Last week we could read about 300 ex-workers of Foxconn threatening suicide. (German article) They where withheld final payments that had been promised, therefore threatened to jump from the roof of one of production sites.
Yesterday the same site posted an article about how the leader of Foxconn compares his workes with animals in a zoo. (German again, english)
Some related threads and articles:
- Old entry in this blog
- Wired
- Pictures of the production of ms mice (actually a subcontractor)
So, what are the consequences? Do we stop buying from them? Do we even know which products are produced by them? Do you think other far-east companies have better working conditions?
As a first step, we need reliable labelling of origin of products, including their parts.
Another thing everyone can do is question every purchase of electronics. Yes, we can’t do without them, but do we really need to buy the newest product as soon as it hits the market? How many versions of iPhones did you already own?
- So far, I’ve only had 3 mobile phones. Two of them were/are provided by my company. The one I use now is 3 years old and I’m not looking for a new one. The one before is still used by my mother. And in between I refused a new phone, when the company offered to replace the “old” ones of all of us.
- The phone can be used as an mp3 player. Recently a friend bought a iPod. I liked its features, but decided I have all that I need on my phone.
- I recently bought a new computer. The old one is still in use for special functions and I had it for 7 years. I hope I will be able to use the new one for at least 5 years.
Question your decision before you buy a new product!
I’m not only searching for a new computer. My TV set gave out a few weeks ago. I haven’t missed it very much, since I don’t watch TV. In fact, I’m not even set up to receive TV channels. But I’ve used the TV to watch DVDs.
I like to do that from time to time. I did it on the computer, but this is not a permanent solution.
Last Friday I started to look for a new TV. Usually I go from shop to shop, read a lot of reports, talk to friends and then decide. I usually try to locate the best deal: Good functionality for a low price.
This time my criteria had changed. I don’t want to spend a lot of time. Time is more valuable then money. At first I thought about going to a local shop to get some advice. Then I used my lunch break to have a look at some web pages.
I started to search at a price comparison page: Geizhals. They have a good search engine where you can choose among a lot of different criteria. I looked for a 32” LCD and then choose the options for low energy consumption (up to 50W) and low response time (up to 2ms).
That only left one company. I did the same search for 37” and read the reports for 3 options. After that I ordered the Philips 32PFL6606K from a local shop.
It was important for me not to buy from a chain. They will bring the TV to me tomorrow and even take back the old one.
So, even if I can’t buy fair trade, I have the feeling that I choose a “less impact” option: Low energy consumption and buying from a local dealer, supporting local trade and hoping to avoid some of the travel.
Today I found Greenpeace’s list of IT manufacturers. Philips is on 3rd place. I don’t know if all the points apply to my specific product, but at least I chose a company, that is open to these things.
I’m aware that that there’s still a lot of suffering involved in the production of my TV. The best option would’ve been to not buy it. Well, I’m telling myself that it’s the first TV set I’ve ever bought. Maybe next time I will try to get an used one again.
I’m searching for a new computer. A friend of mine is an apple-fan and I have to admit, that they have great computers.
But I’m reluctant to buy from them because of the working conditions at their east-Asian suppliers.
When I searched the web, I didn’t find much. Fairtrade and computers aren’t connected at all, it seems.
But, I found some interesting articles and blogs:
It’s frustrating to note, that some of the articles are more than a year old.
Today, I want to alert you to a new report published by Greenpeace.
They’ve looked into the banned toxic chemicals, especially nonylphenol ethoxylates, which can break down into a toxic, persistent and hormone-disrupting substance.
14 global clothing brands sold in the EU tested positive for NPEs. You can read the article at the Greenpeace website.
If you don’t have a lot of time, just take a look at this picture:
So, what can we do?
First, buy less, use it longer.
Second, buy green clothes. (“bio”, “organic”; see also my earlier post on little impact clothing)
Third, consider second hand clothing.
Fourth, take action, as suggest here.
Almost every day I read or hear something new about negative features of plastics.
For the German readers out there, I link to just one arcitle.
So, what to do about it? How can it be avoided at all?
The group of people that tries to avoid plastics is growing as well. There have been several experiments, with more or less compromises.
What do I do?
- Refuse plastic bags in shops
- Buy drinks in glass bottles if the alternative is available
- The same goes for other items, eg: yoghurt.
- Buy no drinks, but take along tap water in a glass bottle
- When I have to use plastic packaging, strictly avoid littering (Better to burn it then to have it in the environment)
- Encourage other people to avoid plastics
- Avoid modern fabrics in clothing, use conventional, natural fibres
- Reuse the plastic I already have many times
I’m sure that’s not all, but if more people just followed these rules, a lot of plastics could be avoided.
Officially slavery has been abolished by the “developed” countries. But still there people have to work under conditions that can be considered slavery. Even in Europe workers are capitalised. Are you sure you aren’t contributing to the system by buying products that have been produced under horrible working conditions.
Let me give just one example:
In the Spanish province of Almería an estimated workforce of 120.000 mostly African agricultural labourers are used to grow and harvest vegetables that are sold all over Europe. Only about a third of them have social insurance. They should earn at least 44 Euro a day, but many of them only get 20-30 Euro. That’s for the registered workers. Many more have to get by on even less.
They have no access to medical services and live on vegetable wastes.
They live in Chabolas, small huts made from plastic wastes, between garbage and pesticides. There are no toilettes, no drinking water nearby, no showers.
So, what can we do about it?
How will it help these people if we stop eating food that has been produced under these conditions.
My reasoning is: If more people eat vegetables produces under fair conditions (fair-trade label), more jobs offering these conditions will be available. In the end we influence the working conditions by refusing to eat conventionally produced vegetables coming from these areas.
Greenpeace launched a funny campaign focusing on the deforestation of Indonesia’s rainforest.
The campaign is funny, the subject isn’t.
“Critical wildlife habitat and carbon-rich rainforests and peatlands are being wrecked for cheap, throw-away toy packaging.”
It’s the habitat of the Sumatran tiger and the Orang-Utan.
But toy packaging is only part of the problem. More and more of our books are printed in that part of the world, contributing not only to deforestation, but also causing unnecessary long transports.
In fact it won’t be for a very long time.
But already, news interest has moved on. The Japanese Government and the power company TEPCO are more than happy to be little challenged for more accurate information.
Global 2000 has current info in German.
Greenpeace also provides up-to-date information (this site in English).
My thoughts and heart are still with the people of Japan!
Too radical, you might think. Not at all according to science and the university of Wisconsin-Madison.
It’s not the first time that negative environmental effects are accepted as by-products of scientific research. (Atom splitting experiments come to mind, fe.). But it seams that for the recently publish study on the effects of introduction of an new top-level predator into the existing functioning ecosystem of a lake, the collapse of this ecosystem was not only a side effect but the purpose of the experiment.
The scientists tried to find a way to predict the imminent collapse and were successful. I was not bale to find out yet, if it is planned to try to restore the original ecosystem.
sciencedaily has another article with a picture of the lake.
At least, they don’t seem to be too large, if these are the right lakes.
A study titled GM Soy – Sustainable? Responsible? shows effects of the pesticide “Roundup“, more specifically it’s ingredient Glyphosat to be harmful to animal embryos exposed to quantities lower than that used on “Roundup Ready” soy fields.
The observed damages were similar to those seen on human children born in areas where the pesticide was used.
What can you do about that? – Bye organic food and non-OGM products.
And be aware that soy isn’t only used in food.
