Are E-Waste Advocates Racist?

I love my wife.  But if she is about to unintentionally overdose my kids with a double shot of cold medicine, I'm going to intervene - fast, furiously, forcefully.  She might get mad at me.  But even if I'm wrong, and she's insulted that I thought she'd misread the directions, she wouldn't accuse me of depriving my kids of medicine for selfish reasons.  And I would not accuse her of intending to harm our children.   In life we have to show courage to get positive outcomes, communicating our concerns and moving forward.

Whether racism is seeping into the "e-waste export" debate is extremely sensitive.  Merely asking the question aloud may draw a furious response.  But this was first posed to me by a Chinese government official in Guangzhou... it was after dinner, and she asked with genuine curiosity.  She was reacting to the photos of Guiyu, which she was very concerned about, but she was also asking me if Americans thought China was basically more like Guiyu than it was like Hong Kong?

I do not think for a moment that the environmentalists at Greenpeace, Basel Action Network, SVTC, NRDC etc. are racist, and would accept their outrage as I would the glare from my wife.  The people who oppose electronics pollution overseas are not racist.  But when you see techs overseas who know more about making and fixing electronics than Americans do, you can feel their resentment at being called "primitive wire burning" operations, and seeing pictures of the kids at dumps who set fire to fewer computers than the techs are fixing.

The environmental activists don't intend to offend.   But in marketing the "harm" of exports through photos of children on piles of waste, they are deliberately aiming to stir emotions.  In order to get the public to respond viscerally to their anti-dumping proposals, they go for the poster child.   If they show pictures of good operations overseas, they could compromise their political message.

My point?  By repeatedly steering the cameras away from Wistron, Acer, Foxconn, Mag, Proview, BenQ and other contract manufacturing companies, they will eventually trigger resentment by the people they ignore, while wearing out the emotions of their target audience.

"Poster child syndrome" is a real risk in the "non-profit sector".  In the 1960s, posters of starving children caused Unicef donations to initially spike for several months, but the "syndrome" name was coined to describe the eventual effect... people eventually become calloused to an image that never seems to go away or improve, despite their efforts.  But there is something else bothersome about poster-child images.  An article by California public transport consultant Dennis Cannon sums it up:
The "poster child syndrome" is used to great effect by charities to separate you from your money.  This is not to say the money is not put to good use - it is.   But the campaign relies on making children with disabilities the object of pity, and thus promotes unfortunate stereotypes.

Cannon offers guidance on how to comfortably talk to people in wheelchairs or with other disabilities, who do not have your advantages, but are your equals.  I think it applies as well to entrepreneurs and recyclers overseas.  (I like his line "You are not Professor Henry Higgins and she is not Eliza Doolittle.")

Electronics technicians, repairpeople, and recyclers overseas want to improve their lives, but don't see how to do that with an export boycott.  They would also appreciate some recognition that many of them know MORE about electronics recycling than the American "ewaste experts".  Henry Higgins is speaking cockney, but has the same attitude.

When ewaste NGOs show the same picture of the same poor people in the same spot, over and over... it begins to grate.  Even if the photo is true, it's like describing an appetite for watermelon.   At some point, the legitimate markets overseas cannot help but suspect a racial stereotype. 

I think the NGOs avoid representations of the beneficial recycling trade simply to maintain a clear political message, promoting honorable goals.  But in so doing, the NGOs have created the impression among technicians in Africa, Asia and Latin America that we think we are better than they are.  That we think USA repair and testing and recycling is superior because our country is superior.

The fact is, we are not at all superior at testing and repair.  In fact, we suck at repair.  That's why used equipment from the USA is so valuable on the secondary market.  Bad capacitor in a brand new dual core Pentium 4?  There were tens of thousands of P4s recalled for bad "caps" in the past 18 months.  USA Response?  Smash the (new) hard drive, yank the RAM, and shred the board.   What does an Egyptian, Peruvian or Malaysian do?  Replace the tiny 2 gram capacitor!!  In Egypt I saw techs simply bypassing bad capacitors without removing them, as they were not even serving a critical function.

