Green Electronics Guide From Greenpeace
by John Laumer, Philadelphia on 08.30.06
Corporate or product “ranking” systems of the past tended toward either an absolute “positive-screen” or a “negative-screen” approach. [Positive screening is what TreeHugger typically uses to find green lifestyle and product choices, for which we admit to some subjectivity: a must when beauty counts.] Pure-play negative screens were likely to populate their “dirty dozen company” lists based on some combination of self-reporting and governmental pollution and penalty reports. Lately we’ve seen more attempts to rank with “balanced” criteria, such as the new Green Electronics Guide from Greenpeace, which maps the major electronics makers on a spectrum ranging from a theoretical 'perfect green', through ‘less bad’, and down to to 'red-zone bad'. Have a glance at the full details of the new GP Guide ranking of Apple, Inc. here , or just the summary below the fold.
We like the graphic approach. However, while the Guide is based on logical metrics, missing is credit for light weighting of products (reducing mass or even turning grams to bytes). Think how much material has been conserved by the MP3 player, especially the iPOD. By Apple's pairing of its iPOD with its iTunes music distribution business, it surely could receive some credit for helping tip the for-profit music business, at-large, away from relying on sales of “stuff”. As if cued to this very idea, the Financial Times of yesterday reported that: “ Universal Music, the world’s largest music company is backing a start-up website [SpiralFrog] that will allow consumers to download songs for free. It will rely on advertising for its revenues, …” When SpiralFrog opens it's cyber doors for business in December of 2006, it could lead to positive environmental performance changes on a global scale. (Tip of the hat to Apple for helping take us one step further, and also to the now-banished file sharing innovators who first made online distribution known to the world's music lovers.)
The GP Guide also seems to overlook important value-laden tradeoffs. Example: is it better to design for disposable, single-use batteries, or to incorporate sealed rechargeables that match the design life of the operating technology? Who says so, and on what basis? And what about greenhouse gas emissions as a function of product design and end-use patterns? GHG emissions in product use-phase is something Greenpeace seems not to have even touched on.
The Guide's heavy focus on chemical use and/or material choice is also a bit confounding. Example: coated copper wiring commonly brings PVC along for the ride. The larger the electronic device, the greater the likelihood that non-trivial amounts of wire will be used: hence big devices like computers are almost sure to get down-ranked for PVC use. Perhaps Greenpeace hoped the Guide would encourage wire makers to find an alternate coating that meets consumer product fire protection specs? If so, why not just rank wire manufacturers? Could not early, global RoHS compliers get extra positive credit?
By now, most readers will have heard about the recent computer battery recalls from Dell and Apple. Millions of lithium batteries will have to be replaced at double the resource consumption per computer sold. Sony being the rechargeable battery supplier to both companies, the proactive solution is one of quality improvement at a single site, while the reactive solution is to ensure that the reclaimed batteries are actually recycled. This takes us to the big and value laden 'supply chain' issue: whose responsibility is it to design recyclable batteries, and make certain recycling potential actually meshes with retail business models in the first place? In this case, would it be Sony? Apple? Dell? Or, is it a shared responsibility of the industry at large with goverment as enabler/enforcer?
We wonder what it would take to make and profitably sell a "perfect" green electronic device per these criteria? Would it be a thing of beauty; or, a mongrel of pure functionality?
Finally, we puzzle over what happens when electronics design gets outsourced to China, a country not known for wise environmental management choices. We doubt whether a Chinese computer designer would spend much time reading a Greenpeace Guide. He might even be blocked from doing so by his own government! And if so, where does the "green-ness" feed back loop start and end?
Let us know what you think?
Personally, I don't much trust Greenpeace for anything. Any extremist group like them does more to soil the reputation of environmental causes than any good they may achieve.
As for Apple, it's time for TH to get over them; they're just another electronics company pushing just another DAP (Digital Audio Player) that's not any greener than any of the cheap korean models, and certainly not worth the premium pricing they charge because they spend so much more on marketing than anyone else.
Interesting... I looked at the report, and read the disclaimer that goes with it, and it answers most or all of the serious questions put here.
I think if Nokia and Dell can make phones and PCs that score far better than Motorola and Apple on the chart, and those companies are still making heaps of cash, then there's no excuse for not catching up.
Agreed, toxics aren't the only indicator of whether electronics are good or bad. But that's what Greenpeace's report is about. Again, I think there's no excuse for Apple and Motorola and Lenovo (who are they??) to be so far behind their competitors.
What's the deal Treehugger? Is this an enviro site or an Apple site.
Good points by Lister, noting that this is a toxics report.
Frankly, I'm with Greenpeace on this one. You talk about a perfect green machine and whether or not it would be a thing of beauty or a mongrel. I understand the design apect of Treehugger, and I even like it. I like being able to come here and find cool things that are environmentally friendly.
But let's not forget our priorities. If I could have a perfect green machine computer, I'd take it, even if it were a "mongrel". Aren't the product's effects on the environment a little more important than how well it goes with our new, sleek desk and chair?
Just a quick note for Lister:
Lenovo is the new name for the old IBM Thinkpad line. They're still as lousy as they've been for the last five years, but now they're sold under a new name.
Bad laptops, worse environmental impact.
Sad to see that Acer, a company that's fast becoming bigger and bigger, is so low on the list in responsibility.
