FIREHOSE BLOG: Madness vs. Persistent Irrational Belief

How many "E-waste" Experts and E-Waste Studies does it take to show that material like THIS

Is not paid for, shipped and delivered to, places like THESE?

We know who the buyers are.  We know they have no interest in buying the material that BAN.org shows in photos.   We know the factories are operating in cities overseas which have had TVs and computers for years, and who generate more e-waste on their own than we do per year in the USA (they have less storage space in attics and closets).

Can someone please explain to me the persistent irrational belief by Watchdogs that the municipal material shown in the first photo is being exported in any significant quantity to Africa or Asia?

Deliberate Falsehood About "Ewaste" and Basel

E-Stewards Abandons Morality

Basel Action Network released a newsletter today heralding what they hope is imminent passage of the "Ban Amendment" to the Basel Convention.   At least this DOES acknowledge that the Basel Convention does NOT currently require "tested working" or fully functional, and does allow repair and refurbishment... and therefore they hope to amend it in three years and close those options.

Aside from the acknowledgement of the current legality of these exports under the Basel Convention, what is their case for amending it and banning repair and reuse in the future?

According to BAN E-Stewards, it is because refurbishers (geeks of color) "often produce hazardous waste, which is responsible for inflicting tremendous harm on the citizens and environments in these nations."  It's because reuse and repair poisons people and pollutes the environment.

"Only recyclers meeting the requirements of the e-Stewards Standard are in conformity with the Ban Amendment, which stipulates that no hazardous waste, including e-waste, can be sent from developed to developing countries. This includes untested and/or non-working equipment exported for refurbishment or reuse, some of which is currently allowed under the R2 Standard. Refurbishment often produces hazardous waste, which is responsible for inflicting tremendous harm on the citizens and environments of these nations."

Logically, if it were true that the refurbishing and repair industries "inflict tremendous harm on citizens and the environment", then banning import/export from rich nations is not enough.  They should also be banned from repair and refurbishing of product in their own country.  And in America, reuse and refurbishment should also, logically, be banned.

Show us "tremendous harm" in Indonesia.  Show us the hazardous waste "often" produced by refurbishment.   Show us how the Basel Convention, as passed, needs to be amended due to a single actual case of poison.   There is absolutely not one shred of evidence that one iota of toxic release came from refurbishing, repair, and elective upgrade.   No such factory was found at Guiyu, and no material at Guiyu came from such a factory.  This is why the Convention (the international law currently passed) does indeed allow export for reuse.

The Worlds Most Polluted Places (TIME) are metal mines, not recycling yards.