BBC NEWS | Technology | PC users ‘want greener machines’ — I’d be interested in knowing how many users consider this sort of thing in their thinking.
Consumers are willing to pay up to an extra £108 ($197) for a PC containing fewer chemicals, a survey has found.
People also feel manufacturers should take responsibility for the disposal of old machines, the research shows.
So-called e-waste is a growing global problem, with 30 million PCs being dumped each year in the US alone.
The study by Ipsos-Mori for Greenpeace coincides with an announcement by PC maker Dell to phase out a number of toxic chemicals in its products.
The nine-nation research found that UK computer users were willing to pay an extra £64 ($117), while people in China were prepared for spend up to £108 ($197) for a more environmentally sound PC.
Spend an extra $200 for a greener PC? … yeah right. I admire their initiative, but that’s a pretty pile of dough compared to the price of a computer. You can get a very good new desktop for $1000 – why would the market accept a 20% price hike? Or a cheap, $600 box – who will take a 33% hike? I don’t see it. Maybe $50 for a greener machine, but no more … (all prices in CDN$, but I’m pretty sure US prices are similar)
It’s not going to cost more to remove (change) those chemicals. There are alternatives readily available for most of them. It’s more a matter of apathy. It’s not a money making proposition and the “other” guy isn’t doing it, so why bother.
– Antimony trioxide is used as a flame retardant in the plastic case. Interestingly, it’s also used as a flame retardant in children’s clothing so it can’t be that dangerous. Who needs flame retardant in a desktop pc casing anyway?
– CRT’s are on the way out (Lead and Arsenic).
– Lead free solder is readily available.
– Are there mercury switches in a PC? Use a ball bearing switch then.
– They are complaining about chrome plating on steel. Who here has chrome on their puter? Not I.
– They claim there are cobalt alloys in a computer. Cobalt alloys are used for high temperature applications to retain shape (like parts in car engines). I think our puters can do with another alloy if there’s any cobalt there to begin with.
– The only elements that might be hard to eliminate are the Cadmium and Selenium in circuit boards, but for the rest of the stuff, I think Greenpeace is overreacting.
“Consumers are willing to pay up to an extra £108 ($197) for a PC containing fewer chemicals, a survey has found.”
What survey would that be, pray tell? A survey commissioned by Greenpeace and broadcast to the world by the leftist BBC, of course!
So, we are expected to pay $250 for a Nintendo Wii and then pay another $200 to have it recycled, eh? That is a totally stupid idea that will only come to fruition if the leftist in politics take it up as their new pet cause du jour.
If you can afford a computer than you must be rich anyways, right? So tack on a 10-30% recycling tax with every purchase. This isn’t about recycling but adding new tax revenue.
Well, I am willing to pay nothing extra. I still have my Apple ][ for cripes sake.
This is total BS I whould be interested in the questions and the group polled. Of coarse greenpeace does not have an agenda here.
Have wilie Wonka make emm out of chocolate and I will buy more than one.
Brill’s Back!
If by ‘Green Machine’ you mean it will save me money, yes. If you mean cost me money, no. Most of this type of BS usually is started by someone looking to make money with some sales pitch and all really does is cost the poor, ie myself, more money.
Again, I don’t care about the where the stuff goes or how it’s disposed of. If it created more jobs, here in the states then I might be for it, but they would probably just export those jobs to India just like all the other jobs.
How about something like a bottle deposit or tax credit, refunded when the machine is responsibly recycled at the end of its useful life.
These surveys are useless. When it comes time to plop the plastic on the counter people tend to show a greater appreciation for the bottom line. Old computers are a big problem. but what about other electronic discards. These smaller, cheaper items are thrown in the trash without much thought. The average life span of some of these gadgets are measured in months, and people buy a lot of them. I suspect many of the PCB’s and components aren’t nearly a scrutinized as computers are.
This reminds me of the recycling episode of Penn and Teller’s show “Bullshit.” Most people say they will happily commit to a recycling program, until they realize what a pain in the ass it is.
right now, i pay extra for electricity to support my local windmill farm, and if there were a pc on the market that offered fewer/less nasty chemicals, i’d buy it.
we all live on the same planet dude — why is everyone so hell-bent on poisoning themselves? what you throw out comes back to you via the water table.
The big problem is the 300 million obsolete machines estimated to be in storage. These older systems are about 30% heavy metal toxic waste by weight. Several studies have been done by the EPA:
http://www.epa.gov/osp/regions/emerpoll/swift.ppt
and private groups
http://www.svtc.org/cleancc/pubs/ppcttv2004.pdf
and the problem dwarfs disposal of nuclear waste in scale at least. It is likely that the problem will be addressed by the current administration; it simply isn’t a priority. Yhe issue is left to the states.
Corporations have been storing systems as it is cheaper on an annual report basis than proper disposal. Gartner estimates costs $135 per unit – mostly in certifiable tracking costs. Many states have new legislation including recycling fees. Indeed, significant habitual or large scale offenders can be charged with felonies – so the safer legal route is perpetual storage creating superfund sites under roof.
This is a pay me now or pay me later situation. The big concern is when hundreds of millions of obsolete analog TVs head for the landfill after 2008 or so.
typo: “It is likely that the problem will be addressed by the current administration” should be “It is UNlikely that the problem will be addressed by the current administration”
Thanks Mike.
While it’s true that a source as biased as Greenpeace is going to be suspect when they announce survey resluts that are so economically out of wack, that doesn’t make the bigger issue go away. The “my money is more important than my future” crowd forget that all the waste that is backing up (radioactive, biohazard, toxic) in “storage” will reach critical mass at some point in some place. Usually that’s when the anti-regulation, “free market” crowd demand govt. intervention to fix it.
The fact that we now have government by the businesses for the businesses is creating a batch of new “Love Canals” while managing to shed responsibility for the old ones.
I suspect it will take a tank at Hanford leaking through to the Columbia, or some similar Katrina style enviro disaster to wake people up. And that only as long as the 24/7 news cycle.
We side step the disposal problem here at work by giving our crappy computers to charity. I side step the problem at home by giving my crappy computers to relatives (also charity).
Not me…I would rather 7 pounds more of heavy metal be dumped on the ground so that I could get a PC for $50 less……
I never have and I never will spend one dime more (by choice) for anything “green.”
Mike T
Is this how they got British customers to pay $200 a year just for owning a TV? ‘Poll says Brits will pay up to 103 pounds a year to pay for BBC service (BBC News)’
Won’t $200 get you a new desktop?
We will soon be at the point where it costs more to legally dispose of the old system than to buy a new one. This should be a real concern for the PC industry, as it will cause fewer replacements, in a replacement only market. Intel and Microsoft, the authors of the planned obsolescence paradigm for PCs, will be the first hurt – poetic justice.
For Mike T, who would rather dump a couple of Kg of toxic waste into the water table than pay to dispose of it properly. Please do it in Connecticut; their penalties are the highest.
bs – i am willing to pay more for speed, reliability, and functionality – I dont care about the stupid trees, we burn them for heat, why should i care?
If i was offered a choice between good for environment and bad for environment, i’d always choose bad.
suck it greens.
Comment on #14 it isn’t bad to extend the life of a PC by finding an alternate use. That way it displaces one more PC from being manufactured – at least it helps contain the problem until a feasible cost effective solution can be developed. The trick is how to be acceptably productive with obsolete hardware.
tallwookie – you need to vacation in Taiwan