[greenyes] Re: computertakeback

["Robin Ingenthron" <robin@no.address>]

Ted,

Regarding the computertakeback initiative, I'm following it with great 
interest.  However I noticed that the Pledge of True Stewardship wording has 
been changed since 2 years ago on both the BAN and SVTC sites - but also 
that the new wording on the two sites differs when it comes to export for 
repair.

There are 3 standards.  Annex 9 of the Basel Convention explicitly allows 
export for repair.  The computertakeback.com Pledge promises to export only 
"tested working" equipment.  The BAN Pledge text revision seems to at least 
understand Annex 9 but has added some language about replacement of 
"hazardous components" (which I might applaud if they also consider 
byproduct from new manufacturing, which is greater and more toxic, to the 
same standard).

Basel Convention Wording: This would appear to work well using EPA waste 
determination -- negative value items are waste, positive value items are 
commodities.  The recent MIT study also follows that tack.  The problem is 
that there is little "bottleneck" -- demand is in the thousands of monitors 
per day, and it's easy to slip junk ones along for the ride.

SVTC wording:  This seems to try to address the TAR problem by screening out 
bad, or rather, "non-working" monitors.  But I must say I find the "working" 
criteria a bit silly.  I have Apple IIs which I could say are "tested 
working" (which we do NOT export), and 2004 monitors which suffer only from 
a pinched pins at the end of the cord, an easy fix (we are paid $10 each for 
them, tested non-working).

BAN Wording:   This seems to acknowledge Annex 9 makes export for repair 
explicitly legal, but tries to address byproducts such as replaced circuit 
boards.  It's true that the largest markets sometimes replace circuit 
boards, or even rebuild a completely new unit around the CRT tube.   As I've 
told Jim and Sarah, my concern with the elimination of the "SKD" 
(semi-knock-down) market is that you are eliminating the largest, most 
skilled, talented, repair operations.  That market also repairs and buys 
monitors in working condition, but frequently employs thousands of 
technicians, produces new CRT monitors in addition to refurbishing, and 
makes an economic decision whether the CRT will sell better in its current, 
perhaps yellowish, plastic housing, or is better removed and placed in a 
brand new TV/monitor/DVD combo) Those which do not have refurbishing or 
semi-knock-down capacity or skill are perhaps better following the text of 
the BAN version, but in my experience are less likely to completely reuse 
every CRT.  The SKD guys can do this blindfolded, and can specifically price 
out a spec on a CRT based on radius (Apple and Sony are "R4" radius, more 
difficult to snap into a TV chassis.  They can still be used working and can 
be repaired, but bring a lower price since the SKD is not as easy an 
option).

I do completely support your aims;  we have seen the repair market abused, 
and many new import members of the WR3A state that as much as 30% of the 
monitors they import fail their basic criteria for repair.

There appear to be, incidentally, several Pledge signers who export to the 
same markets and through the same people we do.  We are simply being up 
front about it.  We don't want to criticize those signers since we believe 
selling to that refurbishing market is legal, ethical, and environmentally 
preferable.  But to be told we can't be listed at computertakeback.com seems 
to punish us for telling the truth.

Looking forward to your comments

Robin Ingenthron, president
Good Point Recycling www.retroworks.com