 | Currently
Labou
By Bryan James Kitto, Darnell Hamilton, Marissa Cuevas, Earl Scioneaux, Chris Violette
see related |
In today's world many of the gadgets we use advertise that they are environmentally friendly. In some cases this is a clever advertising ploy meant to sway those of us who are environmentally conscious to purchase their product. Since there is no single international standard for eco-lables, these are considered vague and meaningless distinctions by the International Organization for Standardization.
In other cases it is because of features built into the product such as power saving features in Energy Star compliant lighting, office equipment and appliances.
All of these are great Ideas but the burden is still on the consumer to use these products appropriately to maximize the benefit on the environment. Just owning green technology doesn't make you green. You still have to use good judgment in the way you consume resources. For instance the advent of the computerized office was supposed to eliminate paper waste. You remember the slogan the 'paperless office'. Well that was coined in the 1975 in Business Week Magazine. You'd think by now we'd be there. To the contrary the introduction of computers into the office increased paper use, doubling it from 1980 to 2000. The ability to print multiple copies without typing a document which are in turn easy to email and be printed again by the recipient accounts for some of the increase. Couple that with the ever growing paper trail that offices now keep to cover themselves from the IRS and other regulatory agencies as well as the ability of individuals to print documents at home as well as pictures, web pages, emails you can understand how the increase happened. To help minimize paper waste it is best to share documents online, write them to a disk or thumb drive to take with you or email them. You can also use recycled paper for those documents you have to print.
Energy Star compliant computers and monitors are nice but are rarely used to their fullest potential on desktop PC's. Instead we opt for screen savers that show off our computers graphic capabilities or our favorite family photo album. A computer running a screen saver causes our monitor and CPU to consume just as much energy as if you were actively using the computer. Computers and other appliances draw energy even if they are in sleep mode albeit not as much. It is still better to turn it off when its not in use. Even when the computer is turned off it consumes energy unless it is unplugged or turned off on a power strip. The best practice is to have all of your electronic equipment on power strips that can be turned off at the strip when not in use for prolonged periods of time. This will eliminate the vampire load drawn from the equipment which can consume 15 to 30 watts of power for each piece of equipment.
We all like to have the biggest and best monitors and television sets. With the advent of LCD screens at an affordable price its easier to fit that big screen in your home or office. This is good because Flat Screen monitors consume about 50% less energy than their CRT counterparts. This is also bad because a 17 inch LCD consumes 30% more energy than a 15 inch. Its best to have a screen that fits your needs instead of opting for the biggest screen you can squeeze into your workspace.
When looking for a printer consider buying an ink jet printer. It will consume about 80% less energy than a laser printer. Its also a good idea to share a printer on a network as opposed to having one in each cubicle or room of your home. A shared printer prints just as well and will use less energy as well as take up less space in your home or office than multiple printers.
Another important thing to consider is waste management. Do you have receptacles for recycling paper, aluminum and plastic in your home and office? These are some of the easiest items to collect for recycling , yet many never bother with it. When items that can be recycled go into a landfill everyone loses. Its more costly and takes more energy to produce the raw materials for these products than it takes to recycle them. There is also the cost of the city managing waste that could have been recycled. It cost taxpayer money to have municipal workers to pick up the trash, transport it and manage it in a landfill. Those garbage trucks are not exactly energy efficient vehicles either. Not to mention all the heavy equipment at the landfill like bulldozers, cranes and compactors that are required to bury these easily recyclable items into your local landscape.
Another factor to consider in waste management is how to dispose of your electronic equipment. Computers in particular contain many hazardous substances that are regulated by the EPA. Here is a list of just some of them:
- Lead in cathode ray tube and solder
- Arsenic in older cathode ray tubes
- Selenium in circuit boards as power supply rectifier
- Polybrominated flame retardants in plastic casings, cables and circuit boards
- Antimony trioxide as flame retardant
- Cadmium in circuit boards and semiconductors
- Chromium in steel as corrosion protection
- Cobalt in steel for structure and magnetivity
- Mercury in switches and housing
Americans junk over 3 million tons of electronic waste every year and it is the fastest growing category in our waste stream. One solution is to pay to have these items properly managed by a recycling facility. Another option is to donate your used computer equipment to a non-profit computer refurbisher like Computers for Charity who can provide you with a receipt for a tax deduction. We can then use this equipment to help individuals and other charities and non-profits. If we can't take it we can point you to an recycling facility that will properly handle your e-waste for you.
Being Green isn't just about saving the environment. It makes economic sense too. It also feels great to help someone else in need with what would have more junk in our landfills.
http://computersforcharity.webs.com/
Comments (2)
When "green" intersects with "selling more stuff" the results can definitely be counter-productive- the energy equivalent of "healthy low-carb fried pork rinds". All the attention is focused on buying the new green thing, with no thought of how much energy is consumed to make the new product and dispose of the old one. And the method they use to rate the product often has nothing to do with how the product is used in the real world.
"Cash for Clunker" programs seem tailor-made to force seniors and the poor to get rid of their old ( already paid for ) cars and into new ones ( and into new loans as well ). But what's really the environmental impact? As an extreme example, my friend Dave was using a 1965 Studebaker as a daily driver. How horrible! Absolutely no pollution control, and the thing only got 18 miles per gallon. BUT he only drove the thing to the store and library- usually on the same once-weekly trip. I would bet his total yearly mileage was less than 200 miles ( and it would have been dramatically less if he hadn't been showing it at the occasional car show )! How many years would he have to drive a brand-new hybrid before the energy cost would reach a breakeven point? He won't live that long! Getting a commuter who is driving a 100-mile round trip to Ann Arbor every day in a brand-new hybrid SUV to get into a carpool and/or a smaller car with less wind resistance would be far more effective from the environmental standpoint, but there isn't a big sales-driven lobby for that.
An example of unreasonable use is the new compact light bulb. For my aquarium, I've been writing the date on a bulb when I start using it. The light output of a florescent bulb falls off dramatically after a while- plants start dying and algae starts growing, even though the bulb is still glowing. So I started writing the date on those compact florescent bulbs that go in our home lamps too. The only way you will get the stated life on one of these new bulbs is if you leave it on all the time, which hardly saves energy! Even if you just turn the bulb on once a day for a few hours (with a timer, for example) you will be lucky to get 6 to 9 months of use- far short of the stated 8,000 to 10,000 hours. No government or consumer group seems interested in this issue- too many dollar signs get in the way.
Letting computers clog up with software glop ( and packing them with bloatware from day one ) seems to be a really great way to push people into upgrades. And of course, if the computer is slow and useless to you, it must be useless for everyone. Showing people how that 4-year-old computer can still be a useful peppy tool for people of limited means will be an important part of encouraging re-use instead of scrap-recycling.
@pkemner - If you read my previous post Give The Gift Of Technology you'll see I'm in full agreement with you. That post was a fairly strong indictment of the recycling industry of which I am a part. Many so-called recycling companies are unscrupulous and will simply dump the problem in other countries.
I'm not a big fan of government enforced environmental policies as I've seen how first hand the governtment has bungled everthing else. Our govenment is the biggest offenders in waste and over-consumption of resources.
I think if people realise that recycling is just common sense and it can save them money as well as better the quality of life for others then people will willing find the best solution to these issues. The points you brought up are great and were some I considered including in my post but I had to shorten it up some.
Thanks for the comment!