You can see thick plumes of smoke rise from the Agbogbloshie dumpsite from
miles away.

The air at the vast dump, in the west of Ghana�s capital Accra, is highly
toxic. The closer you get, the harder it is to breathe and your vision
starts to blur.

Around these fumes are dozens of men, who wait for tractors to unload
piles of cables before setting them on fire. Others climb up a toxic waste
hill and bring down TVs, computers and washing machine parts and set them
alight.

The men are extracting valuable metals like copper and gold from
electrical and electronic waste - or e-waste � much of which has made its
way to Ghana from rich countries.

�I don�t feel well,� says young worker Abdulla Yakubu, whose eyes are red
and watery as he burns cables and plastic.

�The air, as you can see, is very polluted and I have to work here every
day, so it definitely affects our health.�

Abiba Alhassan, a mother of four, works near the burning site sorting out
used plastic bottles, and the toxic smoke does not spare her either.

�Sometimes, it�s very difficult to breathe even, my chest becomes heavy
and I feel very unwell,� she says.

E-waste is the world's fastest-growing waste stream, with 62 million
tonnes generated in 2022, up 82% from 2010, according to a UN report.

It is electronisation of our societies that is primarily behind the e-
waste rise � ranging from smartphones, computers and smart alarms, to
automobiles with electronic devices installed, whose demand is steadily on
the rise.

Annual smartphone shipments, for instance, have more than doubled since
2010, hitting 1.2 billion in 2023, according to a UN Trade and Development
report this year.

Most frequently seized item
The UN says only around 15% of the world�s e-waste is recycled, so
unscrupulous companies are seeking to offload it elsewhere, often through
middle men who then traffick the waste out of the country.

Such waste is difficult to recycle because of their complex composition
including toxic chemicals, metals, plastics and elements that cannot be
easily separated and recycled.

Even developed countries do not have adequate e-waste management
infrastructure.

UN investigators say they are seeing a significant rise in the trafficking
of e-waste from developed countries and rapidly emerging economies. E-
waste is now the most frequently seized item, accounting for one in six of
all types of waste seizures globally, the World Customs Organisation has
found.

Officials at Italy�s Naples port showed the BBC World Service how
traffickers mis-declared and hid e-waste, which they said made up around
30% of their seizures.

They showed a scan of a container bound for Africa, carrying a car. But
when port officials opened the container, broken parts of vehicles and e-
waste were stacked inside, with oil leaking from some of them.

�You don�t pack your personal goods like this, much of it is meant for
dumping,� says Luigi Garruto, an investigator with the European Anti-Fraud
Office (Olaf), who collaborates with port officials across Europe.

Sophisticated trafficking tactics
In the UK, officials say they are also seeing a rise in trafficked e-
waste.

At the Port of Felixstowe, Ben Ryder, a spokesman for the UK Environment
Agency, said waste items were often wrongly declared as reusable but in
reality, �broken down for precious metals and then illegally burnt after
they reach the destination� in countries like Ghana.

Traffickers also attempt to conceal e-waste by grinding it down and
blending it with other forms of plastic that can be exported with the
correct paperwork, he said.

A previous report by the World Customs Organization showed there had been
an increase of almost 700% in trafficking of end-of-life motor vehicles -
a huge source of e-waste.

But experts say such seizures and reported cases are just the tip of the
iceberg.

Although there has been no comprehensive global study that traces all the
e-waste trafficked out of the developed world, the UN e-waste report shows
countries in Southeast Asia still remain a major destination.

But with some of those countries now clamping down on waste trafficking,
UN investigators and campaigners say more e-waste is making its way to
African countries.

In Malaysia, officials seized 106 containers of hazardous e-waste from May
to June 2024, according to Masood Karimipour, the UN Office on Drugs and
Crime's regional representative for Southeast Asia and the Pacific.

But traffickers often outsmart authorities with new smuggling tactics and
governments don�t catch up fast enough, UN investigators say.

�When ships carrying hazardous waste like e-waste cannot easily offload
them in their usual destination, they turn their beacon off when they are
in the middle of the sea so that they cannot be detected,� said Mr.
Karimapour.

