Thanks Kate. Despite all of your hard work and investigation, there will be complete silence from the MSM and the environmental fascists.

...i smell a SweepScam in the works.

Not my work, Jim. I'm only giving it exposure. The credit belongs to the reader, (as it usually does around here.)

Its worse than you think Kate.

There's more gold and other valuable metals in e-waste (by weight)than there is in ore fresh from the mine. They're getting us coming AND going.

We should not be paying an e-waste tax, they should be buying e-scrap by the pound. The Chicoms have a whole (really filthy) industry based on e-scrap. The stuff is worth money!

"Many of the same people and companies of EPSC are also represented on the board of SWEEP. It would appear that the industry not only makes products, but it is now in charge of the disposal of the same products they make. Have the foxes just been put in charge of the hen house?
"....

Hold on there Chicken Little - from my perspective - this looks like the Farmer who built the hen house cleaning up the Chicken S*** in the barnyard.

Isn't a good idea for the producers of the products be responsible for cleaning them up after they're no longer of use? That's just good business. Unless of course you subscribe to the concept that only unelected NGO Greenies are the groups to clean up after the rest of us..

I agree with Coop.
There is a concept gaining ground in manufacturing circles called product life cycle management. THe gist of it is that the manufacturer is responsible for the product from the time it is sold until the time it is disposed of, not just the time they sell it. It links the cost of the disposal to the parties best able to include that cost in the product, ie the manufacturer.
Including the ultimate cost of disposal as part of the product cost would only make sense, and at the end of the day, I trust the manufacturers at least as much, if not more, than some other government agency to get it right.

...while you have a good point Coop, the way things started and lack of external input means the table is slanted.

I think I'd rather trust the companies to do what is in their financial interest to do more than I'd like to see public money go to the fricken greenpeace wackjobs.

At least if the money is wasted on going to profits you can buy stock in private companies. The greenpeace money is down the toilet.

And why should multinational, unelected, self-serving environmental NGOs have an input to this process?

I don't have a problem with companies being in charge of recycling their own products. But in Saskatchewan, there is a gov't mandated fee added to each purchase of a new TV, etc. that consumers don't have the option of paying to fund it.

If the government is going to legislate we pay extra up front, then we deserve transparency.

There's no problem with the concept of Life Cycle Management but a closed loop of corporate rent-seekers enshrined into coercive regulations doesn't allow the free market to function. If it's such a good idea for the consumer and the environment why not simply disallow e-junk from landfills and allow market competition. If large suppliers can afford to recycle the value out of the e-junk then there's likely room for more efficient competitors and if not, more power to them.

...we have the same taxes here in Alberta, along with automotive tires and if you go into a car shop, there is "environmental disposal charges" on top of shop rags, supplies and such.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we don't have anything in place anymore regarding tires and computer parts.

Some stores used to take laser printer cartridges but now don't. Recycling costs money, there is no profit in recycling and having the fox guard the hen house...

Well the Manitoba bottle pile (down a few posts) might become part of Alberta's landscape regarding electronic handling.

Or we could ship our (and do) electronics to China where poor people are walking and working unprotected in lead laden water and gunk from hacking them up.

It seems to me the the industry took the initiantive in setting this program up. They ought to have the freedom to administer it. Putting an "environmental group" on the board may increase transparency but it will certainly increase showboating.

If Saskatewan is the first province where industry has set up this program, it should be the last province where they lose control of the program.

(That said, it would be nice if the industry voluntarily set up processes to ensure transparency.)

I'll be watching this for similar action in the USA. Looks like our Canadian friends get to test the waters on this. Good Luck all...

Hold on there Chicken Little - from my perspective - this looks like the Farmer who built the hen house cleaning up the Chicken S*** in the barnyard.
Posted by: Coop at August 13, 2007 12:05 PM

Coop -- I could't be more in agreement, and what a terrific anaology. Nothing wrong here Kate except the "environmentalists" who lie and dissemble about "the public interest" are pi**ed they were left out of the loop. Beautiful. Can I stand any more good news on a Monday!

This is CSR -- Corporate Social Responsbility, one of the left's most cherished causes -- in living action. This is "let's clean this up" before being descended upon on by clueless do-gooders with nutty rules.

Whoever sent you that e-mail was manipulating you -- looking for a kneejerk reaction on apparent government-corporate collusion against the consumer -- which he got.

Don't get me wrong: we need to be extemely wary about corporate rent-seeking through the regulatory process. This is a non-issue though.

And notice the "scary" list of big bad corporations. Dead give away.

