ab3001 and why it sucks the nether orifice
What Happened to Reduce, Re-Use, then Recycle?
This letter was published April 25, 2006, regarding California State
Assembly Member Pavley's proposed AB3001 e-waste recycling bill.
See also our previous text, Notes on the failure of California's
SB-20/50, and proposed solutions.
It seems that, contrary to logic or sense, our government continues to
throw reason to the winds and continue to call a consumer-funded
planned obsolescence subsidy "environmentalism". I am executive
director and founder of a non-profit computer recycler and have been
diverting electronic waste for over twelve years. We are the providers
of over 16000 free refurbished computers to the needy and we divert
over 200,000 lbs of toxic waste per month. I have been recently
recognized by the US EPA and Congresswoman Barbara Lee for my
outstanding and invaluable service to the community as an
environmental "champion". If you think you can find someone with more
credibility on this issue please do so.
Let me make this as clear as is possible. SB20 and SB50 are, at best,
under funded planned obsolescence subsidies and AB3001 looks to be
woven from the same profoundly warped cloth. All of these bills fund
the destruction of working hardware. All of these bills promote a
philosophy that encourages a "design to grind" world. Manufacturers
and waste disposal companies pursue higher profits by selling
consumers new machines more often. They take older machines, not only
off the market, but actually use a consumer tax to destroy machines
that in my experience are many times better than what we have in our
schools and definitely better than what the poor can put in the hands
of their children.
Under loud and repeated protest, we are an authorized and fully
compliant collector and recycler of electronic waste under the
California's SB20/50 Electronic Waste Recycling Act of 2003. (If
stupid is the only game, then you gotta play stupid.) The regulations
under this system make little or no effort to accommodate, and even go
so far as to discourage, reuse.
What I believe should be seriously considered is an extended life
span, not an artificially abbreviated one. Make manufacturers provide
a clear five-year user serviceable upgrade path. For bonus points make
them adhere to an already existing, common industrial standard such as
ATX or Mini-ITX.
You don't even have to make it mandatory. Simply modify the system so
machines built without these concerns addressed are more heavily taxed
than those that are.
Example:
First determine base cost for disposal. That is a topic of another
document, but for the purposes of this example lets go with $10.
* Computer built to a common/open standard: $10
* Computer built to a closed but upgradeable standard: $20
* Grinder fodder: $30
There will be some debate as to fees and classifications but the basic
theme is simple and sound.
Advantages:
1. Saves the consumer money, as they can simply buy a part, not a new
computer. If we adhere to a common standard they could buy a new part
from a DIFFERENT MANUFACTURER!! (Ooh the horrors of a competitive
marketplace).
2. Saves on secondary and often hidden environmental and fiscal
burdens in unnecessary manufacturing, disposal and transport.
3. Keeps jobs here. To my knowledge, we have little or no actual
computer manufacturing in the United States. So, "design to grind"
(yes I'm pushing that meme; prove me wrong) only benefits stockholders
and off-shore manufacturing. On the other hand, parts compatibility
would re-vitalize a threatened industry of local computer repair and
upgrade businesses.
4. Promotes real innovation, not money extraction. The cost of
innovation would be the cost of a component, not a computer, and the
market, not marketing, would define and shape creation and design. (As
an interesting note, Steve Wozniak tried to sell the personal computer
concept to a major computer manufacturer. The fact that he ended up
changing the world from a garage demonstrates my point and illustrates
the oxymoron that is corporate innovation)
5. If you go with a pollution over time or energy consumption over
time concept instead of a simplistic "Computer bad!! Make go away! Me
smash!" solution, I submit I make a lot more sense.
6. Even if you ignore the whole "saves the consumer money, saves
energy, and is less polluting" arguments, I still have the "We can and
have helped people with what you would destroy" card. I submit that
this card, at the very least, should trump any card in any hand at
this table. Isn't this state among the lowest in the country in terms
of computer access in the classroom? Do you really want to force
schools to pay more, and more often? Why should we pay to throw
educations away?
7. Makes the most wasteful manufacturers shoulder the largest part of
the burden and promotes environmental and consumer friendly
manufacturing.
Disadvantages:
I leave this to those supporting current legislation. As they seem to
think every environmentally threatening waste should be handled the
same way we handle spent bottles, I don't expect much.
Sincerely,
James Burgett
Executive Director Computer and Technology Resource Center 501(c)(3)
Director Alameda County Computer Resource Center 501(c)(3)
Founder Marin Computer Resource Center 501(c)(3)
US EPA Region 9 Environmental Achievement Award Winner 2006
Special Congressional Recognition 2006
SB20/50 authorized collector and recycler
Provider of 16,000 free computers to the needy in 12 years
added june 2nd)
I am of the opiniopn that this nightmare is what comes when technical
problems are left to politicians.
Examples of said ignorance: (I will add more as i continue to reveiw
the legislation)
I have also recently learned that they intend to catagorise based on
number of cores with one or two cores classed as a "computer", While a
machine with four+ cores is a "workstation"
A "computer" will be paid for while a "workstation" will not.
AMD just announced that they will be selling its new pluggable 4x4
multi core as a "white box" (a component that is sold individualy to
the consumer for installation in any/many open standard case) i submit
that the technology has allready rendered the legislation irrational.
So new proposal for purposes of definition:
"A computer is any device with an instalable operating
system"(linux,win,osx,bsd,solaris,Be,etc and or stuff coming along in
the future (plan9?) not a definition that requires a constant pursuit
and revision as the technology advances.
A note that I didn,t get into before; The global warming issues of
unrequired manufacturing and disposal. More trucks, more
No comments:
Post a Comment