Can We Do the Same Stuff but Without the Toxic Waste?
I was reading an interesting article about "green chemistry" the other
day. The designer of a new chemical who is a "green chemist" will consider
the effects of its use in the world from the moment of its creation, throughout
its entire lifecycle in the ecosystem. The development of green chemistry as a
worldwide industry is being driven by financial needs from manufacturers, as they
face expensive cleanup costs. But it's also driven by university research, and
institutions are training the materials engineers and other scientists who can
think and operate this new way.
At the same time I came across an article about the disposal problems consumers
are facing as millions replace their old television sets with flat-panel displays.
Most of us don't think about how to dispose of that metallic box full of toxic
wastes that we call our laptop, and which contains our lives. When we do, it's
easy to understand that we have a waste disposal problem with the laptop itself.
But the problem is vastly greater than that.
Computers are wonderful things. They enliven my life and improve its quality
so continuously that my interaction with them on a daily basis could not be
described in understandable terms to the average US citizen of, say, 1955. They
often do a very good job at what they're built to do. But it's the things that
they do which are not intended that need a closer look by, hopefully, "green"
designers. Designers who can design manufacturing, packaging, and shipping processes
that use less material and energy, and far less toxic materials; designers who
will pay attention to the possibly negative effects of humans using computers;
and designers who will think through the entire lifecycle of a computer and
plan for the reuse of its components in ways that are financially viable and
which do not fill up dumps with toxic waste.
Materials Intensity of Manufacture/Lifecycle
People who study the "materials intensity" of various kinds of manufacturing
processes perform minute measurements on the materials (metals, plastics, water)
and the energy used to manufacture various things. Forget about "toxic"
substances entirely for moment; would you have guessed that it takes nearly
600 pounds of fossil fuel and 6400 megajoules of energy to make a single Pentium
III computer with monitor? That makes typical information technology equipment
approximately 10 times as "dense," in terms of the relative amounts
of material to make it, than an automobile.
A lot of that fuel and energy is used in the manufacturing of silicon chips.
But there is also the fact that even to get a plastic keyboard, manufacturers
have to get raw materials, turn them into the right kind of plastics (with dyes
and other possibly toxic things), process them, mold them, and assemble them.
Each step takes energy, materials (sometimes toxic ones), and generates its
own waste at lifecycle points well before the end-of-life issues arise.
Toxicity During Use
Studies are popping up in the news media about this or that research which
hints that, for one example, the more people watch a computer screen the likelier
they are to have glaucoma. At the current stage of medical knowledge about such
things, I join most of us in dismissing those as "real" problems--at
least so far.
Here's a more real concern: A study recently found that 100 percent of every
tested computer (we're talking the keyboards here, which we touch constantly)
found the existence of brominated flame retardants. This category of chemical
is a neurotoxin and it is also bioaccumulative, meaning that multiple low-level
exposures add up over time and the chemical builds up in a living body. No one
is sure how much exposure is safe. The good news is that manufacturers are taking
a look now at ways to meet fire hazard standards without using such toxic chemicals.
There's no doubt a lot more of this kind of issue where this one came from.
Time will tell.
End of Life
A computer monitor might contain up to 8 pounds of lead, which we all know
is a toxin. Managing to get that lead out of the computer without it ending
up in a landfill seems pretty urgent--and not an easy task. Environmental scientists
generally call the kinds of issues involved in disposing of a computer "end-of-life"
issues. And a lot more chemicals than just lead are involved.
Most people, when they think of keeping a computer out of the landfill, think
of methods like recycling (by which they usually mean re-using)--where they
donate or sell the equipment to others who can extend its useful life. And there
are more and more attempts at finding effective ways to "mine" disposed
computers to pull out and create quantities of the toxic substances so they
can be used again in other manufacturing processes (think "green chemistry").
At least we, as consumers of IT products, can directly feel some responsibility
for end-of-life toxin issues and can address them (or not) as we choose. A much
larger issue, and not one that we as consumers of computers can have a direct
impact on, is the issue of "materials and manufacturing" of IT equipment.
It's far harder to make an impact on the manufacturing of a product and we can
only hope that the costs of cleanup, at the end of a product's lifecycle, eventually
ends up being put on the manufacturers and users, so there is real pressure
to introduce more efficient design at the front end.
Luckily, one of the ways that our problem with IT products is worse actually
makes for faster change. The turnover of computer products is much faster than
those of many other manufactured goods. This means that with a computer having
an active life of, say, 4-5 years, it's ready for the dump at the end of that
time. Whereas an automobile or a refrigerator might stay in use for quite a
bit longer.
Well. We don't have to think dark depressing thoughts about the wasteful manufacturing,
shipping, and disposal of the IT products that make our professional lives what
they are. But it definitely won't hurt us in the long run to be aware that there
are such related issues.
And no one would disagree that we can do a better job at the part we can directly
impact--end-of-life disposal. I don't know where the laptop and its components
on which I am typing this is going to be in 20 years and I bet that's true for
you, too. Shouldn't we at least begin to take some responsibility for disposal?
