Emmanuel Nyaletey and BridgeSolarPower.com

Emmanuel Nyaletey and BridgeSolarPower.com

One must always balance the expression of joy against the "humble brag".  From time to time, I can't resist open enjoyment of the staffers and buyers who came to Good Point 


At this year's Orlando E-Scrap Conference, Emmanuel Nyaletey (and Patty Whiting) will be on a panel with our old friend, Jim Puckett.

Blog Readers will doubtless remember Jim Puckett's description of Agbogbloshie ("on the outskirts" of Accra rather than "dead center") in his creative writing essay "A Place Called Away". Less familiar, perhaps, was Emmanuel's 2014 X.com (TWITTER) video describing what Agbogbloshie actually is/was, from the point of view of a Ghanaian who grew up blocks away and who refurbished computers as a kid in Ghana.

The BridgeSolarPower.com plan is to work with OBADA.io to create Digital Product Passports. Africans who purchased secondhand solar panels - upgraded due to high real estate costs in OECD nations - can tag (QR code, blockchained) and regularly report on reuse for carbon credits.

Who might be against that?

No Joy in Mudville: Mighty Trumpy at the Bat

I try not to politic much on this blog, and have long rolled my eyes at do-gooders on the left, but my long, long defense of "others" in "mudville" makes this too tempting.  Image generated by OpenAI ChatGPT .  Nods to Ernest "Phinney" Thayer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casey_at_the_Bat 1888 Casey at the Bat poem.  Make Debates Great Again.

Trumpy at the Bat



The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the Mudville nine that day;
The score stood four to two, with but one inning left to play.
And when Cooney died at first, and Barrows did the same,
A pall-like silence fell upon the patrons of the game.

A straggling few got up to go in deep despair. The rest
Clung to the hope which springs eternal in the human breast;
They thought, "If only Trumpy could but get a whack at that—
We'd put up even money now, with Trumpy at the bat."

But Flynn preceded Trumpy, as did also Jimmy Blake,
And the former was a hoodoo, and the latter was a fake;
So upon that stricken multitude grim melancholy sat,
For there seemed but little chance of Trumpy getting to the bat.

But Flynn let drive a single, to the wonderment of all,
And Blake, the much despised, tore the cover off the ball;
And when the dust had lifted, and men saw what had occurred,
There was Blake safe at second and Flynn a-hugging third.

Then from five thousand throats and more there rose a lusty yell;
It rumbled through the valley, it rattled in the dell;
It knocked upon the mountain and recoiled upon the flat,
For Trumpy, mighty Trumpy, was advancing to the bat.

There was ease in Trumpy’s manner as he stepped into his place;
There was pride in Trumpy’s bearing and a smile on Trumpy’s face.
And when, responding to the cheers, he lightly doffed his hat,
No stranger in the crowd could doubt ’twas Trumpy at the bat.

Ten thousand eyes were on him as he rubbed his hands with dirt;
Five thousand tongues applauded when he wiped them on his shirt.
Then while the writhing pitcher ground the ball into his hip,
Defiance gleamed in Trumpy’s eye, a sneer curled Trumpy’s lip.

And now the leather-covered sphere came hurtling through the air,
And Trumpy stood a-watching it in haughty grandeur there.
Close by the sturdy batsman the ball unheeded sped—
“That ain’t my style,” said Trumpy. “Strike one!” the umpire said.

From the benches, black with people, there went up a muffled roar,
Like the beating of the storm-waves on a stern and distant shore.
“Kill him! Kill the umpire!” shouted someone on the stand;
And it’s likely they’d have killed him had not Trumpy raised his hand.

With a smile of Christian charity great Trumpy’s visage shone;
He stilled the rising tumult; he bade the game go on;
He signaled to the pitcher, and once more the spheroid flew;
But Trumpy still ignored it, and the umpire said, “Strike two!”

“Fraud!” cried the maddened thousands, and the echo answered “Fraud!”
But one scornful look from Trumpy and the audience was awed.
They saw his face grow stern and cold, they saw his muscles strain,
And they knew that Trumpy wouldn’t let that ball go by again.

