Do the costs of USA environmental regulations trigger exports of "e-waste" overseas? It is a factor, but not the major factor. This 2010 report cites it as a major factor, but the economics don't hold up. A good enough study to post a link, but I give it a C-. The author, Linda Luther, has several relevant citations and good data, but appears swayed in her conclusions by poster children. The observation that "the theoretical damage of disposal of e-waste in the USA translates to actual harm overseas" is trite and fails to look closely at the importing and exporting data.
Some people think the default is to stop global trade. Some people think that world trade is better than the absence of world trade. Alter-globalism and "fair trade" recognize the best result is trade without exploitation. I like good people trading with good people.
We don't see much supply that is not correlated to demand. The goods imported into Cairo or Accra are distinctly different than the used electronics goods imported into Jakarta or Hong Kong. Extremely different. If the underlying cause of the exports is avoided disposal, one would expect that California supply would dictate Hong Kong imports, and New York supply would dictate Ghana imports. Instead, you have African buyers in CA buying very different product from Asian buyers in New Jersey.
If avoided disposal cost was the primary driver for the exports, why would the purchase orders for the goods vary so dramatically from nation to nation?
This is easy to say. The caution is that we will actually see supply which is not correlated to idemand. It's easy to say "it involves many factors", that's a given. But it is equally true that "concerns regarding overseas e-waste recycling may neglect to consider the positive impacts of reuse, repair and recycling abroad" - which also "involve many factors". A ban on exports is no more obvious a solution than a ban on domestic disposal. The writer, in revealing virtually nothing, feels more comfortable posing by the barefoot poster child. If used electronics are being diverted to avoid environmental fees, they are blended into scrap steel, not separated and shipped as sorted product."An unintended consequence of avoiding potential negative impacts of domestic e-waste disposal has been a contribution to actual environmental contamination and human health impacts to some communities in developing countries. If environmentally preferable management of e-waste is the goal, is recycling it preferable to landfill disposal if recycling means exporting the waste to developing countries? Determining how to address this issue—that is, take into consideration concerns regarding domestic e-waste disposal and the negative impacts of recycling abroad—involves many factors."
Some people think the default is to stop global trade. Some people think that world trade is better than the absence of world trade. Alter-globalism and "fair trade" recognize the best result is trade without exploitation. I like good people trading with good people.
 |
| Photo from Hard Rain Project |
If avoided disposal cost was the primary driver for the exports, why would the purchase orders for the goods vary so dramatically from nation to nation?
- Destination X imports commodity A from country USA.
- Destination Y imports commodity B from country USA.