From Cairo Tour 2008


The best and brightest people in rapidly developing countries - the same countries which make the sold-out HTC Evo android smart phones, or newest Apple products, or the CRTs themselves - are creating enormous value out of second-hand goods.  In some cases, the "white box" market that emerges becomes an actual competitive threat to new products, like ink cartridges, cameras, and computers.  We agree they should not have to do that at a cost of poisoning their environment.  We believe in training them to do the same work that many American recyclers do... And remember, many employees in American recycling facilities do not speak English, and may even be cousins of the importer.

Several different interests, from planned obsolescence to sellers of anti-pollution to processing equipment sales, have for their own reasons posted and re-post the photos from Basel Action Network.  The picture of the same woman in China hitting the same CRT yoke with the same hammer has become emblematic, even though it's atypical in China, and anecdotal everywhere (I photographed a guy doing it in Paris in the 15e arrondissement!).  And like the campaigners who pinned "Willie Horton" onto Michael Dukakis, they are leveraging a certain ignorance inside America about what people in the rest of the world really live like.

Perhaps some NGOs have a natural distrust of profit-motives, and they legitimately want to see themselves as the advocates for the poorest workers.  In creating labels like "the Reuse Excuse" and "Digital Dump" (a play on "digital divide"), they probably see a defensive reaction to what they anticipate will be fraudulent reuse exports.  In an thinly veiled response to my own posts last winter, Jim Puckett said that "poisoning people" can hardly be called "fair trade".

Jim doesn't want to say that Robin Ingenthron is poisoning people, and I don't want to say that Jim's depictions of technicians overseas resemble racial profiling.  But Jim is afraid our fair trade efforts will give people an excuse to export "toxics along for the ride".   And I am afraid that BAN is giving OEMs an excuse to shred up working equipment, taking away the secondary market.   In a way, we both share a similar distrust.  We were raised in the generation reading Silent Spring and The Waste Makers.

I decided to climb into the machine and get my hands dirty.  I cut my hair, got an MBA, flew overseas.  I am frantically trying to fix the trade using the same practices that saved "fair trade coffee farmers" from the well-intentioned disaster of the 1980s coffee boycott.

Reuse and refurbishment is the opposite of the "resource curse", they represent value added by pure education.   I believe that government in many of these countries use export bans primarily to keep their people off the internet.    Out of concern, I try to post in equal amounts articles which address the pollution, articles which praise environmental activism, but also articles about unintended consequences. 

I chose my work because of my philosophy, I did not choose my philosophy because of my work.  In that way, I believe I have more in common with BAN and other environmental organizations than anyone else. But they need to go meet the good people overseas and acknowledge them and deal with the fact that recycling IS being done well outside of the USA and we need it to be done well there.

My family watched the 1982 Gandhi movie last weekend.  I was cruising around the internet on my laptop during the film, and ran across several posts that accused Gandhi of being a racist.  The accusations were almost exclusively from the period in his 20s when he was working on behalf of Muslim and Hindu "coloureds" in South Africa, as a paid lawyer.  I didn't see much evidence of racism during the next 50 years of his life, and would probably attribute even his legal writings in South Africa as being amoral lawyer maneuvers on behalf of his (Muslim) client.

I'm more sure that BAN is not racist than I am that Gandhi was not racist, and I consider that pretty praiseworthy.  But I am more sure that the net effect of Gandhi's politics was anti-racist.   In defending my friends in Egypt and Senegal and Peru and Mexico and Indonesia, I do not gloss over the poverty and pollution I have seen in those countries, but to imply they are harming their homelands by importing electronics is like accusing a surgeon of stabbing his patient on the operating table.   Too many of us electronics recyclers are cowards who are willing to either 1) buy into racist slogans to pay off our shredding machines, or 2) to "take a dump" with junk on the reuse market in order to avoid the same shredding costs.   The momentum overseas is positive.  If the good USA recyclers don't engage with the positive overseas markets, they will get from supplier #2, clean it right, and the "sham recyclers" will be like the Kennedy after the repeal of prohibition.   Certified recyclers will be hearing from their clients "Oh yeah, I remember they used to do something bad with that exported stuff.  But that's all cleaned up now, right?"   


