I have all sorts of gadgets and computers that I don't use and I'm not comfortable getting rid of. It's not that I'm sentimentally attached to these things -- well, not to all of them. I still think my original Apple Newton MessagePad from 1993 is pretty sweet, as is my Danger Hiptop from 2002. But you can have my collection of leftover HP Inkjet printers!
The problem with throwing these things away is that computer electronics are made out of poisons. A single phone or laptop or monitor by itself isn't very dangerous to the environment. But there are millions of devices with computer chips manufactured every year and millions of them become obsolete every year. Computer chips contain toxic materials like lead, mercury and chromium. You should not eat computer chips and you have to be careful about how you dispose of them.
The dangerous nature of digital waste is not a new problem, and way back in the early '00s EPEAT was created to set standards for "green electronics." While EPEAT's standards are not legally binding, they have been widely supported by governments and consumer electronics companies. The list of participating manufacturers includes almost all the well-known brands that you're going to find in stores or online. EPEAT is a model of industry self-regulation, using jointly created standards instead of government policy to solve a serious environmental health issue.
One of the companies that helped set the EPEAT standards was Apple. And this week Apple just informed EPEAT that they are opting out of the standard!
So this is pretty serious. Apple is the thought leader for the tech industry right now. It will be hard for Samsung, Microsoft, Google and Sony to continue to support a standard that Cupertino is not supporting. It costs time, resources and money to keep computer waste out of landfills and water tables. If the first mover gives up on EPEAT, then the fast followers are sure to follow.
So why did Apple drop out of green computing? Is it too expensive? Is it too time consuming? Does it make Apple products non-competitive? According to CIO Journal, it was "design direction."
Blast you twee designers and your cutting-edge, hipster ways! You are killing the environment! (Sorry, I got carried away. Some of my best friends are designers!)
It might be hard for some folks to take Apple's explanation seriously. After all, isn't it possible to design cool products that are also environmentally friendly?
Maybe not.
Since the rise of the iPhone, Android and thin-obsessed laptops, the ability to easily and safely dispose of consumer electronics has disappeared. All these sleek, screw-less, wireless devices have to be glued and soldered together. Not only can't these things be repaired or upgraded, but they also can not be pulled apart to recycle their components.
This makes me mad because I think we could all put up with a little more clunkiness if it meant less poison deposited in the soil. After all, it's a design and fashion problem, not a technical problem. Just like smart fashionistas will not wear furs, maybe it's time for smart digerati not to buy phones without screws.
Follow John Pavley on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@jpavley
Apple seems to have realized the mistake and took the about turn (another example of great leadership @ Apple) :-)
http://www.fastcompany.com/1842811/apples-about-turn-all-eligible-products-rejoin-epeat
Apple's unibody laptops start as solid Aluminium billets that are cut to the outline dimensions of the device before 13 milling processes shave away about 97% of the material. The unibody has fixing points inside for all the electronics and wires, while the single piece construction means it is stronger.
Aluminium requires some of the highest energy input to process from raw.
Now as a counterpoint take the Asus Zen book. Stamped aluminium with milling to finish. Waste 3-5% and still as impressive a piece of design and engineering.
The bigger point is that they are selling more product lines that don't allow any third party repairs or upgrading. The product doesn't grow with the user needs, and before anyone suggests they are plenty well specc'd, just remember a powerful laptop 5years ago is easily beat by a smartphone today.
Apple repairs are outrageously expensive. Now look to Italy where all products come with 2yr guarantees and Apple's refusal to extend their 1yr warranty to match the 2yr standard is damning enough. In fact to really put it into perspective, for the first few years the iPod came with a ridiculous 6month warranty! What the hell does that say, especially when the first few generations of the iPod had well know battery degradation issues.
Form before function, planet or consumers and after profit margins is what Apple stands for today. And it makes me sad.
I find it interesting that iPads and machines of this form factor are starting to replace laptops and desktops as the standard for consumer computing. My hope is that the iPad's smaller size and greater desirability will lead to a vastly diminished landfill/toxin load. Ipads seem like they last a very long time (there is always someone that wants a hand me down) and since Apple accepts anything that they've ever made for recycling when they are used up or broken they will be handled properly.
But, while that sounds good the bad side is that many, many more computing devices are sold now than ever before. So even reduced materials, more recycling, longer use cycles -- even all this does little to offset the damage that we are doing.
So here here to the idea of clunky and reusable. And may I add a desire for a way to deal with older hardware such that it may still be used. There is no reason to orphan an iPad when it is too old to run the newest OS, for instance. That is exactly what happens, though. Users with older OSes have no access to older versions of applications to run on them.
We like to think we would be different than our slave owning ancestors. We like to think we are different than the evil polluting corporations, and their leaders who put their self-interest above all. We like to think we would have chosen differently.
Fact is, if we are holding an apple product in our hand, or have one on our desktop, we have made that decision. If we buy Apple we are the polluters, we are the slave owners. And our rationalizations to the contrary are as weak as the excuses our ancestors made about their slaves.
OK, so let's say I purchase a new expensive electronic product now, in 2012. If it stops working in a few months, a year, two years, three, what will I do? What would MOST people do? Take it to the dumpster? NO! I'd get it repaired! OK, four to five years later, what would be the logical thing to do? Maybe sell it or give it away? After that, what about laws regulating how ANY WASTE is taken care of? What about waste management companies, used resellers, etc.? Mechanics have to deal with this with motor oil, filters, batteries. Why must the manufacturers of electronics be the only ones responsible when they're being made? It's more of a problem that so-called "first world" citizens dispose of everything so readily and don't think about TRYING to responsibly deal with how they dispose of items that are supposedly not worth anything anymore. We have Goodwill Computerworks around here that sells many old computers, some really old. This serves many good purposes: people disposing responsibly, jobs for Goodwill people, lower income individuals can get good prices on perhaps older, but still functional electronics.
The result was that it wasn't worth it for the manufacturers to build different products for the EU versus the US. Nobody wanted to build lead-free materials for the EU market and also lead-filled materials for the US market. So the EU standards became the defacto standards in the US.
Companies like Apple and HP didn't find it cost effective to split their production into more-poisonous products for the US and less-poisonous products for the EU, so they just built common less-poisonous products for both markets. Of course they also started marketing their new "environmentally friendly" products -- like it was their decision.
That's pretty typical for big corporations. They whine and complain and lobby against things like this, then in the rare cases where they lose they start marketing campaigns touting how they've decided to start building more socially responsible products.
Basically, make the EPEAT suggestions law. Industry will follow.
Perhaps in the future, we won't even consider disassembly of old electronics and will recycle them by just grinding them up and separating the components.
http://www.apple.com/environment/#recycling
Having sad that, there are some ground rules in recycling electronics and as long as those are being followed, even billions of devices do not pose much of an issue in terms of release of unwanted substances. It's where people in the recycling business are cutting corners where things are getting dicy.
As for regulations... the industry is very well regulated by BINDING law. What goes into these devices has been thoroughly tested and is on the very harmless side of industrial products. Of course, if you break that LCD screen and you just have to lick it to taste what's in it... well, no amount of regulation can help you with that.