Cite 1:3rd world country’s and waste
Why are they screwing over the 3rd world country’s? Why not just reuse the dangerous product’s for other product’s that require them?
Cite 2- Facts
Facts and figures
It’s incredible.
:eek:
Well, what do you think?
It’s bad.
t’s really bad.
I’ve got three computer systems taking up space around my office and apartment, as I wait for a responsible way to dispose of them. They’re like decor. Ugly decor.
Humans produce a lot of waste. We suck. The one ray of light, I guess, is to consider what horrendous industrial output we might have had in the past that has become outmoded and is no longer produced. I’ve got to admit though, I’m struggling to come up with anything that was as bad as this.
pan
Consumer electronics waste (it’s not just computers) is a real problem, but that article is a bit misleading. I’ve encountered The High-Tech Trashing of Asia, the report upon which much of the article is based, before. Unfortunately what the authors have done is omit facts and data that do not support their point of view, and in the process have missed the chance to provide a balanced, compelling report.
You can find the full report on the SVTC web site. The pictures are very affecting, but what isn’t given full disclosure is that the local municipalities asked for the electronics waste. Why? Because, for better or for worse, they have built a small industry around recycling it. Of course it is unregulated recycling, and it doesn’t take place in a modern facility, but OEMs have not furtively deposited junk in China.
Shut of the tap now, and not only must the waste still be addressed, but you take away the livelihood of the people in these areas. Should it be cleaner, safer, more controlled? Of course, but that is not what the report suggests. They want the waste dealt with domestically. Why can’t a nation in Asia build an industry on their own sovereign soil? Why can’t local governments be responsible for its regulation? They could be offered support, of course… but realistically speaking that support would have to come out of your [the consumers] own pocket.
There is also a constant insistence that the OEMs be responsible cradle to grave. Why? Because they have deep pockets, I suppose. If I were to sell you my car, would you even consider dumping it on my lawn ten years from now and telling me dispose of it? The owner has the responsibility for disposal of their own property. The report is entirely unrealistic in that respect, and in fact doesn’t seem to address what should be done other than insist waste be dealt with domestically by the original manufacturer, and at their own expense. I assume they are to make everything magically disappear.
Just a note: I’m not pro-waste or in any way in favor of environmentally unsound activity. I’m taking exception to a report that is unbalanced, and withholds crucial details in favor of delivering emotionally affecting photographs. Anyone who wants to play the “you disagree with the Green report, so you must be an eco-pirate” game is going to end up on Santa’s naughty list.
>> Each CRT (Cathode-Ray Tube) contains four to six pounds of lead. (New York Times, November 23, 2000)
I have a hard time believing this. A very hard time.
In America, you can send your PC in for, I think, free postage and perhaps a little return. COmpanies haven’t pushed it yet, although there are valuable things to be taken from PC’s. I guess its because the recycling of computers might distract them from their primary busness of making them.
ANyay, check with IBM. I think they recycle many, many computers every year.
A 19” (which is probably larger than average) has about 2.7 lbs, while ironically enough a ‘no lead’ monitor of the same size still has 2.2 lbs. This is likely because the friendly sounding ‘no lead’ label is normally based on a generous percentage of overall product weight. And more ironic still, there are no commercial monitors sold in N. America with leaded tubes.
Note that all this refers to lead within the glass, not big raw hunks of the heavy metal. Lead doesn’t leach from leaded glass easily under normal conditions.
Okay,
First - why is work ever sent to another country? Because they will do it more cheaply than a first world country will do it. Is this always bad? Well, no, because it’s creating jobs in the 3rd world country, which helps them get out of the 3rd world, doesn’t it?
Second - why not reuse the components? Because getting the raw materials back out of the computer requires lots of toxic solvents, manual labor and generally costs a lot more money than it does to just make new components. No sane American company is going to want to deal with the legal liabilities stemming from this - so they either ignore the problem entirely or, if they have to, try to find the cheapest and legally safest way to deal with it: which is another part of the answer to your first question.
I haven’t had a chance to read the full article yet, but the implication from these posts seems to be that monitors are recycled at the same rate as the rest of the computer, which I have problems believing. Most people I know - me included - keep the monitor around for two or three upgrades - it’s not like a brand new 19" monitor can do much more than a 4 year old one. Especially with businesses - my computer has changed four times already, but I’m still using the same old monitor. Do other people have different experiences?
Jeff
Sort of like how, after a while on the junk heap, old cars are compressed into little cubes rather than recycled, eh?