The Term Paper Theme in the blog (past 3 months) has been a real stretch. I'm just not able to write a Ph.D thesis from the coffee lounges of hotels, at least not writing which is accessible to non-academic readers. But I write on. If there is something "breaking" I think industry should know, I promote it so it gets the 500 page reads. But the goal is not to have every post widely read.
The biggest problems in the E-Waste and WEEE research-osphere have been from documents like West's of MIT which are written densely but don't define what they are researching sufficiently enough to escape the gravity of bias against trade between Rich and Poor. Two examples in the past 4 months actually reprint the "80-90% export to primitive recycling" statistic which even BAN.org has abandoned after the UNEP duplicated previous research (Peru) showing only 15% of the exports are for primitive recycling.
Why the stubborn belief that Externalization of toxics from rich to poor describes most of the trade? In my previous "@term paper" blogs I showed how enforcement does police higher property values, which is why you can't mine gold in the Cleveland Heights OH... and I've written how ROHS inadvertently externalizes a very very small risk (leaded solder) from rich people landfills by destroying coral reefs and creating more toxics in Indonesia (where tin, the non-toxic replacement, is found). Externalization does happen. But the fact it happens should not make it believeable that poor people in developing nations pool their money to buy e-waste and pay thousands to transport it across oceans, through customs, to burn it.
My company ships TVs to our Fair Trade Recycling operation, Retroworks de Mexico. We pay the transport there. But that is rare. Most exports are paid for by the buyers. We've pretty much proven they have no interest in the junk (unless it's mixed in as TAR), that they have high reuse. But even a big name consultant like DSM Environmental reprints the fake 80% statistic in a report less than a month ago.
Why the persistant belief in false risks? Muggings do happen in Harlem, but 80% of Harlem residents are not muggers. Today's thesis: Opinion favors the concept of "underdogs". That is probably genetic ("won't someone please think of the children"). And it is marketed to by all sides, conservative and liberal. People are more likely to interfere in the marketplace if they believe one of the two parties is an underdog.
Case Study: Arkansas vs. Florida, Maryland vs. Duke (NCAA basketball)
Humans have an innate or genetic trigger to prefer "Underdogs". I explained to my youngest son last night why his older brother and I were rooting for Maryland in the final minutes of the NCAA game vs. #2 Ranked Duke. I'm a fair weather NCAA basketball fan... when my hometown Arkansas Razorbacks beat previous #2 Florida a couple of weeks ago, it got my attention, and I started watching games again.
The biggest problems in the E-Waste and WEEE research-osphere have been from documents like West's of MIT which are written densely but don't define what they are researching sufficiently enough to escape the gravity of bias against trade between Rich and Poor. Two examples in the past 4 months actually reprint the "80-90% export to primitive recycling" statistic which even BAN.org has abandoned after the UNEP duplicated previous research (Peru) showing only 15% of the exports are for primitive recycling.
Why the stubborn belief that Externalization of toxics from rich to poor describes most of the trade? In my previous "@term paper" blogs I showed how enforcement does police higher property values, which is why you can't mine gold in the Cleveland Heights OH... and I've written how ROHS inadvertently externalizes a very very small risk (leaded solder) from rich people landfills by destroying coral reefs and creating more toxics in Indonesia (where tin, the non-toxic replacement, is found). Externalization does happen. But the fact it happens should not make it believeable that poor people in developing nations pool their money to buy e-waste and pay thousands to transport it across oceans, through customs, to burn it.
My company ships TVs to our Fair Trade Recycling operation, Retroworks de Mexico. We pay the transport there. But that is rare. Most exports are paid for by the buyers. We've pretty much proven they have no interest in the junk (unless it's mixed in as TAR), that they have high reuse. But even a big name consultant like DSM Environmental reprints the fake 80% statistic in a report less than a month ago.
Why the persistant belief in false risks? Muggings do happen in Harlem, but 80% of Harlem residents are not muggers. Today's thesis: Opinion favors the concept of "underdogs". That is probably genetic ("won't someone please think of the children"). And it is marketed to by all sides, conservative and liberal. People are more likely to interfere in the marketplace if they believe one of the two parties is an underdog.
Case Study: Arkansas vs. Florida, Maryland vs. Duke (NCAA basketball)
Humans have an innate or genetic trigger to prefer "Underdogs". I explained to my youngest son last night why his older brother and I were rooting for Maryland in the final minutes of the NCAA game vs. #2 Ranked Duke. I'm a fair weather NCAA basketball fan... when my hometown Arkansas Razorbacks beat previous #2 Florida a couple of weeks ago, it got my attention, and I started watching games again.
 |
| Export Trade Bracket: The Externalization Tournament |
