BREAKING: Li Tong Group Disputes BAN Claims

UPDATE:  There's some real "cloak and dagger" stuff here.  I contacted the editor of EBN Newswire yesterday, who said the press release below was provided by a cell phone holder in Portland, OR whose website has no evidence of any relationship with Li Tong Group.

We have left multiple messages with Mr. Robert Knoll of and sent emails without reply, asking his source of information that Good Point ever exported any device at all, much less claim to have exported directly to   If we don't get an answer by the end of today, perhaps I'll provide his cell phone number and maybe someone else can figure it out.  

This just breaking.  Li Tong Group, an R2-certified Electronics Recycler in Hong Kong, reacts to BAN controversy.

Two odd things about the story.  First, Good Point Recycling never claimed to have exported to LTG, period.  In fact, Good Point and BAN agree that Good Point never exported to Hong Kong at all. Period.  What we said here is that BAN's impugning of "exports" failed to distinguish whether devices are managed in "primitive rice paddies" or State of the art recycling plants, and that painting everyone overseas as "illegal" was basic racial profiling.

Environmental Business Newswire reports:

Good Point Recycling identified Li Tong Group as one of two (with Top Faith Group) R2 certified recyclers in Hong Kong which were impugned by BAN/MIT GPS Tracking Study.  This blog tracked one device from Seattle- which BAN reported to Washington regulators as illegal - as apparently travelling through LTG's site in EcoPark, and winding up near a high rise complex (Tin Shui Wai) in the New Territories.   That path is tracked here.

We also clearly said to MIT (who shared the document with BAN) that we had sent printers to the Chicago area for most of that quarter 2015.   We specifically sent loads to Janesville WI and to Wehawken IL.  Of the two USA recyclers we used, the more obvious one would be ARCOA which actually identified R2 recyclers (like Li Tong and TFG) in its downstream diligence.  But we told BAN that without our data we can't say for sure, and that the path of the printer had been partially obscured on Monitour.

Now BAN is telling press that we said our printer was exported by us (WRONG) to Li Tong Group (WRONG).  We sent it to Chicago.  Li Tong Group appears to have received an LCD from Washington State.

Any long time reader of this blog knows that we are against racial profiling.  We came out strongly against BAN's profiling in May of Hong Kong recyclers as illegal and primitive and "rice paddies" and we showcased the EcoPark where LTG has offices as an example of a recycler which is beyond reproach.

Had we not, in this blog, highlighted the state of the art recyclers in Hong Kong, BAN would not have been forced to issue this disclaimer.

BAN MIT MoniTour Teardown: Inside the Ewaste Export Controversy

The MIT MoniTour @KCTS-9 Basel Action Network "Expose on Exporting" #trackingewaste is still being reviewed by review researchers, recycling experts, and reporters.  Memorial University has helped plot final landing points for devices.  There are still a large number of items in places that BAN can't quite explain.  [There are data points missing, which we located on Monitour but are not in the table per MUN]

- There are good places overseas (BAN now says "never said there weren't")
- People who never exported are highlighted for political reasons (BAN says it's justified)
- BAN's own math suggests 11% total exports (good or bad end points)
- BAN's conclusion (use E-Stewards) belies BAN's financial interest

As one of the people who never exported the tracked device, but whose clients were assaulted by BAN's innuendo, I've got a particular axe to grind.  But Jim Puckett has told a reporter directly what I inferred from the article - that I came up with EcoPark and Li Tong Group to cover up my shipment to Mr. Lai's Printer Farm.  That made me mad, and I shouldn't type when I'm mad.

BAN made a very legitimate point via their GPS tracking study - that despite normal diligence, we should not assume for sure material exported to Asia won't go "sideways" to a scrap metal vendor (any more than we can assume that via E-Stewards).  But Jim Puckett tries to push the point too far, and in so doing damages the names and reputations of state of the art repair geeks overseas, Boston area MIT hippy coops, Vermont ADA employees, and legitimate discussion of environmental policy.

Perhaps Jim yielded to his frustration and inability to control the story in a tidy direction, and now has injured people that shouldn't be injured.  He needlessly involved innocent MIT students, Carlo Ratti, KCTS, and The Body Shop Foundation in a pissing match over environmental justice.  Jim simply needs to say "I'm sorry".   Again.

Watchdog Issues Apology For Personal Attacks in E-Waste Article

Jim documenting CRT glass was not exported as he claimed (AZ)

Short Post: Smelters and Financial Assurance.

Want to try something new.  Brief brilliant posts. Easy to read.

I've got totally bogged down by and MIT. I have pages and pages of unposted blogs defending me and my clients.  

Totally quick brilliant blog post starts now.
Primary copper, zinc and lead smelters can use CRT cullet instead of feldspar, galena, angelsite.
See my article on why they don't (Time out of Mined)
If the smelters are making a rational decision not to use the CRT cullet as fluxing agent (because of the multimillion, even billion dollar fines history with EPA over Superfund sites), then they need smaller secondary smelters, like NuLife, to manage it.
NuLife and other micro-smelters, which turn CRT glass into lead feedstock, need affordable closure plans.
So the primary smelters - Doe Run, Teck Cominco, Glencore, Southern Copper, Penoles, etc. - which individually could accept 200 tons per day of CRT glass but don't want to - should offer to take NuLife material under a closure plan.  A one time clean out situation, they take 60 days of recycled cullet.
EPA would never bother them, they'd be bailing EPA out of an undesirable closure situation.
The smelters would be paid for the "insurance" value.  They get say $20,000 per year just to SAY they WOULD take it if the closure was invoked.

The NuLife micro-smelter can make a significant contribution to USA's e-waste problem.  This is totally a smidge compared to the mining and primary smelting business, but EPA and environmentalists are obsessed with it.
To find out why, you have to read some of the 1,867 older longer blogs.  It's guilt, liability, psychology stuff.

BAN can free my genius to create more solutions if they stop being absolute pricks to people like Joe Benson, Li Tong Group, Net Peripheral, and my clients in Boston.  

DEBUT - Fair Trade Recycling Offset - Recycled Content Jewelry from Computer Scrap

[10/6/2016]  Just a little celebration.  We just made our first "Fair Trade Recycling Offset" transaction.

We sold about $10,000 worth of computers to Chendiba Enterprises, who have a Vermont based tech testing all the displays and PCs at our plant before he buys them for export.  He's our "Joe Benson".

Normally, we take a deposit of 80% when the computers leave Vermont ($8,000 say), and wait for the computers to be received and reconciled in Ghana.  Then the next containerload is $10,000 - $2000 for the reconciled shipment #1, and another 80% / $8k deposit for shipment #1.

This week, we told our Ghana buyer to take $100 out of the $2,000 reconciliation and give it to the father of one of the Chendiba Techs (who I met and filmed in 2015).  He is a retired high school teacher who kept his own father's tradition of small scale metal smelting.  He made our Fair Trade Recycling bracelets in 2015.