This is happening right now.

The challenge to all environmentalists is to take our causes seriously without taking ourselves too seriously.  References to Gandhi, Twain, and Einstein are a bit tongue in cheek.  But I have to say to both nothing-exporters and everything-exporters, this truth about the extreme depictions of dumping and reuse:   this "e-waste" business is going to be forgotten in the next decade, and we'll have white-marble-floor recycling overseas 20 times faster than America elected a black president.  In the meantime, my favorite quote is still from Huckleberry Finn, as he acknowledged that by helping "nigger Jim" to escape that he was "stealing" the Widow Douglas's property.

All right then, I'll go to hell.

Nigeria Evening News: "Fairly Used" electronics not "E-waste"

Home Run.  WR3A's visit to the Interpol/EPA meeting in Washington DC leads to revelations about "fairly traded" electronics.

See this story on Africacast TV if you want to understand used electronics exports to Africa, and how "e-waste" gets over there as "toxics along for the ride", and how it represents an opportunity for Africa to manage with "fair trade".

Nigeria's EPA director is interviewed, and he and the Nigerian TV station skillfully describe the actual trade in used electronics, both the problem and the opportunity.  If you are not accustomed to the African English accents, you may need to play it over again.  But this is the best coverage of the trade I have seen from African sources.

"If they are fairly used or working, they are not waste.  But the problem is that they bleed non-working electronics into it"."   Another African I met at the DC meeting also recently contacted us and said he had finally gotten around to watching the PBS story on ewaste recycling with Las Chicas Bravas and that he found it an inspiring model for Africa.

By the way, one alternative to this blog is our "Fair Trade Recycling" site on Facebook.    The FTR site was set up so that I would not monopolize the discussion, anyone with an opinion on e-waste exports can post there and dialogue.  About half of the members are from outside of the USA.

We can now have a core of competent young people who can properly refurbish, and properly recycle the ones they could not refurbish.  Speaking of which, our first "Recycling to Africa" video about "e-waste" has passed 10,000 views on youtube... much of the traffic is from Africa... probably not being watched on brand new monitors.

FCC Releases Bandwidth. E-Recyclers Miss Boat.

Over ten years ago I made a presentation (while Recycling Director for Massachusetts DEP) that the best way to pay for "e-waste" recycling would be one of three methods - none of them directly involving OEM takeback.

This week, there's a story in the New York Times about the release of the television analog bandwidth for new tech uses ("wifi on steroids" seems to be the favorite description of what the airwaves will be used for).  This was what made the rabbit ear TVs obsolete (though the falling price of LCDs probably stirred more of the "wave" of "ewaste" disposal).

In my opinion, the "solutions" which the recycling community rushed to were less of an opportunity than the bandwidth auction.   Making RCA responsible for the old RCAs took over as the message.  RCA was bankrupt in the 1990s and desolved - the brand name was sold at auction, and the new brand name holder must collect old RCA TVs in Maine.

The bandwidth auction will be worth billions... part of which might have paid for the recycling of the devices made obsolete by the change.  This would have avoided the entangling conflict of interest when OEMs accused of "planned obsolescence" are put in charge of the secondary market. 

The silent response to the bandwidth transition in the recycling community echos the lost opportunity from nearly-passed mining reform legislation.  Income from the royalties on metals from hard rock mining, proposed in the 2008 reform legislation of the General Mining Act of 1872, could have funded the recycling processes to preserve those metals already mined.  The mining reform legislation passed the USA House of Representatives and was killed in the Senate (probably by Nevada Senator Harry Reid), and the recycling press and trade organizations - even ISRI - missed the funeral and did not report on the story.