The GLOBAL WARMING SCAM Hey next time you get that junk mail from the various eco-wackos urging you to send them $500 to save the wacko vallley teesee fly just recycle it instead

Whether the surcharge on electronics makes sense given the value of the waste material, is a different issue but someone was eventually going to get this contract. I don't see how these guys are any more objectionable than anyone else. Environmentalists are just upset because no one asked for their opinion - for me that is an advantage, not a disadvantage.

Coop -- I could't be more in agreement, and what a terrific anaology. Nothing wrong here Kate except the "environmentalists" who lie and dissemble about "the public interest" are pi**ed they were left out of the loop. Beautiful. Can I stand any more good news on a Monday!

20 + years or so ago when I started recycling I used to show up with my bags of cans bolltes etc and they would pay me. Now the govt does is and I don't get a dime.

If they want to do it fine but it deserves transparency, infact they should brag about the numbers if they are not it's a fraud.

Interesting all the protagonists are electronics multinationals who DO NOT MANUFACTURE in Canada...as a matter of fact 4 of these companies are largely responsible for killing Canadian electronic manufactures with sub cost dumping.

Frankly any industry minister who has worked in the private sector should tell them to collectively get stuffed until they manufacture here for the Canadian market.

As a sysadmin in a large Manitoba K-12 school division, I welcome industry initiating real electronics recycling programs. (If not recycling, even responsible disposal) Currently, there's no real solution for disposing of old systems, and we have countless old CRT monitors, and ancient (+10 years old) systems that we legally can't dispose of.

I have far more faith in a for profit company than I do in an environmental organization. At least the company has a history of some competence.

An industry (or profession) regulating itself is nothing new. It even makes sense in that the players know the industry, what is possible or even conceivable. Kyoto goals come to mind here. I agree that since it is also on the taxpayer's dime then it would be nice to have an impartial eye on the operation to ensure that all parties (including taxpayers) interests are addressed.

The electronics industry has spear headed environmental industry standards and most are certified in ISO 14000.

....they have been handling the safe disposal of their prduction electronic fallout scrap for decades maybe their products should have an end of life return policy for responsible industry scrapping so the factories can cope with their end of life production as they do their in production scrap...same materials, same disposal process.

I've got a 19" monitor in my garage I'd like to get rid of. Of course, that's not nearly as bad as my friends down the street who are waiting for their garbage and recycling to get picked up by our friends from CUPE.

Brilliant! (NOT sarcasm) A job that needed doing, and the companies found a way to make a (mega)buck - which is their main purpose.

...of course, the gov't is acting like a drunken fool.

And riffing off what Texas Canuck said @ 6:25 PM...If you have no objections to doctors, engineers and lawyers self-regulating (modern guilds), then why should you complain about these companies? There is the same degree of self-interest involved.

And that's what current recycling programs are all about: getting someone else to foot the bill. First rule of (modern) business - OPM..."other people's money"

'The electronics industry has spear headed environmental industry standards and most are certified in ISO 14000.'

I could get my sphincter ISO 14000 certified. It would still produce crap and it could be flushed, or with a slight improvement to iso14001 - composted. Big deal! It's still crap!

'All electronics are broken down into component materials and sent for recycling. Steel, plastic, aluminium, copper, unleaded glass, and cords are melted down and remanufactured into their base materials. Disk drives are rendered inoperable before they are shredded and processed back into component metals. Batteries go through a process that separates the metal housing from the chemicals inside, and both are manufactured back into batteries. Laptop screens have any mercury-based bulbs removed before the materials are recycled into base materials. Leaded glass, like what is found in glass-fronted monitors and televisions, is crushed and sent to a lead smelter to recover the lead housed inside. Circuit boards are shredded and have their precious metals separated and purified through chemical processes.' From the SARCAN FAQ:(http://www.sarcsarcan.ca/sarcan/faqs.php) What happened to the three R's of recycling? This is a direct to smelter program Greenwashed to appear as a fuzzy feel good. EHF is just another form of Carbon Offset Scheme.

"What happened to the three R's of recycling"?
are you wanting them to recycle the old computers back into use? They're pretty much useless as used computers. It's more profitable to put them on a barge and sell them to China (who melts them down) than to sell them on the used computer market to be put into use. So a consortium of producers of this stuff would like to do this to the garbage themselves, and do it in a much cleaner way than China. And it will create jobs. And North American companies will make profits, instead of Chinese companies. What's the problem?

pete,

The problem is, if you call it a problem, is that it's all going to China anyway. Do you know of any NA plant that recovers metals from MB's?

India is the big place that recycles monitors ... TV's if you can believe it.

