EXPOSING THE OEM's FALSE ENVIRONMENTAL CLAIMS

[Anonymous]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/may/28/greenwash-electronic-waste
E-waste trade is the unacceptable face of recycling
exposing false environmental claims
Computer
manufacturers must take responsibility for dealing with electronic
waste to ensure toxic trash doesn’t fall into the wrong handsDell, the
world’s second largest PC manufacturer, announced earlier this month
that it is imposing a ban on the export of used equipment bearing its
name to developing countries – unless the equipment is in full working
order and intended for legitimate use.The idea is to undermine the huge
trade in e-waste, too much of which ends up in giant trash piles in
Africa, India and China, from where it is dismantled, burned, treated
with corrosive chemicals and otherwise persuaded to give up tiny
amounts of chemicals that can be sold on. The big question is why all
the other manufacturers don’t have a similar policy.I’ve seen these
toxic waste operations in action. They call it recycling, but it’s
extremely damaging. In an industrial wasteland outside New Delhi in
India, I watched as children as young as eight dunked bare circuit
boards in acid to create a residue of copper for sale to a local works.
Child labour? You bet. Health and safety? You have to be joking.

A
family of migrant boys from Bihar, India’s poorest state, told me they
got used to the acrid fumes that had them coughing and giddy within
minutes of coming on the job. “At the end of the day we have a strong
drink and we are OK,” one laughed. It’s an evil trade. But how do you
stop it?Dell admits that it cannot wave a magic wand and ban its used
products from export. But it has a worldwide policy of accepting back
without charge all used Dell equipment. It requires all its contractors
to accept the used equipment, to follow the new rules – and to act as
whistleblowers on rivals who do not.”This is a very significant
announcement,” Barbara Kyle of the Electronics Takeback Coalition in
the US told Associated Press earlier this month.

The e-waste
trade is the unacceptable face of recycling. Greenpeace reckons that as
much as 80% of the electronic waste sent for recycling in the US ends
up being “recycled” using dangerous low-tech methods in foreign
countries. And, despite Europe’s tougher laws, a lot gets through the
net there, too.Just a few months ago, Computer Aid International, a
charity that gives old computers a new life in schools and other places
in developing countries, criticised Britain’s Environment Agency for
failing to conduct an investigation after British e-waste turned up in
the hands of child dismantlers in west Africa.”What are the other
manufacturers doing to ensure a responsible outcome for the equipment?”
asked Tony Roberts, of Computer Aid International. “All manufacturers
should be held accountable for the disposal of any product manufacturer
by them.”Many other companies offer take-back services. But that is
very different from imposing rules on their supply chains. And on
closer examination, the take-back services often seem half-hearted at
best.

The printer maker Lexmark is currently covering Britain
with posters advertising its environmental credentials and encouraging
users of its printers to print less. Good for them. But what about the
e-waste?In the US, if you want to safely recycle an old Lexmark
printer, you have to pay the bill for shipping your printer back to its
offices in Tennessee.

A study by Greenpeace this month of the
environmental record of electronics companies did not give Dell a great
record because it had been slow to eliminate some toxic ingredients
from its products. But at least it is now taking a strong stand about
making sure those toxins don’t get into the wrong hands and it should
rise up the Greenpeace chart.

Its rivals will have to do a lot
better to keep up. Greenpeace singled out the largest computer
manufacturer Hewlett Packard on its handling of e-waste. HP claims to
have been “an industry leader in reducing its impact on the environment
… for 50 years”, but Greenpeace didn’t agree. It criticised HPs weak
scheme for voluntary take-back of its equipment amongst other
things.Also criticised for failing to handle e-waste were Acer and
Lenovo, whose “commitment to social responsibility” does not highlight
e-waste.These companies need to quit the greenwash and get real about
ending this bogus recycling business

[Author]

May 29, 2009 at 12:36 PM