I imagine that the engineers, inventors, marketers and scientists who invented and produced yesterday's high tech devices were so fascinated to see their ideas coming to fruition and changing society that they never really questioned the future of obsolescence or e-waste generation, or the mining and extraction of things like coltan in Africa (used for cell phones, it's taken from the same mountainsides where lowland gorillas live).

Do we environmentalists do better than those engineers and high-tech scientists at "precautionary principles"?  Do we do a better job of considering every unintended consequence?  Are we more like doctors seeking second opinions than engineers of technology?  Or are social activism and legislation somewhere behind road construction and landfill engineering when it comes to checking our work?

The precautionary principle states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action.
It might turn out ok.   I don't want to be a doom and gloom parrot.  The greater desire of consumers to enact environmental change, to the point of passing legislation, however shallowly debated, may itself signal to corporations that they should be more cautious and aware of their environmental footprints.  Meanwhile, however, the \bandwidth transfer being discussed is like a ship passing in the night.   It was a huge "e-waste" story, and the silence of recycling industry regulators and leaders is as notable as the National Recycling Coalition's refusal to take up discussion of the reform of the General Mining Act.   At my last NRC conference, in Pittsburgh PA, I stood a the general assembly meeting and asked whether NRC would consider taking a position on the General Mining Act reform legislation, and if not, why not.  The room was eerily silent.   The answer from the policy representative was meaningless.  There was no outrage.  At that moment, NRC died for me, I remember thinking I'd never go to another conference and never embarrass myself again with a question on the reform of mineral extraction laws.

The GMA legislation passed the House that year.  NRC never had another conference, they imploded.  When I was asked to join a "save the NRC" campaign, I asked "why?"

The CBS program "Survivor" returns for another season.   I never thought it would last as a series.  But I feel like I'm on an environmentalist "tribe" which keeps losing key rewards challenges, and that griping about them afterwards is just getting me closer to being voted off the island.

Simple E-Waste Disagreement Dialogue

'I’m afraid.'

'That’s nothing to be ashamed of,' Major Major counseled him kindly. 'We’re all afraid.'
 

'I’m not ashamed,’ Yossarian said. ‘I’m just afraid.'


I'm not ashamed of techies in the developing world, but I'm kind of afraid of BAN.  Not that they have bad intentions.  During the past 4 years, while debating and defending the potential for fair trade in the "e-waste" export market, I have repeatedly been caught in a kind of Clevinger's Trial or Catch-22 (that novel by Joseph Heller was my favorite book in 9th grade, and I performed in Clevinger's Trial as the Colonel at Fayetteville High School).

Catch-33, the "ewaste" dialogue, is not as funny.

Robin:  We have visited and audited the reuse end market, and we have complete assurance that the WR3A partner is repairing 90% and the 10% they cannot repair is being completely recycled in a glass-to-glass manner.  Any parts replaced or upgraded are properly recycled, the same as when they had incidental breakage as an original equipment manufacturer.

Sarah:  You say that.  But we don't know that.  You won't submit any data, or let us audit you.  How can we know this is a good arrangement?

Robin:  Well, if I provide you with all of the data, and prove what I just said, will you accept us as a non-polluter, Pledge Signer, or E-Steward?

Jim:  No.  Because even if you have a proper recycling facility in a non-OECD country, we disagree with your interpretation of Basel Convention Annex IX, and do not like the fact that your importing country agreed with you.  We would prefer to see the equipment tested and working before its exported, or all non-working parts removed.

Robin:  So, if I provide the audit to Sarah, and demonstrate that no pollution results, you will protest to the host government and try to have the fair trade recycling factory shut down?

Jim:  Yes.
Robin:  And if I do not provide the information to Sarah, she will cast doubt that we have a properly audited, fair trade recycling arrangement?  She will maintain that we may be shipping to a primitive, wire-burning operation?

Sarah:  Yes.

Robin:  So if I do provide it...