�And the illegal shipment is dumped at sea as part of a business model of
organised crime activity.

�There are far too many groups and far too many countries profiting from
this global criminal enterprise.�

Chemicals of high concern
When e-waste is burnt or dumped, the plastic and metals it contains can be
very hazardous to human health and have negative effects on the
environment, a recent report by the World Health Organisation (WHO) said.

The WHO says many recipient countries also see informal e-waste recycling
- meaning untrained people including women and children are doing the job
without protective equipment and the right infrastructure, and are being
exposed to toxic substances like lead.

The International Labour Organisation and WHO estimate that millions of
women and child labourers working in the informal recycling sector may be
affected.

The organisations also say exposure during foetal development and in
children can cause neurodevelopmental and neurobehavioural related
disorders.

From January 2025, global waste treaty the Basel Convention will require
exporters to declare all e-waste and obtain permission from recipient
countries. Investigators are hopeful that this will close some of the
loopholes that traffickers have been using to ship such waste across the
world.

But there are some countries including the US � a major e-waste exporter �
that have not ratified the Basel Convention - one reason campaigners say
e-waste trafficking continues.

�As we start to crack down, the US is now more and more shipping trucks
across the border to Mexico,� said Jim Puckett, executive director of
Basel Action Network, an organisation campaigning to end toxic trade
including e-waste.

Back at the Agbogbloshie scrapyard in Ghana, the situation is getting
worse by the day.

Abiba says she spends almost half the money she earns from collecting
waste on medicines to deal with conditions resulting from working at the
dump.

�But I am still here because this is my means of survival and that of my
family.�

The Ghana Revenue Authority and Environment Ministry did not respond to
multiple requests for comment.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/burning-old-tvs-to-survive-the-toxic-
trade-in-electrical-waste/ar-AA1uEM2U

On Sun, 1 Dec 2024 10:53:17 -0000 (UTC), useapen
<yourdime@outlook.com> wrote:

>You can see thick plumes of smoke rise from the Agbogbloshie dumpsite from
>miles away.
>
<snip
>The Ghana Revenue Authority and Environment Ministry did not respond to
>multiple requests for comment.
>
>https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/burning-old-tvs-to-survive-the-toxic-
>trade-in-electrical-waste/ar-AA1uEM2U

This is a REPAIR group, not a new toy one.

We keep them ticking, so they don't end up in
the trash.

Thee's other types of trash that clutter our senses
mindlessly, and you're not helping with scattershot
long winded robo rubbish.

RL

We try to but since China makes them now as throw away
non repairable cheap goods and sells them global, they should
be who leads the cleanup.

On 2 Dec 2024 at 13:40:34 GMT, ""UFO"" <tech@parts-link.net> wrote:

> We try to but since China makes them now as throw away
> non repairable cheap goods and sells them global, they should
> be who leads the cleanup.

This is wildly untrue. What makes things "throw away" is that we can make them
so cheaply that the labour to repair them is too expensive for it to be
economic. But modern electronic goods are orders of magnitude more reliable
than the consumer electronic goods of yesteryear, so the problem is *not* the
quality of the goods.

What needs investing in the safe recycling of electronic parts, and I would
suggest that both consumers and manufacturers should be responsible for this.

--

Roger Hayter

On 2024-12-02 15:25, Roger Hayter wrote:
> On 2 Dec 2024 at 13:40:34 GMT, ""UFO"" <tech@parts-link.net> wrote:
>
>> We try to but since China makes them now as throw away
>> non repairable cheap goods and sells them global, they should
>> be who leads the cleanup.
>
> This is wildly untrue. What makes things "throw away" is that we can make them
> so cheaply that the labour to repair them is too expensive for it to be
> economic. But modern electronic goods are orders of magnitude more reliable
> than the consumer electronic goods of yesteryear, so the problem is *not* the
> quality of the goods.

Well... take a programmable timer. Eventually they fail, because the
battery in them fail. But they are manufactured without screws that one
can undo. That is China fault.

>
> What needs investing in the safe recycling of electronic parts, and I would
> suggest that both consumers and manufacturers should be responsible for this.
>

--
Cheers, Carlos.

