"I agree with BAN about the need to improve exports of e-waste. My company removes 78% of the material we receive, and domestically recycles it, before we export anything"
- Robin IngenthronFrom the very beginning, I've held the position that constructive argument brings us closer to the truth. Having spent time in Asia, Africa, the Mid-East, Eastern Europe, and Latin America, investigating markets for used electronics, electronic scrap, and with an eye peeled for "dumping", I haven't declared myself an "expert", but I've questioned where the figure 80% came from (as in, the percent of e-waste dumped overseas into primitive conditions). Recently, I tried to bait responses in the November Blog "E-Waste Prediction: e-Watch for the e-Words "up to".
In restricting our exports of used and scrap electronics, we want to be recognized for the extra work we do, which another "sham recycler" or "blind exporter" does not do. Of course. We are angered when we are underbid by people who assume everything will be reused if you send it to a country poor enough, and I've written about how the non-availability of electricity eliminates the poorest people from the reuse equation. We are furious when someone mixes "toxics along for the ride" into legitimate shipments.
But I draw the line when people say that people overseas are not capable of properly recycling, and I am frustrated when overseas operations which have done everything possible to meet our standard are tossed out with the bathwater. If we cannot distinguish between good and bad operations overseas, then we can only proceed based on stereotypes.
