OCR Text |
Show Views&Opinion Page 10 Monday, Nov. 19, 2007* Despite international outcry, world's electronic waste still ends up in China GUIYU, China (AP)-The air smells acrid from the squat gas burners that sit outside homes, melting wires to recover copper and cooking computer mother- boards to release gold. Migrant workers in filthy clothes smash picture tubes by hand to recover glass and electronic parts, releasing as much as 6.5 pounds of lead A W O R K E R PROCESSES electronic trash in Guiyu, China, March 16, 2006. AP photo dust. For five years, environmentalists and the media have highlighted the danger to Chinese workers who dismantle much of the world's junked electronics. Yet a visit to this southeastern Chinese town regarded as the heartland of "e-waste" disposal shows little has improved. In fact, the problem is growing worse because of China s own contribution. China now produces more than 1 million tons of e-waste each year, said Jamie Choi, a toxics campaigner with Greenpeace China in Beijing. That adds up to roughly 5 million television sets, 4 million fridges, 5 million washing machines, 10 million mobile phones and 5 million personal computers, according to Choi. "Most e-waste in China comes from overseas, but the amount of domestic e-waste is on the rise," he said. This ugly business is driven by pure economics. For the West, where safety rules drive up the cost of disposal, it's as much as 10 times cheaper to export the waste to developing countries. In China, poor migrants from the countryside willingly endure the health risks to earn a few yuan, exploited by profit-hungry entrepreneurs. International agreements and European regulations have made a dent in the export of old electronics to China, but loopholes — and sometimes bribes — allow many to skirt the requirements. And only a sliver of the electronics sold get returned to manufacturers such as Dell and Hewlett Packard for safe recycling. Japan: There are limits to Japan's support of US [Mcontinued from page 8 a country still grappling with the task of becoming a "normal nation." We Americans like to believe that Japan remains our closest of friends. The U.S. security treaty with Tokyo is, as former Ambassador to Japan Mike Mansfield said, the United States' "most important bilateral relationship in the world, bar none." We depend on Japan not only to buy our Treasury bills and supply us with Toyota hybrids but also to be our land base to contain the potential ambitions of China. Yet if our alliance is so robust, why did the Japanese military earlier this month end its mission in the Indian Ocean refueling ships in the U.S.-led campaign to stabilize Afghanistan? And if the Japanese government is vital to the efforts to dismantle North Korea's nuclear production facilities, why do Washington and Tokyo disagree on whether North Korea ought to be dropped from the U.S. State Department's list of nations that sponsor terrorism? Finally, if japan really is our closest ally in the Pacific, why have Tokyo and Washington argued for more than a decade on crucial financial and deployment issues regarding U.S. forces in Okinawa? The Bush team came to Washington committed to reversing what it saw as the marginalization of Japan's importance under President Clinton. But just as the gamble in Iraq damaged the U.S.' relationship with France and Germany, it has also soured the relationship with Japan . Although it's easy to blame Tokyo for dragging its feet when Washington needs a larger multinational commitment to bat- tle terrorism, it is also clear that the administration bungled things by not investing the energy to understand now its actions would play out in Japan. The Bush administration seemed to convince itself that Japan was like Tony Blair's Britain: an island nation with a booming economy, shared values and a defense force that could be easily deployed to help U.S. troops. Bush also seemed to feel that a close personal friendship with former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi would somehow transform nagging policy differences. Such faulty analogies obscure the fact that Japan is governed by a constitution written by the U.S. at the end of World War II, a document that forever renounces the right to wage war. And despite Japan's vast material wealth, its people see themselves as isolated residents of a small island nation nervous about being too deeply engaged in global politics. For more than 50 years, the Japanese have been content to develop industrial muscle while leaving their defense in U.S. hands. That puts the Japanese woefully out of practice when it comes to strategic thinking about long-term foreign policy interests, and for decades Washington's geopolitical strategists liked it that way. So when the U.S. demanded "boots on the ground" by a "coalition of the willing" to support the Iraq invasion, Japan found itself in an uncomfortable spot. A vast majority of Japanese didn't want to be involved in armed conflict - even in a limited role. The pacifist constitution was another barrier. And the Bush administration's failure to win U.N. backing for the war just as Tokyo was seeking a permanent seat on the Security Council mortally damaged that longtime Japanese goal - Tokyo's most important foreign policy objective. Despite its dependency on Middle Eastern oil, Japan never really felt the Iraq war was its right. Instead, the domestic debate was framed indirectly: If Japan didn't support its closest ally in a time of war, who would defend Japan if North Korea launched more missiles over its territory? But this is not exactly the moment for Japan to engage in some dramatic reconsideration of national strategy and purpose. It is snarled in a raft of domestic challenges, including a longterm deflationary spiral, the stalling of its economic engine, a rapidly aging population and uncertainty about how to deal with China's rise. The Bush team also hasn't recognized other aspects of Japan's consensus-bound culture. Strong leaders rarely dominate. Factional politics almost always trumps international policy. And at 71, Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda is unlikely to boldly remake Japanese politics. Upwards of 90 percent ends up in dumps that observe no environmental standards, where shredders, open fires, acid baths and broilers are used to recover gold, silver, copper and other valuable metals while spewing toxic fumes and runoff into the nation's skies and rivers. Accurate figures about the shady and unregulated trade are hard to come by. However, experts agree that it is overwhelmingly a problem of the developing world. They estimate about 70 percent of the 20-50 million tons of electronic waste produced globally each year is dumped in China, with most of the rest going to India and poor African nations. