Red, Green & Blue: Green Gadgets or Just More Gadget Garbage?
Technophiles often like to point out how their gadgets help save the planet by, say, eliminating the need for CDs (think iPod), DVDs (TiVO) and other wasteful products because everything’s going increasingly digital. However, the fact that more and more gadgets are produced and purchased every year, and thrown away more frequently as they quickly become obsolete, negates some of those environmental benefits. In fact, Greenpeace estimates that, globally, we throw away between 20 and 50 tons of electronics every year.
Then there are the unintended other consequences: all the resulting waste generated by gadget catalogs, gadget manuals, gadget bills ( i.e., the 300-plus-page printed iPhone bill) … again, not exactly Earth-friendly.
Yes, it’s possible to recycle these gadgets after they outlive their cutting-edge usefulness, but many consumers don’t: the old electronics end up either languishing in closets and basements, leaching heavy metals into landfills, or piling up in Chinese scrap heaps until they are, maybe, recycled.
So how can the situation be improved? Yes, going digital eliminates a lot of extraneous waste, but should we do more to encourage — or even mandate — electronics recycling? What is the best way to reduce all this waste?
Tags: e-waste, electronic waste, electronics, gadgets, Red, Green and Blue
- Uncategorized
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:34 pm
Good Morning Shirley!
My wife LOVES her iPhone… I don’t think we’ve received a bill yet but I’ll keep you posted. We usually opt to get all of our bills electronically via e’mail anymore.
Obsolescence in electronics is a problem though. I stretch the life out of all of our computers here at work. I’ve still got a couple of 486s running DOS out in my warehouse simply because they work fine and there’s no need to replace them. I keep a small graveyard for parts but I’ve got a couple of skids of old machines that do need to go to the recycler.
One of the benefits of upgrading though is power consumption. Replacing all of the tube monitors with flat-screens saves a ton of electricity and the heat in the computer room is down because of it.
We are getting ready to replace our monthly statement mailing to our customers with an e’mail blast instead and wireless technology and RFID will also soon replace our picking paperwork when all of that becomes paperless. Plus I don’t even know how to measure how effective e’mail has been in reducing paper, mail and improving efficiency.
Generally in society newspaper readership is way down because most people are getting their news electronically now. I’ve only got one magazine subscription any more (Mother Earth News) where in the past I’ve had as many as a dozen.
You mentioned TIVO… now I love that guy. I’ve not used a VCR tape in over a year and my level of entertainment satisfaction has improved substantially.
I don’t know… I don’t seem much of a down-side here.
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Like you, Jimmy, I’m a TiVO fan! And, you’re right, there are other areas in which technology appears to be reducing waste (as with e-news). However, I seem to recall seeing studies that, even with e-mail and digital documents, paper waste in offices is still increasing (I’ll try to track that down).
What I see as a problem, however, is that — as with, say, nanotechnology — electronic/gadget technology is advancing more quickly than we’re able to deal with its consequences. With nanotechnology, the problem is that we’re seeing hundreds of commercial products using nanomaterials with very little research to show whether these materials are safe over the long term. With electronics, the problem is that gadgetry continues to be improved upon so rapidly that many people upgrade yearly (or more often) and chuck the perfectly workable but now obsolete old gadget.
What you’re doing to keep old electronics working as long as possible is admirable, Jimmy. Unfortunately, I think you’re a small, small minority in that regard. I’d wager far more people throw their old gadgets straight into the trash when they upgrade.
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Now don’t go picking on nano-technology Shirley. I think high density nano-capacitors will be the ticket for plug-in electric vehicles. With a re-charge cycle of minutes rather than hours and an infinite solid state lifetime this technology will soon replace chemical/metal batteries and at the same time replace the environmental fall-out.
As for office paper use it may very well be a bit higher than in the past because it’s so easy and fast to get a hard copy but if measured as a function of the level productivity I’d say paper has declined substantially.