Jim:  Damned if you do.

Robin:  And if I do not provide it...

Sarah:  Damned if you don't.
....
More from my favorite Joseph Heller novel....
"I didn't say to Yossarian that you cant punish me."
"When didn't you say that"
"Last night, sir"
"Is that the only time you didn't say it?"
"What do you mean, sir?"
"Goddamnit! Now you're asking me questions again!"
"I didn't understand your question sir"
"When didn't you tell Yossarian we couldn't punish you?"
"*sigh* I always didn't tell Yossarian you couldn't punish me."
"Thats very good, Clevinger, even though it is a barefaced lie..."
"I told Yossarain that..."
"I DONT CARE WHAT YOU TOLD YOSSARIAN! I CARE WHAT YOU DIDN'T TELL YOSSARIAN! DO YOU UNDERSTAND, YOU SON OF A BITCH?"
"I understand, sir."
...
more...
"Now, where were we?..Read me back the last line."
" 'Read me back the last line,' " read back the corporal who could take shorthand.
"Not MY last line, stupid!" The colonel shouted. "Somebody else's."
" 'Read me back the last line,' " read back the corporal.
"That's my last line again!" shrieked the colonel, turning purple with anger.
"Oh, no, sir," corrected the corporal. "That's my last line. I read it to you just a moment ago. Don't you remember, sir? It was only a moment ago."
"...Oh, my God! ...Read me back his last line, stupid. Say, what the hell's your name, anyway?"  
"Popinjay, sir."

"Well, you're next, Popinjay. As soon as this trial ends, your trial begins. Get it?"

"Yes, sir. What will he be charged with?"

"What the hell difference does that make? Did you hear what he asked me? You're going to learn, Popinjay - the minute we finish with Clevinger you're going to learn. Cadet Clevinger, what did - You are Cadet Clevinger, aren't you, and not Popinjay?"

"Yes, sir."

"Good. What did-"

"I'm Popinjay, sir."

"Popinjay. Is your father a millionaire, or a member of the Senate?"

"No, sir."

"Then you're up shit creek, Popinjay, without a paddle.He's not a general or a high-ranking member of the Administration, is he?"

"No, sir."

"That's good. What does your father do?"

"He's dead, sir."

"That's very good. You really are up the creek, Popinjay. Is Popinjay really your name? Just what the hell kind of name is Popinjay, anyway? I don't like it."

"It's Popinjay''s name, sir," Lieutenant Scheisskopf explained.

Certify Specialization? Or Support Recyclers who work hard?

The Parable of the Country Doctor:

Let's say your community has two doctors.  One of the doctors, Dr. Atticus, has been there for two decades.  He treats children, old people, men and women of all ages.  He bought the county's first x-ray machine and got a loan for a CAT Scanner.   Dr. Atticus' reputation is that he's humble, he refers people to the best option available, but that he will treat anyone in need who comes to him...  and hope to get paid somehow, with vegetables if necessary.   But he mostly pays for his small business with radiology and treatment of the folks who can pay.  For major surgery, he prefers to send people to the hospital at the capital, but he has been known to remove an arrow from a dog, and has been around for more than a few events of emergency appendectomies.

Along comes a new doctor, his name is Poindexter.  Poindexter is a sports surgeon - he doesn't treat the older generation.  Really, he only serves insured people with sports related injuries.

No one accused either Atticus or Poindexter of doing anything wrong, but imagine there are a lot of stories about quack doctors ripping people off with snake oil and fake medicine - and harmful x-ray machines.  Imagine there's an outrage over the practice of bad medical practice.  People want a higher standard.

Along comes a non-profit-organization, one which helped expose the problem of sham x-ray machines and bad medical practices.  The NGO got a lot of applause for exposing quack physicians and in raising the bar on radioactive poisoning from X-rays.  Initially, both Atticus and Poindexter applaud the NGO (known as "Bad Antidote Network").

