Tuesday, September 29, 2009
REUTERS STORY--CLOUD COMPUTING--rick maxwell put me onto this
The Green Cloud: Hype or Reality?
Mon Sep 28, 2009 3:00am EDT
The cloud, as we all know, is the hot IT topic of the moment; in Gartner's latest Hype Cycle, published last month, Cloud Computing holds the dubious honor of being tied with e-book readers at the top of the "peak of inflated expectations."
From the press release announcing the latest Hype Cycle:
The “Hype Cycle for Emerging Technologies” is the longest-running annual Hype Cycle, providing a cross-industry perspective on the technologies and trends that IT managers should consider in developing emerging-technology portfolios. This Hype Cycle features technologies that are the focus of attention in the IT industry because of particularly high levels of hype, or those that may not be broadly acknowledged but which Gartner believes have the potential for significant impact.
“Technologies at the Peak of Inflated Expectations during 2009 include cloud computing, e-books (such as from Amazon and Sony) and Internet TV (for example, Hulu), while social software and microblogging sites (such as Twitter) have tipped over the peak and will soon experience disillusionment among enterprise users,” said Jackie Fenn, vice president and Gartner Fellow.
Chart courtesy of Gartner.
But in the last week, I've happened upon a number of blog posts and news items talking about the most important (from my perspective, at least) element of the cloud: Is it green?
I raised this question, somewhat indirectly, in July from the standpoint of Microsoft's online-Office announcement:
Both Microsoft and Google have extremely efficient large-scale data centers; both companies are aiming for an industry-leading PUE of 1.12 in their computing centers. Expanding the use of these services means more incentive to concentrate IT operations in these top-of-the-line facilities, and will continue the shift that individuals are already undertaking toward netbooks -- cheap, web-centric laptops that forgo much of the established abilities of desktops and full-sized laptops for more portability and lower price.
We'll come back to my take on this topic, but first, the rundown. In a new article on NetworkWorld, Tom Jowitt looks at the findings of Rackspace's latest Green Survey, and finds plenty of skepticism:
over 21% of IT managers believe that cloud computing is a much greener alternative to traditional computing infrastructures, but it seems that the vast majority still remain to be convinced.
Thirty-five percent said they were not convinced on the green benefits of cloud computing, and 25 percent felt that there was too much hype around the green benefits of cloud computing. Meanwhile 19% felt that the true green benefits of cloud computing have not yet been realized.
Seven percent admitted that cloud computing was critical to their company becoming greener; 14% are currently evaluating cloud computing and its environmental benefits; 13% have considered the benefits of cloud computing as part of their overall environmental strategy; and 20% would be interested in learning more about the green benefits of cloud computing.
But a sizable portion (46%) said that cloud computing was not a part of their overall environmental strategy.
Graphic courtesy of Rackspace.
While CIOs and IT managers as a whole are still uncertain about the green benefits of the cloud, big business -- and industry experts -- see the green lining. Exhibit A: a blog post from David Talbot at MIT's Technology Review, which kicks off thusly:
Cloud computing may raise privacy and security concerns, but this growing practice -- offloading computation and storage to remote data centers run by companies such as Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo -- could have one clear advantage: far better energy efficiency, thanks to custom data centers now rising across the country.
"There are issues with property rights and confidentiality that people are working out for mass migration of data to the cloud," says Jonathan Koomey, an energy-efficiency expert and a visiting professor at Yale University. "But in terms of raw economics, there is a strong argument," he adds. "The economic benefits of cloud computing are compelling."
Exhibits B-Y: our own regular coverage of green data centers, from ultra-efficient facilities to training courses for green data center management.
Finally, Exhibit Z is an article from last week looks at some numbers comparing Software as a Service (aka "SaaS" -- another term for cloud computing) to traditional in-house computing facilities. That article, from Chris Thorman, looks at a medical-office system for electronic medical records management and finds that a four-physician practice using one HP ProLiant server running 24/7/365 and accessed by four Dell 546 desktops will save 93 percent of its energy bill by switching to a SaaS system outsourced to 2 Dell PowerEdge 2950s and four netbooks to access the system.
As a caveat, Exhibit Z certainly doesn't make the case in and of itself; switching to netbooks from desktops may improve utilization for the one outsourced software application, but there are plenty of other uses of the system that makes this a less desirable solution; but it is a telling case in point.
My argument in favor of cloud computing, at least in some situations, is the same as it was this summer: Consolidating computing into facilities that are designed for extreme efficiency just makes good sense, whether you're looking at the cloud from a green perspective -- which a company with a well developed environmental platform like Rackspace certainly is -- or from a cost-savings standpoint, which every company, Rackspace most definitely included, is also doing.
The results of the Rackspace Green Survey reveal more a lack of familiarity rather than a true skepticism about cloud computing; cost-conscious and trend-wary CIOs are certain to be skeptical about the new big thing coming down the pike. But as offerings for virtualized services expands, this resistance is almost certain to dwindle.
But, to the orignal question: Is it green? Again I would argue that cloud computing is certain to be greener than a multitude of in-house data centers.
The simple business imperative of maximizing profit and minimizing costs is sure to drive cloud providers toward the most efficient computing practices possible, and the side benefits of energy efficient computing in a world of carbon limits and climate legislation makes green IT a necessity from a compliance standpoint as much as an operations standpoint.
Watch this space; all signs suggest strongly that in the coming months and years, we'll see that every cloud has a green lining.
