電子產品的故事：字幕

【為丟棄而設計】

The other day, I couldn’t find my computer charger. My computer is my lifeline to my work, my friends, my music.
某天我忽然找不到電腦的充電器，這可不得了！電腦是我跟工作、朋友和音樂連結的命根子啊！
So I looked everywhere, even in that drawer where this lives. I know you have one too, a tangle of old chargers, the sad remains of electronics past.
我東找西找，連專門放充電器的抽屜都找遍了；你大概也有這麼一個抽屜，裡面那堆糾纏不清的舊式充電器，都是以前用過電子產品剩下來的。
How did I end up with so many of these things? It’s not like I’m always after the latest gadget. My old devices broke or became so obsolete I couldn’t use them anymore. And not one of these old chargers fits my computer. Augh. This isn’t just bad luck. It’s bad design.(1) I call it “designed for the dump.”
我怎麼會累積這麼多充電器呢？我可不是那種新產品一推出就要趕去買的人，但偏偏舊款的東西不是壞了，就是太過時而不能用，而且沒有一個舊充電器跟我的新電腦相容。哇咧～這不只是運氣差，根本就是設計爛(註1)－－這些東西簡直就是「為丟棄而設計」。
“Designed for the dump” sounds crazy, right? But when you’re trying to sell lots of stuff, it makes perfect sense. It’s a key strategy of the companies that make our electronics.(2) In fact it’s a key part of our whole unsustainable materials economy.
「為丟棄而設計」聽起來很瘋狂是吧？但如果你的目的是要盡快賣出很多東西，這邏輯就很有道理了－－這可是電子產品公司的關鍵策略(註2)。事實上，「為丟棄而設計」也是構成整個不永續的物質經濟的關鍵。
Designed for the dump means making stuff to be thrown away quickly. Today’s electronics are hard to upgrade, easy to break, and impractical to repair. My DVD player broke and I took it to a shop to get fixed. The repair guy wanted $50 just to look at it! A new one at Target costs $39.(3)
「為丟棄而設計」意謂著「讓產品很快被丟掉」。現在的電子產品難以升級、容易損壞，要修理更是不切實際。我的DVD播放器壞了，拿去店裡修，維修人員光是看一看那台機器就要收我50美元，而量販店架上的新貨才39美元！(註3)
In the 1960s, Gordon Moore, the giant brain and semiconductor pioneer, predicted that electronics designers could double processor speed every 18 months. So far he’s been right. This is called Moore’s Law.(4) But somehow the bosses of these genius designers got it all twisted up. They seem to think Moore’s Law means every 18 months we have to throw out our old electronics and buy more. 話說
1960年代，高登‧摩爾這位天才，也是半導體業界的先驅，曾經預言：「設計師每18個月就能讓處理器的速度加快一倍。」到目前他都是對的，這叫「摩爾定律」(註4)。可是不知怎的，這些天才設計師的老闆把摩爾的原意完全扭曲了－－他們似乎認為摩爾定律指的是：每18個月，我們就該把舊款電子產品丟掉，然後買個新的。
Problem is, the 18 months that we use these things are just a blip in their entire lifecycle. And that’s where these dump designers aren’t just causing a pain in our wallets. They’re creating a global toxic emergency!
問題是－－我們使用這些東西的18個月，不過是整個產品生命週期中的一瞬間。足見這些垃圾設計師不只讓我們的荷包失血，還製造了全球的毒害危機！

【生產危害】

See, electronics start where most stuff starts, in mines(5) and factories. Many of our gadgets are made from more than 1,000 different materials, shipped from around the world to assembly plants.(6)
電子產品的源頭跟其他東西差不多，不外礦坑(註5)和工廠。我們使用的許多電子產品都是由上千種原料製成，這些原料從世界各地運送到組裝工廠。(註6)
There, workers turn them into products, using loads of toxic chemicals, like PVC, mercury, solvents and flame retardants.(7)
在那裡，工人用一堆有毒的化學物，像是PVC、汞、溶劑、阻燃劑，把材料組裝成產品。(註7)
Today this usually happens in far off places that are hard to monitor.(8) But it used to happen near my home, in Silicon Valley, which thanks to the electronics industry is one of the most poisoned communities in the U.S.(9)
這類加工通常都在偏遠的地方進行，很難監測控管(註8)。不過，這種事以前可是發生在我家附近，也就是矽谷。多虧了電子業，讓這裡成為美國毒害最嚴重的地區之一。(註9)
IBM’s own data revealed that its workers making computer chips had 40% more miscarriages and were significantly more likely to die from blood, brain and kidney cancer.(10) The same thing is starting to happen all around the world.(11) Turns out the high tech industry isn’t as clean as its image.
IBM公司本身的資料顯示，製造電腦晶片的女性員工流產機率比一般婦女高出40%，而且明顯比一般人更容易死於血癌、腦癌、腎癌。(註10)同樣的事情，也在世界各地發生。(註11)原來，高科技產業並不像表面看來那樣乾淨。
So, after its toxic trip around the globe, the gadget lands in my hands. I love it for a year or so and then it starts drifting further from its place of honor on my desk or in my pocket. Maybe it spends a little time in my garage before being tossed out.(12)
這些產品在完成環遊世界的毒害之旅後，到了我手上，被我寵愛大概一年後，逐漸失去了我的歡心，退出我的書桌或口袋，或許會躺在車庫裡一陣子，最後被掃地出門。(註12)

