A huge crackdown in the US is forcing technology firms to come clean about the source of the minerals used in smartphones and electronics.
****A huge crackdown in the US is forcing technology firms to come clean about the source of the minerals used in smartphones and electronics. There are four most commonly mined conflict minerals, they are Cassiterite (for tin), Wolframite (for tungsten), Coltan (for tantalum), and gold ore. These are all extracted from Eastern Congo (www#1). These resources take a ride thru the global supply chains and end up in our mobile phones, laptops, jewelry and other products. These items are traded on the exchange swapped by banks. This is a global problem, profits from the diamond and gold trade stir up the pot and contribute to conflict (www#1).
Since February 2018, the Securities and Exchange Commission has considered weakening or repealing the US rule, the Dodd Frank Act 1502, as it has turned in a boycott of minerals. The purpose is to prevent militia groups mining profits to fund fighting. Rescinding this rule and allowing congress and the executive to develop better policies to this problem is the clear solution (www#2).
Some tech lobbies, wishing to wash their hands of any responsibility for the exploitation of blood minerals has recently listed that coltan is no longer used in the making of mobile phones, tablets, consoles or cameras. Also to state that mines were closing. However, the truth is out there that the demand for the mineral is still greater than its supply (www#3).
www #1: Responsible Minerals https://www.globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/conflict-minerals/#more (Links to an external site.)
www #2: Negative Impacts of US conflict minerals law being ‘exaggerated’ https://chemicalwatch.com/67181/negative-impacts-of-us-conflict-minerals-law-being-exaggerated (Links to an external site.)
www #3: Blood and Minerals: Who profits from conflict in DRC https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2016/01/blood-minerals-profits-conflict-drc-160118124123342.html*********
PROVIDE A REACTION OR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO THE TEXT ABOVE
Your initial reply to another student must be a minimum of 250 words, must reflect your research, must be written in your own words and not copied and pasted from online. As you research, select one specific aspect, example or area of evidence and focus on it so you can provide in-depth details. I do not want you to spend your words on a broad overview. I want you to teach us in depth about one aspect, example or area of evidence. Your initial posting should reflect your research and should present in-depth information about some aspect of the problem, or its causes, or potential solutions, or what is being done (or needs to be done). Explain actual evidence and/or example.
- Cite your source(s) within the sentences of your posts.
- At the end of your posts, include the source’s complete citation. A complete citation has two parts: 1) the website’s title, and 2) the website’s URL.