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, it is ten times cheaper to export e-waste than to dispose of it at home. Imports slip into China despite a Chinese ban and Beijing's ratification of the Basel Convention, an international agreement that outlaws the trade. Industry monitor Ted Smith said one U.S. exporter told him all that was needed to get shipments past Chinese customs officials was a crisp $100 bill taped to the inside of each container. "The central government is well aware of the problems but has been unable or unwilling to really address it," said Smith, senior strategist with the California-based Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, which focuses on the electronics industry. The European Union bans such exports, but Smith and others say smuggling is rife, largely due to the lack of measures to punish rule breakers. China, meanwhile, allows the import of plastic waste and scrap metal, which many recyclers use as an excuse to send old electronics there. And though U.S. states increasingly require that electronics be sent to collection and recycling centers, even from those centers, American firms can send the e-waste abroad legally because Congress hasn't ratified the Basel Convention. The results are visible on the streets of Guiyu, where the e-waste industry employs an estimated 150,000 people. Shipping containers of computer parts, old video games, computer screens, cell phones and electronics of all kinds, from ancient to nearly new, are dumped onto the streets and sorted for dismantling and melting. Conserve: Answers are hard [•continued from page 8 building cars, and really, how many people die building cars? i Certainly we could conserve more but that only means w e ' delay the point at which we run out because it is like we are on a ship adrift in the ocean and people will live a little longer if we conserve, but eventually we will run out and turn to cannibalism. Wind power is great but would it be as great if we had to line the Wellsville Mountains with 200-foot towers? Driving a Prius is also great, but it is still driving. Riding a bike is better for the environment, but is it more dangerous if you have to do it amongst cars. We really support farmers making money, but if they are growing corn for ethanol instead of food are they really farmers or are they miners? Ethanol production isn't as efficient as oil but it is better for homeland security, but if we start using farmland to produce fuel, isn't this going to drive up The U.S. ought to recognize the limits food prices and starve some people? to Japan's support. As long as its trade If we weren't in an unpopular war in an oil-rich country, surplus pile up, Japan presurplus continues continues tto o pue up japan prew o u , d a n y b o d y even care about ethanol? Commuting to w o r k . fers its splendid isolation and checkbook j n a c a r js b a d f b u t c ocommuning m m u n i n o w iwith t h nature natureinina acar carevery* every diplomacy to the task of genuinely particiweekend is okay. If I drive a big old truck 50 miles a week is™ pating in global leadership. that worse than driving a Prius 100 miles a week? Is it better^ Michael Zielenziger, special to the Los to recycle all your newspapers or just'to read them all.on the, | Angeles Times, is a former foreign cor- Internet to begin with even though the Internet uses electric- j respondent based in Tokyo, and is the ity and turns you into a pasty indoor zombie? The idea of a^j author of "Shutting Out the Sun: How wood stove using renewable energy is admirable, but if everyJapan Created Its Own Lost Generation." body in the valley starts burning wood, we'll all have to wear respirators. How far would you drive to see the last surviving black-footed ferret that we killed by driving so much in the first i place? , It's so hard to know what's the right thing to do. I think I'll: just make fun of Britney Spears tomorrow. Dennis Hinkamp works for USU Extension Communications and believes heart of Zenness is that if you are sure you have the solution, you probably have not thought about the problem long enough. Comments and questions can be sent to him at dennish@ext. usu.edu. Letters: Stop the fighting UtahState UNIVERSITY BOOKSTORE 10AM-1PM TOTE BAGS $1.99 FROM 1QAM-1 ONLY *FREE TOTE BAG WITH PURCHASE OF $25 [1 continued from page 8 io next. If you believe your purpose is to use science to divest men of their foolish notions of religion, then you are not seekers of truth but hypocrites who seek to force your beliefs on others. , For the sake of all the great men of God and all the great men of science, both of you cease this pointless bickering. Not only are such arguments completely invalid, but they do nothing to bring us any closer to a greater understanding of the universe we inhabit. There are far more productive ways to spend your time. Russell Jones lofitlntj Mni) iip«lmenl lor twxiJAlly l n t n v n i t M HfgM ffuulily ptirsrmal caw 3 0 !J M tifl P USU Ping Pong Tournie Friday November 30th, Tournament starts at 7pm in institute building, registration from 6-7pm. Free pizza and snacks! Play or watch! Resistration for Spring 2008 is now open Register @ wise.ldsces.org Mnnnct I Km-nthoocl' www.ppau.org Religion In Life Fri. Nov. 30 11:30 Lynn Stevens Retired Major General in the US Army, having served at the Pentagon on the Staff of the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of Defense. Soup/Chili & breadsticks for S 1 after |