It is not necessarily the DAP that makes what Apple did to the music industry "green", it is the distribution service that they set up. It goes to show what happens when a good idea meets good design - the product gains immense popularity. Us greenies have the ideas, now we need to help push that into the mainstream - that is why TreeHugger is so obsessed with design and why green technology also has to have a good aesthetic to break through.
For all of its benefits the global electronics industry is also responsible for serious environmental problems including the generation of more than 20 million TONs of “e-waste" each year. Greenpeace's new Guide to Greener Electronics focused on two of these problems: the unnecessary use of toxic ingredients and the difficulty these toxics pose when products inevitably become "e-waste" and end up in scrap yards in the developing world.
Earlier this year a Greenpeace China campaigner addressed HP's shareholders meeting and described the children he met in China's "e-waste" scrap yards: "Tragically these wastes are often the only toys they have...one child of a migrant worker family was playing with a cartridge. His face was covered with toner. He was only three years old."
To compare the industry's policies posted on their web sites Greenpeace used a 10 point grading system. No one scored zero or 10. The highest scores were 7 by Nokia and Dell, not exactly the honor roll. And Apple scored a 2.7 which is surprising given their reputation as an innovator. The bottom line is that any one of them could decide to be a 10 tomorrow.
Could we add more issues, sure and we're constantly discussing ways to address over-consumption of resources as well as energy use and labor practices. Going green is an ongoing process. But you have to start somewhere and the hazards posed by toxic contamination have gotten neither the attention nor the urgency of action they deserve.
Apple's music store was not the first, or the best. Apple took the ideas of others, and made them a success through a rabid marketing campaing, combined with an already successful DAP.
Apple wins points for marketing already tested technology.
It should be noted that ITunes could be considered one of the least environmentally friendly music stores, as they sell songs that can only be played back on hardware from one manufacturer, and which is married to one computer. Apple's music store has no provision for people whose computer is stolen to recover their purchases, as many other online retailers do. They have been noted for particularly poor customer service in this area repeatedly.
Sooner or later a report like this had to be done by someone, whether Greenpeace was the best one to do it is basically a moot point now, since they say they'll be doing quarterly updates.
Better to get GP to improve what so far is a flawed product. Like TH, I like the graphics approach GP uses, and their stress on metrics where possible. But...they have to rely on inputs beyond what is published on the company websites, but verifiable input. Just because a company website or press release says that they have a recycling program in country X does not mean that the program is readily accessible or even known to consumers in that country.
GP also needs to be more consistent in their application of the criteria. For example, why talk of penalizing Samsung for providing voluntary take-back in some countries but not all they sell in, when almost every company in the list -- including others rated higher -- does the same thing, but GP doesn't mention penalizing them? Why rate Sony and Samsung "partially bad" for providing little and incomplete information on their recycling programs, when high-rated Nokia does the same thing but is rated "partially good" for this same item?
If chemicals/materials management is as important as GP stresses (and I am not quibbling with that emphasis), why obsess so much on PVC and PBRs, as if heavy metals were not still a problem? Maybe less so in Europe, but certainly not yet in developing nation markets.
I tend to agree with TH in that GP needs to find a way to account for trade-offs, since proper waste planning & management is never as simple a choice as who takes back x% of their end-of-life products. Why not look at the whole picture -- waste reduction, lower processing waste, use of less packaging, support for remanufacture and reuse (this mentioned only in passing twice)?
The report talks much about Europe, North America, Japan and China, but little about the rest of Asia and next to nothing about Latin America and Africa. Given its network of offices worldwide, GP can't check on the status in places like Brazil, Chile, India, Mexico or the Philippines? For example, many jurisdictions in Brazil require take back of WEEE and/or all cell phones batteries -- why doesn't GP mention whether or not these 14 companies are complying? Do only European regulations and China's Green Box matter?
Why were only these 14 companies chosen? On what basis? The report itself does not say. Why, for example, was Epson omitted? Canon? Brother? Konica Minolta? Xerox? Kyocera Mita? Olivetti? Ricoh? Sharp?
Anyone interested in my other musings on this can read them at my blog.
I think Keith has hit it on the head here, the report is selective and half finished, and I ahve said as much at ecoIron. I'll give credit for GP being the one of the first to take a stab at this, but the fact is the ePEAT is much more comprehensive. And, since the epeat standard was developed collaboratively, they have more buy in. The polemics that GP spouted in the 70s just don't apply in 2006; they are really in danger of being a mumbling relic from the 1970s. Come on, get with it.
Mark, which of these Greenpeace polemics of the 1970s doesn't apply in 2006: The one about nuclear testing or the one about whaling, or the one about environmental destruction generally? Come on Mark, read the papers.
I'm saying polemics don't fly in 2006. In 1970, environment destruction was grossly misunderstood and unreported. Now we have a much better handle on it, but Greenpeace hasnt changed their brand in 30 years. 30 years! Read my post Yogurt Bombs http://ecoiron.blogspot.com/2006/08/yogurt-bombs-away.html. Still doing the same old stuff. And I'm suggesting that when decision makers read these reports from Greenpeace, they will feel alienated and dismiss them as non-serious, marketing, a throwback, exactly as many readers here have done. Flies and honey have never been so impotrant than they are today.
Read the papers... I haven't bought a paper in over 5 years. It's my point - it's outdated like the GP rhetoric.
I don't buy papers, and I don't take account of self-instrumented and directed reports that bash others.