【廢棄處理】

And that brings us to disposal, which we think of as the end of its life. But really it’s just moved on to become part of the mountains of e-waste we make every year.(13)
接下來我們來看看它的廢棄處理－－我們以為電子產品將就此結束生命，其實它們只是被搬到我們每年製造的電子垃圾山上。(註13)
Remember how these devices were packed with toxic chemicals? Well there’s a simple rule of production: toxics in, toxics out. Computers, cell phones, TVs, all this stuff, is just waiting to release all their toxics when we throw them away. Some of them are slowly releasing this stuff even while we’re using them.(14) You know those fat, old TVs that people are chucking for high-def flat screens? They each have about 5 pounds of lead in them.(15) Lead! As in lead poisoning!(16)
還記得這些電子產品在組裝過程中，如何被塞滿有毒化學物嗎？嗯，產品製造有一項簡單原則，就是：毒物進，毒物出。電腦、手機、電視......所有這些東西，都等著在我們拋棄它們後，釋放所有蘊含其中的有毒物質。有些產品甚至在我們還在使用時，就已經慢慢釋放毒素了。(註14)你知道那種龐大笨重的舊款電視吧？人們有了高畫質液晶螢幕後就把它丟掉，但每一台舊電視機都含有5磅的鉛。(註15)鉛耶！鉛中毒的鉛耶！(註16)
So almost all this e-waste either goes from my garage to a landfill or it gets shipped overseas to the garage workshop of some guy in Guiyu, China whose job it is to recycle it.(17)
幾乎所有的電子廢棄物，不是從我的車庫流浪到垃圾掩埋場，就是被運到海外，交給中國貴嶼的廢棄物回收場處理。(註17)
I’ve visited a bunch of these so-called recycling operations. Workers, without protective gear, sit on the ground, smashing open electronics to recover the valuable metals inside and chucking or burning the parts no one will pay them for. So while I’m on to my next gadget, my last gadget is off poisoning families in Guiyu or India or Nigeria.
我造訪過一堆這種所謂的「回收處理場」。工人沒戴任何護具，坐在地上，砸碎電器，回收裡面有價值的金屬，然後把其他沒賺頭的零件扔掉或燒掉。也就是說，當我看上某個電子新歡的時候，我的上一個舊愛正在遠處毒害著貴嶼、印度、奈及利亞的家庭。
Each year we make 25 million tonnes of e-waste which gets dumped, burned or recycled.(18) And that recycling is anything but green. So are the geniuses who design these electronics actually… evil geniuses? I don’t think so, because the problems they’re creating are well hidden even from them.
我們每年製造2,500萬噸的電子廢棄物，這些廢棄物不是被棄置、燒掉，就是被回收，(註18)但那種「回收」壓根談不上環保。難道這些電子產品的設計師其實…想要害人嗎？我想並非如此，我認為他們製造出來的問題被巧妙遮掩起來，連設計師自己也被瞞過了。
You see, the companies they work for keep these human and environmental costs out of sight and off their accounting books. It’s all about externalizing the true costs of production.(19) Instead of companies paying to make their facilities safe the workers pay with their health. Instead of them paying to redesign using less toxics villagers pay by losing their clean drinking water. Externalizing costs allows companies to keep designing for the dump – they get the profits and everyone else pays.
這些設計師所效力的公司，讓他們看不到這些攸關人類健康和環境的成本，也不登帳，也就是把生產的實際成本外部化了。(註19)這些公司省下維護設施安全的成本，卻讓員工付出生命健康的代價；這些公司省掉重新設計低毒害產品的費用，卻讓村民付出失去乾淨飲水的代價。將成本外部化，讓這些企業得以持續「為丟棄而設計」，也就是利潤自己賺，代價別人付。

