That should be the role of the chinese and Indian government.
Agreed. End of the day, it is their job to protect themselves. However, I do feel a moral obligation, on my part, to help, or at least not contribute to their suffering.
I think it is fair to say that China in this case is at least 50 years behind europe and the us
Agreed. They will find a solution of their own choosing. We have no business imposing our solutions to them, however good intentioned.
However, I do feel a moral obligation, on my part, to help, or at least not contribute to their suffering.
Me too. And even if i didn't care about those people, there is a good reason to care about a better waste management. One way or another this stuff comes back to us.
It is no coincidence that cheap chinese plastic is oft contaminated by heavy metals.
Another ist example is steel which is checked on import for radioactive co-60 contamination, because some idiots dump their medical devices into the scrap metal pile without removing radiation sources.
But paying $1k for an apple product instead of $600 does not change the problem, it will only result in Apple having another couple of billion $ more on their bank.
If for instance Apple would care they would not have put their production at a company as Foxxconn although the workclimate has improved the last years they knew what was going on there.
So actually the system is rotten, how do we change the system?
So actually the system is rotten, how do we change the system?
You would have to change the people first, which might be impossible. As long as our goal is to be rich it won't change. The funny thing is that only a few become rich and it doesn't mean that they are happy too.
Communist countries like The People's Hypocrisy of China and democratic countries like the USA and India all share one thing in common... obscene greed, wealth and power in the hands of a few. It is predicted by Oxfam that next year 1% of the world's population will own 99% of the world's wealth for the first time in recorded history. No civilisation can justify that level of injustice. Unfortunately when the people have no power, they cannot fight the powerful.
Many governments treat some of the poor worse than E-waste. I don't know how you can fight greed and corruption on a global scale, short of exposing the wealth of the ruling elite.
It is a little hard to understand the myopia here. Anybody who participates on this forum is wealthy beyond the dreams of most people in history. You sleep warm at night. You are seldom uncomfortably warm or cold due to your ability to condition your climate. You eat well, seldom if ever wanting for food. You have fabulous magical toys that allow you to communicate instantly around the world, and have the ability to travel and see the person you are communicating with in a few days. Your life expected life span exceeds all but a privileged few in history, and that lifespan is less likely to be marred by sickness than in any prior era. By almost any measure of wealth things could hardly be better. Those things are actually also true for many of the people you are feeling sorry for. Ask the people in the waste village if they would rather be back in the midst of the "Great Leap Forward", or suffering in one of the periodic famines that were the rule during the pre-Mao period. Also I suspect that many of the participants in the forum have been self exposed to "horrific quantities" of many of the pollutants identified through their hobby activities. I know that I have had so much lead, mercury and cadmium exposure, just to name a few, that the popular press would have you believe that I should be dead and my children horribly deformed. Strangely, my health is good, and my children and grandchildren are both healthy and normal.
And then you blame greed for pollution, mostly greed in others.
There are really only two possible solutions to the "problems" identified. Income redistribution (making the 1% less wealthy so that the rest may have a bit more) is not one of them. Either a dramatic reduction in population, or a dramatic reduction in consumption (read standard of living) are the only real solutions. No one wants to be first in line for either of those solutions.
But paying $1k for an apple product instead of $600 does not change the problem,
If you assume the incremental revenue goes to Apple. We are talking about a surcharge collected by the government for purposes of properly disposing (meaning processing) the waste created by people abandoning their iPhones (or any other electronic toys).
Taxes, taxes, taxes, the magic solution for any pet cause. We should impose a heavy tax on anybody that propose new taxes. This will fix the situation.
Taxes, taxes, taxes, the magic solution for any pet cause. We should impose a heavy tax on anybody that propose new taxes. This will fix the situation.
Even though I'm probably in your eyes a crazy left winger I more than half agree with you there. I've been saying for over a decade that the stick approach doesn't work especially when there's no carrot...
Edit: To clarify take fuel duties and/or taxes as an incentive to use public transport. It doesn't work when buses are old, unreliable, and more expensive on a lot of journeys than a taxi as it is here. The "green" taxes have made running a diesel car cheaper than using public transport or a much cleaner petrol car.
What angers me the most here is the unfairness. Here you have poor parents and kids laboring in toxic environment, really mortgaging their lives so that someone can pay a lower price for their Leaf, while the entirety of their environmental costs has been shifted to the people who can least afford to take them.
Yet, no one is championing for the poor Chinese or Indian's rights to equality.
That is the issue for me. I also know that if China and India are fixed another location will end up being nailed.
Which is why the problem needs to be addressed at the location that is originating the no longer wanted consumer electronics. If the stuff being busted down in those pictures originated in China, there isn't much we can do about it. We have to clean up our own act before criticizing someone else (and watch out for unscrupulous recyclers who will claim to be responsible, but then send it on to China/India anyway).
...
There are really only two possible solutions to the "problems" identified. Income redistribution (making the 1% less wealthy so that the rest may have a bit more) is not one of them. Either a dramatic reduction in population, or a dramatic reduction in consumption (read standard of living) are the only real solutions. No one wants to be first in line for either of those solutions.