Alberta, IIRC, already applies a "recycling fee" up-front to computers and electronics. If there is so much value in this e-waste, why is it necessary to rape consumers with a fee? The industry should be bidding for our scrap.

The downside to this "life-cycle" concept is that there is no incentive for manufacturers to build durable products that can be upgraded and repaired as necessary; quite the contrary, it is an incentive for them to turn out cheap junk, and to not support it once a minumum time has passed. We already see that in the case of computer printers, where it is becoming cheaper to buy a new printer, in some cases, than to get new ink cartridges for the old one. So we are "recycling" several pounds of plastic and metal scrap for want of few grams of ink.

Another thing: while it may not concern a great many people, there are a few of us with a historical bent who like to collect examples of old technology, be it automobiles, guns, radios, or computers. Heck, there are fan and toaster collectors out there! Forced recycling schemes like this can do incredible damage to the pool of future collectibles. Any readers here who still have some early-generation home computer products? Hang on to them, they may have collector value some day.

Pete, don't be daft. Where do USED computers come from, are they made in the Used computer factory over in China? Perhaps they are made right next door to the USED CAR factories in Windsor and Detroit. (typed on a used laptop, bought off lease).

And before PEARL HARBOR we were selling scrap metal to JAPAN they used it to make bombs and used it on PEARL HARBOR yeah some of those PEARL HARBOR survivors had a bit of a model A fender in them

Isn't a good idea for the producers of the products be responsible for cleaning them up after they're no longer of use? That's just good business. Unless of course you subscribe to the concept that only unelected NGO Greenies are the groups to clean up after the rest of us

I think I'd rather trust the companies to do what is in their financial interest to do more than I'd like to see public money go to the fricken greenpeace wackjobs.

It seems to me the the industry took the initiantive in setting this program up. They ought to have the freedom to administer it. Putting an "environmental group" on the board may increase transparency but it will certainly increase showboating.

This is CSR -- Corporate Social Responsbility, one of the left's most cherished causes -- in living action. This is "let's clean this up" before being descended upon on by clueless do-gooders with nutty rules.

Environmentalists are just upset because no one asked for their opinion - for me that is an advantage, not a disadvantage.

Why so quick to disparage environmental groups? They're the ones who spent decades pressuring these companies to adopt CSR principles and take responsibility for the whole product life cycle. It's because of environmental advocacy, most of it ignored until recently, that such ideas are now gaining ground.

Any why do folks here think the environmental agencies want to be involved in the actual administration of the program? They also want the companies to do it themselves, they just want to ensure that it's properly conducted and not just greenwashing.

From the SWEEP FAQ: "The program will utilize the province wide Sarcan system of collection depots where consumers can drop off unwanted computer equipment and televisions without charge. The collected equipment will then be recycled in an environmentally sound manner."

Seems reasonable that some external body be involved to ensure that the regulations and programs do in fact prioritize the most "environmentally sound" recycling methods, rather than, say, the most financially profitable ones. And who better to do so than the NGOs who first got this ball rolling decades ago?

I do like the "without charge" part. The charge is up front. There is no refund for complying. So, given the choices, I'll toss my dead monitor in the garbage bin at the dump. Costs time and money to take it to Sarcan.

"I could get my sphincter ISO 14000 certified. It would still produce crap and it could be flushed, or with a slight improvement to iso14001 - composted. Big deal! It's still crap!"

I think you also talk from your sphincter and it shows. And spreading your cheeks to read you miss a lot too.

If you have never had any experience in dealing with production fall out waste management in a large scale e-manufacturing plant under ISO 14000 how could you possibly know what dealing with electronic waste or what I'm proposing is all about>

I have scrapped tons of stuffed PCBs, CRTs drive sub assemblies, large scale PCB chassis and I can tell you all the facilities to do it cost effectively and safely are right in the production facility and in the waste management systems we have now....Multinational consumer electronics manufacturers should have an end of life contract for proper disposal on the product sold into this jurisdiction.

This EPS proposal is just a scam to sell new services and consolidate Market share.

More third way socialism.

RE: There's no problem with the concept of Life Cycle Management....

Unless one is in the concrete business.

Smoke: CSR -- Corporate Social Responsbility (which I used ironically) actually means pressuring big bad corporations to waste their evil shareholders money, or, put another way, to transfer their at risk wealth to "stakeholders".

It's a form of genteel embezzlement.

You're right tho: the greens deserve much credit for their early efforts, but also of course all the credit for the deaths of 10s of millions of poor Africans from malaria (totally unscientific DDT ban).