The "red show blog" (April 2011) was Tocquevillian.
Why RCRA needs a "good samaritan" rule for Americans trading with people in emerging and converging markets.
Disposal used to mean throwing something into the gutter of a street. In some of the world's slums, that is still the primary method of waste disposal. If you throw something into a gutter next to other stuff that is wet and abandoned, you can't really say that you considered the object a valuable commodity.
But what if you were walking the streets of a slum, in India, Pakistan, Kinshasa, and you dropped a $100 bill on the street? Ethically speaking, is that the same thing as littering?
It could be argued that it was stupid. Or callous. Or demonstrated a lack of concern or care whether the $100 bill would do any good to anybody, if it was blown away or trodden into the mud it would have been "wasted". PREMISE: Value by itself does not mean that something is not waste.
But imagine you kept your eye on the bill, and you intended to make sure it was either found, or that you'd come back for it. You mark where it is thrown by a single red high heeled shoe in the gutter, and watch. You see a small girl pick the money up, gather excitement, and carry the bill to her parents. Every day thereafter, the little girl comes to look beside the discarded red high heeled shoe. Naturally, you'd begin to recognize her, identify her, empathize with her. You might want to leave a $20 bill by the red shoe again.
Ethically, this is no longer "disposal". I don't think you would define the bill as "waste". PREMISE: If not abandoned, placement by itself does not indicate intent to discard.
Now imagine the object you leave in the slum is a device, something else of $100 "value". Imagine further that the device contains a circuit board, that it is an "electronic device". The fact that it is fully functional and working does not mean that it is not waste (premise 1), and the fact that it is exported does not mean it has been discarded (premise 2). The rules we establish for a $100 bill must also apply to laptops.
Why RCRA needs a "good samaritan" rule for Americans trading with people in emerging and converging markets.
Disposal used to mean throwing something into the gutter of a street. In some of the world's slums, that is still the primary method of waste disposal. If you throw something into a gutter next to other stuff that is wet and abandoned, you can't really say that you considered the object a valuable commodity.But what if you were walking the streets of a slum, in India, Pakistan, Kinshasa, and you dropped a $100 bill on the street? Ethically speaking, is that the same thing as littering?
It could be argued that it was stupid. Or callous. Or demonstrated a lack of concern or care whether the $100 bill would do any good to anybody, if it was blown away or trodden into the mud it would have been "wasted". PREMISE: Value by itself does not mean that something is not waste.
 |
| From the Red Shoe Site blog |
Ethically, this is no longer "disposal". I don't think you would define the bill as "waste". PREMISE: If not abandoned, placement by itself does not indicate intent to discard.
Now imagine the object you leave in the slum is a device, something else of $100 "value". Imagine further that the device contains a circuit board, that it is an "electronic device". The fact that it is fully functional and working does not mean that it is not waste (premise 1), and the fact that it is exported does not mean it has been discarded (premise 2). The rules we establish for a $100 bill must also apply to laptops.