Bad Antidote Network decides to raise the bar on medical practice by starting a certification program.  Only the very, very best doctors will be certified as a medical Steward.  They announce that if you need an x-ray, only an M-Steward can promise certified health management.

Atticus is pretty busy and doesn't have a lot of time to chase after this standard, because his office is always full.  Poindexter, on the other hand, is only treating a few healthy professional athletes right now, and he spends a lot of time learning about the standard and preparing for certification.   He convinces Bad Antidote Network that any physician worth his salt must own and operate a Ortho Stabilizer Pro 6000 x-ray machine, as it is the only one which can detect pitcher's elbow stress to the 1,000th degree.  The OSP 6000 is acknowledged by all to be the highest and best x-ray equipment.

Atticus actually likes the OSP 6000.  He refers his high school pitchers over to Poindexter's if they have a sore arm, and recommends Poindexter for other sports injury patients as well.   It doesn't make sense for your community to finance TWO Ortho Stabilizer 6000s.

Then BAN (Bad Antidote Network) and Dr. Poindexter hold a press conference.  They state that people should only use a certified doctor.  The only certified doctor in your town is Poindexter, because BAN will certify only the best x-ray equipment as "certified medicine".

Poindexter did work hard, but he only had to certify one type of treatment for one kind of injury.  It is going to take Atticus months or years to certify everything from child tonsillectomy to stroke treatments to high blood pressure... there are dozens of types of treatment he prescribes.

Then BAN kind of implies that their M-Stewards program is the only way to make sure you are not using a quack...  They say that you cannot be sure that Atticus is not a quack if he is not an M-Steward.  They charge Poindexter money to maintain his certification, but imply that he will benefit from their advertising against his competitors.

Two questions:


1)  Can Dr. Poindexter treat appendicitis?

2)  How many of the current certified E-Stewards on the BAN.org website recycle televisions? 

My blog-debate back and forth with BAN.org and NRDC unfortunately starts to resemble an attack, from both directions, when we are treating defensive wounds.  I am defending the "Dr. Atticus" - proper exports, R2 Standards, etc.  I use E-Steward end markets for the 50% of our electronics that has no hope of repair or recycling - we ship vast quanities of CRTs to ERI, one of the E-Steward Founders (I used to be an executive of the Massachusetts facility ERI took over, and know they are capable of destroying bad stuff... I just don't use them for the repairable stuff).  I do not mean to imply that Poindexter or E-Stewards are bad, just that they are best for a specfic type of used electronics - the unrepairable focus materials.

On the other hand, it seems to me that BAN.org criticizes R2 standards, and for that matter, many recyclers with neither certification, especially recyclers in rural areas who have to meet a lot of different needs.  Good Point takes stuff and outsources some of it to people we think do a pretty good job... but by accepting it, we are creating another trail to certify.    If we never accept a typewriter or a lamp, if we only take in Pentium computers, gaining certification would be a lot less work, but our community would be without the "general medicine" meeds that the Dr. Atticus meets, even if he doesn't have time or money to certify his practice for removing splinters.


Companies like Newport Computers Recycling and Redemtech are not bad companies, not at all!   They no doubt do many things better than Good Point does, just as Poindexter is a better doctor for pitchers' elbows.  They have deliberately chosen to enter a field of recycling - higher end, off-lease, corporate PCs without many TVs - which has very high margins and relatively low difficulty.  Staples and Goodwill Industries of Northern New England are good companies, but they have done the same, managing only the "aluminum cans" in the blue box.

Good Point Recycling can recycle used PCs to the same standard that they do, but we also handle tons and tons of residential equipment like huge projection televisions and consoles with lots of regulated CRT glass.   I'm not saying we are better than them.  I'm just saying if we had less activity to certify, we'd be faster at certifying than we are now.  I think R2 will have this problem as well.   If all the recyclers who specialize in hard drives or cell phones or laptops sprinkle the map as "certified recyclers", how does it look for the companies who do the heavy lifting?

Open your mouth and say, "Ohhh!"