The sneer is gone from Trumpy’s lip, his teeth are clenched in hate;
He pounds with cruel violence his bat upon the plate.
And now the pitcher holds the ball, and now he lets it go,
And now the air is shattered by the force of Trumpy’s blow.

Oh, somewhere in this favored land the sun is shining bright;
The band is playing somewhere, and somewhere hearts are light,
And somewhere men are laughing, and somewhere children shout;
But there is no joy in Mudville—mighty Trumpy has struck out.

COP vs SOM: Officials And Parties and Plastic Sustainability

Let's look at the difference between between a Senior Officials Meeting (SOM) and a Conference of the Parties (COP) in the context of international meetings.

Key Differences

  • Level of Participation: SOMs involve senior officials below the ministerial or head of state level, while COPs involve higher-level representatives and decision-makers.
  • Purpose: SOMs are preparatory and focused on technical or preliminary discussions. COPs are decision-making forums where binding agreements can be made.
  • Outcomes: SOMs produce draft documents, recommendations, or preparatory work. COPs can result in binding international agreements or significant policy decisions.

SOMs are preparatory meetings focused on groundwork and technical discussions, while COPs are high-level, formal meetings where binding decisions and significant agreements are made.

I noticed that if you visit, photograph, or record either SOMs or COPs, a layperson would be hard-pressed to tell the difference.  A bunch of people with titles and badges from various countries show up and vote on language concerning a new or existing convention.

Here is a video of a Senior Officials Meeting for the World Trade Organization.

The Guardian Environmental Division Experiences Situational Irony


Carmignac photojournalism award: Ghana and e-waste

Photojournalists Muntaka Chasant and Bénédicte Kurzen and investigative journalist Anas Aremeyaw Anas have documented the flow of electronic waste between Europe and Ghana for the 13th edition of the Carmignac Photojournalism Award

By Muntaka Chasant, Bénédicte Kurzen, Anas Aremeyaw Anas and Fondation Carmignac

The opening paragraph of the Guardian's weekend E-Waste Ghana Story is fascinating, because it goes on to completely disprove itself in award-winning own-goalism.  The Guardian attempts to actually do what we've been calling on them to do for more than a decade - interview the diaspora and the Tech Sector in the Importing Nations, and don't focus on Basel Action Network and Greenpeace's whitemansplaining of how people buy stuff for reuse.  In so attempting, not unlike 2015's UNEP Waste Report "Waste Crime Waste Risks" (where the documentation completely obliterated the Executive Summary, see "Criminal Negligence" reviews in Discard Studies), the Guardian completely nails its own coffin.


Jerry Sekou Adara: “I had a dispute with the environment department here in Holland and we went to court. I asked them: ‘How do you come to the conclusion that these goods are waste? Who checks them?’ Deciding that something is waste is like going to the doctor. You’re told what illness you have. Don’t say a television is waste beyond repair just because you plugged it in and didn’t see any image. The judge in court was a lady and a very good judge. I said to her: ‘Look, this laptop is not waste when it’s on your table, but it is waste when in African hands.’” She knew I was telling the truth. The economy is good for the people here – they don’t suffer – and what they think of as waste here, somebody will use in Africa.”

Environmentalist Spiritual Materialism vs. Cost Effective Circularity

This is a theme that - hopefully - runs deep in the tributaries and streams of consciousness throughout this blog... There is a limited amount of time and money to address the simultaneous and related emergencies of mass extinction, deforestation, climate change, toxic releases, and waste management. 

We will be judged, and should be, based on how our generation uses its limited resources as judiciously and economically as possible.  I started my environmental-spiritual aspirations with the premise that children yet to be born, whom I will never meet, and who will never know me, would judge all of us based on how we spend our time and resources, and whether we left them a better place, or a bigger mess.

Back when I was 17, I was thinking about how to direct my own career, spend my own life, as if I was personally going to be judged based on my own actions. Not that it was a bad place to start, but even then I was aware that my "shiny conscience" wouldn't matter much to a child born 500 years from now. If it did, I should have devoted myself to a Buddhist monastery, rather than to our society's collective resource conservation.


Let me propose that we will be judged, by future children or by the Singularity (AI), based on math... how much more sustainable was one rule or regulation over the free market. Primum non nocere - first, do no harm.