At what cost do we innovate? This piece by Rick Hind, legislative director of Greenpeace USA’s Toxics campaign, is a real eye-opener to the environmental damage technological innovations can create. Hind sites his organization’s “Environmental Report Card for Technology Companies” in analyzing Apple’s poor environmental record, saying:
We all expect a lot more from Apple, a leader in product design and innovation. However, the company continues to withhold from the public the full list of regulated substances in its products, and has yet to provide timelines for the elimination of hazardous substances from their production lines. The first steps to greener computers are simple. Remove the two most toxic elements: polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic and brominated flame retardants (BFRs). When these substances are used in a product it poses risks to human health and the environment—from manufacturing to product disposal.
Apple isn’t the only company cited for poor practices in the Report Card but it is the focus of Hind’s attempt to raise awareness among consumers. He says, “Globally we generate between 20 and 50 million tons of e-waste every year.” This is very disturbing on many levels. The companies that produce electronics and are on the forefront of technology create more efficient and more powerful machines daily, but they do nothing to decrease the environmental impact of their products. Putting more transistors on a chip may increase computing power but it also increases the density of waste. Creating proper methods of disposal or recycling of e-waste is vital because what expounds the effect of e-waste on the environment even more is the fact that electronics are very disposable consumer products. Hind adds:
Of course, Apple isn’t alone in failing to address this problem. No company scored a 10 in our green guide. Nokia and Dell were at the top of the list with only a 7, hardly enough to make the honor roll. All of these companies can improve their score, and we as consumers should insist on it at every opportunity. Every company can and should take responsibility for their products’ entire life-cycle.
He also offers a simple two-step plan to “graduate from our school of environmentally-friendly electronics”. (1) Set a clear timeline to remove all toxic chemicals from electronic production and products and (2) develop a clear take back policy and recycling program. What Hind asks should be par for the course in America. It’s unbelievable frustrating to think that the country that leads the world in almost everything (good, and sometimes bad) is such a bad example of corporate responsibility more often than not. Hind concludes:
As consumers in the richest nations on earth, we cannot allow the people in the poorest regions of the world to be poisoned by the discarded excess of our high-tech gadgets. These products should be designed to be safe, re-usable and long-lasting, not intentionally designed to become obsolete faster than yesterday’s newspaper.
It’s all about sustainability folks, any way you slice it.
Recent Comments