In article <4950251152.1f610978@uninhabited.net>, roger@hayter.org
says...
>
> This is wildly untrue. What makes things "throw away" is that we can make them
> so cheaply that the labour to repair them is too expensive for it to be
> economic. But modern electronic goods are orders of magnitude more reliable
> than the consumer electronic goods of yesteryear, so the problem is *not* the
> quality of the goods.
>
> What needs investing in the safe recycling of electronic parts, and I would
> suggest that both consumers and manufacturers should be responsible for this.
>
>
>

Just like the tire pressure monitors. Lots of labor just to replace
them. I just do without on my cars when they fail.

Electronics have been that way in many cases for a while. I remember
the Commodor Computers. Not sure of the exect price but they would
repair them for less than $ 100 for any problem. You sent them in and
they would pull out the circuit board and put in another one that cost
them about $ 50. Throw the bad one away.

With labor costing around $ 40 or more per hour the item has to be worth
a lot to repair. The local John Deere shop is around $ 125 or more per
hour.

On 2024-12-02 18:30, Ralph Mowery wrote:
> In article <4950251152.1f610978@uninhabited.net>, roger@hayter.org
> says...
>>
>> This is wildly untrue. What makes things "throw away" is that we can make them
>> so cheaply that the labour to repair them is too expensive for it to be
>> economic. But modern electronic goods are orders of magnitude more reliable
>> than the consumer electronic goods of yesteryear, so the problem is *not* the
>> quality of the goods.
>>
>> What needs investing in the safe recycling of electronic parts, and I would
>> suggest that both consumers and manufacturers should be responsible for this.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Just like the tire pressure monitors. Lots of labor just to replace
> them. I just do without on my cars when they fail.

I disagree. I had a puncture during a highway trip a month ago, and the
monitor told me about it. I would have not noticed myself and would have
damaged the rubber.

First puncture in 40 years.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
> This is wildly untrue. What makes things "throw away" is that we can make them
> so cheaply that the labour to repair them is too expensive for it to be
> economic. But modern electronic goods are orders of magnitude more reliable
> than the consumer electronic goods of yesteryear, so the problem is *not* the
> quality of the goods.
>
> What needs investing in the safe recycling of electronic parts, and I would
> suggest that both consumers and manufacturers should be responsible for this.
>

Demand for new items increases with income. After a while environmental
responsibility develops. Decoupling that, i.e. shifting labor and financial
returns firmly away from production, has not been seen yet.

Is my belief many product categories have seen enough production to last
for generations. Unfortunately I don’t see any will to plan and execute a
seismic shift in economies which could, even so briefly, pause current
capital accumulation streams.

On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 16:08:33 +0100, "Carlos E.R."
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

>On 2024-12-02 15:25, Roger Hayter wrote:
>> On 2 Dec 2024 at 13:40:34 GMT, ""UFO"" <tech@parts-link.net> wrote:
>>
>>> We try to but since China makes them now as throw away
>>> non repairable cheap goods and sells them global, they should
>>> be who leads the cleanup.
>>
>> This is wildly untrue. What makes things "throw away" is that we can make them
>> so cheaply that the labour to repair them is too expensive for it to be
>> economic. But modern electronic goods are orders of magnitude more reliable
>> than the consumer electronic goods of yesteryear, so the problem is *not* the
>> quality of the goods.
>
>Well... take a programmable timer. Eventually they fail, because the
>battery in them fail. But they are manufactured without screws that one
>can undo. That is China fault.

China's no worse than anyone else. You could say the same about
Mercedes Benz or BMW. The amount of stuff that ends up in landfill or
shipped abroad for disposal is a huge scandal and ought to be THE
prime environmental concern - not some nonsense about CO2, which is
harmless and not to blame for 'global warming' in any way.
What's needed is for governments to mandate a right to repair on all
new goods. Wasn't the EU supposed to be doing something of that sort
years ago? Why haven't they?

>> What needs investing in the safe recycling of electronic parts, and I would
>> suggest that both consumers and manufacturers should be responsible for this.
>>