August 22nd, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Of all things I worry about when I think of sustainable abundance, it’s electronics that I worry about most. I worry about gadgets for toxicity and rapid turn-over reasons. EPEAT and the EU’s RoHS are addressing this, and it’s a start, but (to echo McDonough/Braungart), “less bad is no good.” How about electronics designed for disassembly, with appropriate infrastructure (read: business opportunities) for reclaiming the parts? What about materials, like appropriate metals, that can be recycled without being downcycled? Or, how about materials that are biodegradable and even compostable? Given the tremendous turnover of tiny gadgets like cellphones, compostable materials could make a tremendous positive impact.
I think that packaging, casings, and circuit boards can be greened to a significant degree already. I worry about the electronic components themselves, particularly displays and chips. Organic LEDs exist as a display method, so there is promise there, but I don’t know how much of OLED tech is toxic. Organic semiconductors also exist, but they won’t run as fast as semiconductors made of silicon and the like for theoretical reasons (as explained to me by a physics grad student friend of mine). That may not be a problem, though, if we adopt architectures where pure megahertz is not necessary… like the already-established multicore chips, massively parallel processing systems (Beowulf cluster of iPhones, anyone? hehe), etc.
August 22nd, 2007 at 9:19 pm
c!, I like your idea for electronics designed for disassembly — that could make a big impact on electronic waste. Unfortunately, I suspect most electronics makers are far more interested in protecting their proprietary technologies than in encouraging interchangeable and easily replaced parts that work in any make or model gadget.
Jimmy, I don’t really see the benefit of your argument: "if measured as a function of the level productivity I’d say paper has declined substantially." If the absolute amount of paper waste going into our landfills (or natural spaces) increases, it increases, period. Measuring waste against productivity might be a useful business/economic exercise, but it doesn’t help the environment.
Re: nanotechnology, yes, it offers great potential in terms of energy capture and delivery. But everyone seems to be jumping into nanomaterials with both feet long before the long-term effects are known or understood. By that, I’m talking about nanomaterials in baby lotions, face creams, sunscreens, cosmetics, household cleansers, etc. And that’s the same problem I have with gadgetry: we keep adding newer and more gadgets to replace/improve upon/render obsolete older ones without any meaningful way to recycle or reuse the old gadgets.
August 22nd, 2007 at 9:50 pm
I think the formula does work if paper consumption is going down as a function of productivity measures; as in paper consumption vs. per capita GDP.
One would expect these to track linearly or worse but we are producing more output without the paper.
As a matter of concession though here’s a shot of my desk as I come to the end of a very busy day today.
Postit notes… business cards… printouts of e’mails of problems that require action… telecom bills for reconciliation… you name it…
August 22nd, 2007 at 9:56 pm
… and yes… "Swingline is a superior stapler"
August 24th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Wow, Jimmy, your desk is actually neat compared to mine!
Now, Jimmy, are you muttering … "… but then, they switched from the Swingline to the Boston stapler, but I kept my Swingline stapler because it didn’t bind up as much, and I kept the staples for the Swingline stapler and it’s not okay because if they take my stapler then I’ll set the building on fire… "
Imagine all the VOCs and heavy metals Peter Gibbons was breathing and shoveling at the end of that.
August 24th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
That movie is a classic… it’s one I can watch about once every 6 months… like Better Off Dead.
August 24th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
On a more serious note, here’s some food for thought (from the Times Online at http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article2283108.ece):
"According to industry analyst Lyra Research 1,520 billion pages of documents were printed in 2006. In the US each man, woman and child uses 700lb of paper annually and the average office worker generates 2lb of paper waste per day.
"The numbers are growing as the global economy expands, fuelled by the emerging economies of China, Brazil, Russia and India. And the numbers show little sign of slowing. World Resources Institute, an environmental think-tank, estimates that globally paper consumption has increased by a factor of 20 this century, has more than tripled during the past 30 years, and is expected to grow by a further 50 percent by 2010.
" ‘It’s a bit embarrassing really,’ said Jim Joyce, Xerox’s vice-president of office services. ‘Twenty years ago in the early part of my career we were talking about the paperless office. If anything things have gone in the opposite direction.’ "