The world had much less population around the time of the French Revolution when the rich hogged it all but the poor could not feed their kids. Something had to give... in this case it was heads. Another French style Revolution might happen eventually and it will be on a much bigger scale.
One way to reduce population is to stop breeding, but it has adverse side effects such as in Japan with its aging population.
Maybe an indiscriminate virus that wipes out 3/4 of the worlds population is an option. There are scientists in the USA who have suggested such an approach.
*** offensive post removed ***
... or a dramatic reduction in consumption (read standard of living) ...
I would not mix the two. You can have a good standard of living without buying crap. Consider access to education and healthcare, safe environment, good neighborhoods, work stability as high standard of living. You do not need things to achieve these.
No one wants to be first in line for either of those solutions.
That is because the politicians and the whole corrupt lobbyists organizations are afraid they will loose the elections.
But why and how can a politician loose a fair and democratic election if 99% of the country citizens will gain from its plans and only 1% will loose?
There is your problem, the 1% define the outcome of the political system, the same as in Russia btw.
I would not mix the two. You can have a good standard of living without buying crap. Consider access to education and healthcare, safe environment, good neighborhoods, work stability as high standard of living. You do not need things to achieve these.
That's your personal choice. Others may have different choices and priorities. That's the beauty of personal liberty.
I would not mix the two. You can have a good standard of living without buying crap. Consider access to education and healthcare, safe environment, good neighborhoods, work stability as high standard of living. You do not need things to achieve these.
That's your personal choice. Others may have different choices and priorities. That's the beauty of personal liberty.
Of course. But if you would throw your old gadgets into my tomatoe patch, you would violate my liberty. And that's exactly what we are doing by exporting the e-junk and don't caring about how the e-junk is recycled.
Yes personal liberty is fine, as long as it doesn't compromise someone else's.
Wealth redistribution would help to solve this to some degree but it would require a reduction in living standards for a lot of people. Rich people are more likely to buy this kind of junk.
If you think Microsoft is altruistic, consider their attitude when a charity in Melbourne wanted to restore old computers for the poor. They wanted to get a special low cost license for Windows, but Microsoft told them they had to pay full price. The charity closed and all the junk would have gone to landfill or China. Another example, IBM crushed 10,000 butterfly laptops (each retailed for about $8,000 at the time) in the late 90's, rather than giving them to the poor.
That's the charity's own stupid fault for not switching to free software.
Of course. But if you would throw your old gadgets into my tomatoe patch, you would violate my liberty. And that's exactly what we are doing by exporting the e-junk and don't caring about how the e-junk is recycled.
If society throws gadgets into your property call the police.
Yes personal liberty is fine, as long as it doesn't compromise someone else's.
Your liberty stops where that of another person starts
Of course. But if you would throw your old gadgets into my tomatoe patch, you would violate my liberty. And that's exactly what we are doing by exporting the e-junk and don't caring about how the e-junk is recycled.
If society throws gadgets into your property call the police.
Except in China the police will laugh at you or worse, take the side of those who pay them (the importers of the junk) and throw you in jail.
Because we can't control laws, of lack of thereof, in other countries and stop them from harming others, we have to act.
Maybe an indiscriminate virus that wipes out 3/4 of the worlds population is an option.
Wow!
When the left talks about eliminating humanity, reducing carbon footprint, lowering energy consumption, taxing..., they are really talking about eliminating others people, reducing other people's carbon footprint, lowering other people's energy consumption, taxing others.... It is never about them sacrificing or even paying a fair share for their own causes.
There are scientists in the USA who have suggested such an approach.
With scientists like that, who needs enemy?
Actually, many of the climate talks / treaties are about codifying the existing standards of life into the future. One example would be the allowable carbon emission: developing countries are only allowed 1/2.3 times the per capita carbon emissions of the developed countries.
Reminds me of the Animal Farm: every one is equal, except ...,
But why and how can a politician loose a fair and democratic election if 99% of the country citizens will gain from its plans and only 1% will loose?
Because a democracy, in the hands of incompetent voters, can be easily turned into a tyranny: a tyranny of the majority.
The founding fathers anticipated a lot of things but never that.
But if you would throw your old gadgets into my tomatoe patch, you would violate my liberty. And that's exactly what we are doing by exporting the e-junk and don't caring about how the e-junk is recycled.
A big difference here: China allowed such junk to be dumped there - they either purchased such junk or get paid to have them dumped there.
If you agreed to have gadgets thrown into your tomatoe patch, your liberty isn't violated at all.
But if you would throw your old gadgets into my tomatoe patch, you would violate my liberty. And that's exactly what we are doing by exporting the e-junk and don't caring about how the e-junk is recycled.
A big difference here: China allowed such junk to be dumped there - they either purchased such junk or get paid to have them dumped there.
If you agreed to have gadgets thrown into your tomatoe patch, your liberty isn't violated at all.
No China's government allowed such junk to be dumped there, not the people and it has a negative effect on the population.
I very much doubt any member of the Chinese communist party would be happy if it happened on their doorstep.
Like it or not, the people who discarded the junk in the first place are ultimately responsible and their governments are also responsible for allowing it.