【更好的方法】

When we go along with it, it’s like we’re looking at this toxic mess and saying to companies “you made it, but we’ll deal with it.” I’ve got a better idea. How about “you made it, you deal with it”? Doesn’t that make more sense?
如果我們繼續默許這種事，幾乎就等於放任企業製造毒害亂象，還對他們說：「你製造，我收拾」。我有個更好的主意：「你製造，你收拾」如何？這樣不是更合理嗎？
Imagine that instead of all this toxic e-waste piling up in our garages and the streets of Guiyu, we sent it to the garages of the CEOs who made it. You can bet that they’d be on the phone to their designers demanding they stop designing for the dump.
試想，如果把這些堆滿我們車庫和貴嶼街道的有毒電子廢棄物，全都運到那些把它們製造出來的CEO車庫裡，這些CEO一定馬上打電話給設計師，叫他們停止設計垃圾。
Making companies deal with their e-waste is called Extended Producer Responsibility or Product Takeback.(20) If all these old gadgets were their problem, it would be cheaper for them to just design longer lasting, less toxic, and more recyclable products in the first place. They could even make them modular, so that when one part broke, they could just send us a new piece, instead of taking back the whole broken mess.(21)
要求企業處理他們所製造的電子廢棄物，叫做「生產者延伸責任」或「生產者回收」。(註20)如果所有舊產品都成為生產者必須解決的問題，那麼這些企業從一開始就會設計出更耐用、毒性更低、更容易回收的產品。他們甚至可以建立標準化模組，這麼一來，如果哪個零件壞掉了，他們可以直接寄一個新零件給我們，而不用把整台電器都報廢。(註21)
Already takeback laws are popping up all over Europe and Asia.(22) In the U.S. many cities and states are passing similar laws – these need to be protected and strengthened.(23)
歐洲和亞洲各國已紛紛制定有關「生產者延伸責任」的法律(註22)，美國的許多州和城市也通過了類似的法律－－但這些法律需要保護和加強。(註23)
It’s time to get these brainiacs working on our side. With takeback laws and citizen action to demand greener products, we are starting a race to the top, where designers compete to make long-lasting, toxic-free products. So, let’s have a green Moore’s law. How about: the use of toxic chemicals will be cut in half every 18 months? The number of workers poisoned will decline at an even faster rate?
是時候讓那些設計天才和我們並肩合作了。藉由「生產者延伸責任」的相關法律，以及要求電子產品更環保的公民行動，我們將發起一場卓越競賽，讓設計師比賽設計最耐用、無毒的產品。讓我們寫下「環保摩爾定律」吧－－「每18個月，有毒化學物使用量減半」，如何？還有，讓受毒害工人的數目以更快的速度減少，怎麼樣？
We need to give these designers a challenge they can rise to and do what they do best – innovate. Already, some of them are realizing they’re too smart to be dump designers and are figuring out how to make computers without PVC or toxic flame retardants.(24) Good job guys.
我們要給這些設計師一項令他們振奮的挑戰，並讓他們做最擅長的事－－創新。這些設計師當中，有人已經領悟到自己的聰明才智不該浪費在設計垃圾；他們現在正在想辦法不使用PVC和有毒阻燃劑來製造電腦(註24)。真是幹得好！
But we can do even more.
但我們還可以做得更多。
When we take our e-waste to recyclers, we can make sure they don’t export it to developing countries.(25) And when we do need to buy new gadgets, we can choose greener products.(26)
當我們要把電子廢棄物交給資源回收商時，要確認他們不會把這些廢棄物出口到發展中國家。(註25)當我們真的需要購買新的電子產品時，要選擇更環保的產品(註26)。
But the truth is: we are never going to just shop our way out of this problem because the choices available to us at the store are limited by choices of designers and policymakers outside of the store. That’s why we need to join with others to demand stronger laws on toxic chemicals and on banning e-waste exports.(27)
不過真相是：我們不可能光靠著改變消費行為，就解決這個問題；因為消費者在商店內的選擇，是由商店外的設計師與決策者決定的。因此，我們需要更多人通力合作，要求政府制定更全面且嚴格的法律，來限制毒性化學物質的使用，並禁止電子廢棄物的出口。(註27)
There are billions of people out there who want access to the incredible web of information and entertainment electronics offer. But it’s the access they want, not all that toxic garbage. So let’s get our brains working on sending that old design for the dump mentality to the dump where it belongs and instead building an electronics industry and a global society that’s designed to last.
全球有數十億人口想要遨遊在電子產品打造出來的資訊及娛樂網路中，但他們要的是資訊和娛樂，而不是有毒垃圾！所以，讓我們集思廣益、同心協力，揚棄「為丟棄而設計」的思維，建立環保而永續的電子產業和全球社會。