of unposted blogs defending me and my clients.
Totally quick brilliant blog post starts now.
-
Primary copper, zinc and lead smelters can use CRT cullet instead of feldspar, galena, angelsite.
See my article on why they don't (Time out of Mined)
If the smelters are making a rational decision not to use the CRT cullet as fluxing agent (because of the multimillion, even billion dollar fines history with EPA over Superfund sites), then they need smaller secondary smelters, like NuLife, to manage it.
NuLife and other micro-smelters, which turn CRT glass into lead feedstock, need affordable closure plans.
So the primary smelters - Doe Run, Teck Cominco, Glencore, Southern Copper, Penoles, etc. - which individually could accept 200 tons per day of CRT glass but don't want to - should offer to take NuLife material under a closure plan. A one time clean out situation, they take 60 days of recycled cullet.
EPA would never bother them, they'd be bailing EPA out of an undesirable closure situation.
The smelters would be paid for the "insurance" value. They get say $20,000 per year just to SAY they WOULD take it if the closure was invoked.
The NuLife micro-smelter can make a significant contribution to USA's e-waste problem. This is totally a smidge compared to the mining and primary smelting business, but EPA and environmentalists are obsessed with it.
To find out why, you have to read some of the 1,867 older longer blogs. It's guilt, liability, psychology stuff.
BAN can free my genius to create more solutions if they stop being absolute pricks to people like Joe Benson, EcoPark, Net Peripheral, and my clients in Boston.
Solutionism and Doubt in Solutionists
Taking a break to edit the lined up "Bullyboy blogs". The character assassination of Africans who provide the ONLY affordable supply to the demand for television and internet in rapidly urbanizing nations is bad enough. Spending tax money and diverting limited Interpol resources from Transfigura dumping and ivory and big cat poaching is despicable. But I need a cool-down, to focus and edit the blog.
In the meantime, I thought I'd coined a new word, but found it exists in the dictionary.
I was responding to an "Upworthy" post on Global Warming "debate", which is sharing a ConsensusProject graph. The graph seems to say that a majority of people are not as smart as informed scientists are, which is no doubt true (almost to the point of being tautological. If everyone knows what a scientific researcher knows, it kind of doesn't speak well of the pursuit).
Still, I was then struck by the Upworthy punchline:
But I also notice this (as I commented on the Upworthy Facebook post).
I've seen it over and over, and I observe it in myself. When I'm being polled, the first question I ask back is "who is paying for this poll?". There are some genuine polls out there. But it seems like most of the polling I'm subjected to has a funder with a confirmation bias. A political candidate, a party, or some other agenda.
Solutionism, like most other 'isms', is something a lot of us want to "step away slowly" from.
In the meantime, I thought I'd coined a new word, but found it exists in the dictionary.
Noun[edit]
solutionism (uncountable)
- The belief that all difficulties have benign solutions, often of a technocratic nature.
- The providing of a solution or solutions to a customer or client.
Related terms[edit]
I was responding to an "Upworthy" post on Global Warming "debate", which is sharing a ConsensusProject graph. The graph seems to say that a majority of people are not as smart as informed scientists are, which is no doubt true (almost to the point of being tautological. If everyone knows what a scientific researcher knows, it kind of doesn't speak well of the pursuit).
Still, I was then struck by the Upworthy punchline:
You might know people who fall in the black part of the first graph. Maybe you could show this to them?You know what, I do. I know conservatives. I myself believe it's obvious the world is warming, slightly less obvious what the primary reason is, but obvious that carbon emission doesn't help. So far, I'm ok with my liberal friends here.
But I also notice this (as I commented on the Upworthy Facebook post).
I've seen it over and over, and I observe it in myself. When I'm being polled, the first question I ask back is "who is paying for this poll?". There are some genuine polls out there. But it seems like most of the polling I'm subjected to has a funder with a confirmation bias. A political candidate, a party, or some other agenda.
Solutionism, like most other 'isms', is something a lot of us want to "step away slowly" from.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)