Mon Sep 28, 2009 3:00am EDT
The cloud, as we all know, is the hot IT topic of the moment; in Gartner's latest Hype Cycle, published last month, Cloud Computing holds the dubious honor of being tied with e-book readers at the top of the "peak of inflated expectations."
From the press release announcing the latest Hype Cycle:
The “Hype Cycle for Emerging Technologies” is the longest-running annual Hype Cycle, providing a cross-industry perspective on the technologies and trends that IT managers should consider in developing emerging-technology portfolios. This Hype Cycle features technologies that are the focus of attention in the IT industry because of particularly high levels of hype, or those that may not be broadly acknowledged but which Gartner believes have the potential for significant impact.
“Technologies at the Peak of Inflated Expectations during 2009 include cloud computing, e-books (such as from Amazon and Sony) and Internet TV (for example, Hulu), while social software and microblogging sites (such as Twitter) have tipped over the peak and will soon experience disillusionment among enterprise users,” said Jackie Fenn, vice president and Gartner Fellow.
Chart courtesy of Gartner.
But in the last week, I've happened upon a number of blog posts and news items talking about the most important (from my perspective, at least) element of the cloud: Is it green?
I raised this question, somewhat indirectly, in July from the standpoint of Microsoft's online-Office announcement:
Both Microsoft and Google have extremely efficient large-scale data centers; both companies are aiming for an industry-leading PUE of 1.12 in their computing centers. Expanding the use of these services means more incentive to concentrate IT operations in these top-of-the-line facilities, and will continue the shift that individuals are already undertaking toward netbooks -- cheap, web-centric laptops that forgo much of the established abilities of desktops and full-sized laptops for more portability and lower price.
We'll come back to my take on this topic, but first, the rundown. In a new article on NetworkWorld, Tom Jowitt looks at the findings of Rackspace's latest Green Survey, and finds plenty of skepticism:
over 21% of IT managers believe that cloud computing is a much greener alternative to traditional computing infrastructures, but it seems that the vast majority still remain to be convinced.
Thirty-five percent said they were not convinced on the green benefits of cloud computing, and 25 percent felt that there was too much hype around the green benefits of cloud computing. Meanwhile 19% felt that the true green benefits of cloud computing have not yet been realized.
Seven percent admitted that cloud computing was critical to their company becoming greener; 14% are currently evaluating cloud computing and its environmental benefits; 13% have considered the benefits of cloud computing as part of their overall environmental strategy; and 20% would be interested in learning more about the green benefits of cloud computing.
But a sizable portion (46%) said that cloud computing was not a part of their overall environmental strategy.
Graphic courtesy of Rackspace.
While CIOs and IT managers as a whole are still uncertain about the green benefits of the cloud, big business -- and industry experts -- see the green lining. Exhibit A: a blog post from David Talbot at MIT's Technology Review, which kicks off thusly:
Cloud computing may raise privacy and security concerns, but this growing practice -- offloading computation and storage to remote data centers run by companies such as Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo -- could have one clear advantage: far better energy efficiency, thanks to custom data centers now rising across the country.
"There are issues with property rights and confidentiality that people are working out for mass migration of data to the cloud," says Jonathan Koomey, an energy-efficiency expert and a visiting professor at Yale University. "But in terms of raw economics, there is a strong argument," he adds. "The economic benefits of cloud computing are compelling."
Exhibits B-Y: our own regular coverage of green data centers, from ultra-efficient facilities to training courses for green data center management.
Finally, Exhibit Z is an article from last week looks at some numbers comparing Software as a Service (aka "SaaS" -- another term for cloud computing) to traditional in-house computing facilities. That article, from Chris Thorman, looks at a medical-office system for electronic medical records management and finds that a four-physician practice using one HP ProLiant server running 24/7/365 and accessed by four Dell 546 desktops will save 93 percent of its energy bill by switching to a SaaS system outsourced to 2 Dell PowerEdge 2950s and four netbooks to access the system.
As a caveat, Exhibit Z certainly doesn't make the case in and of itself; switching to netbooks from desktops may improve utilization for the one outsourced software application, but there are plenty of other uses of the system that makes this a less desirable solution; but it is a telling case in point.
My argument in favor of cloud computing, at least in some situations, is the same as it was this summer: Consolidating computing into facilities that are designed for extreme efficiency just makes good sense, whether you're looking at the cloud from a green perspective -- which a company with a well developed environmental platform like Rackspace certainly is -- or from a cost-savings standpoint, which every company, Rackspace most definitely included, is also doing.
The results of the Rackspace Green Survey reveal more a lack of familiarity rather than a true skepticism about cloud computing; cost-conscious and trend-wary CIOs are certain to be skeptical about the new big thing coming down the pike. But as offerings for virtualized services expands, this resistance is almost certain to dwindle.
But, to the orignal question: Is it green? Again I would argue that cloud computing is certain to be greener than a multitude of in-house data centers.
The simple business imperative of maximizing profit and minimizing costs is sure to drive cloud providers toward the most efficient computing practices possible, and the side benefits of energy efficient computing in a world of carbon limits and climate legislation makes green IT a necessity from a compliance standpoint as much as an operations standpoint.
Watch this space; all signs suggest strongly that in the coming months and years, we'll see that every cloud has a green lining.
CNN GETS REAL
By Matt Ford
For CNN
(CNN) -- Clouds of black smoke from burning plastic hang over the sites of Nigeria's vast dumps, as tiny figures pick their way through slicks of oily water, past cracked PC monitors and television screens.
Toxins from dumped electronics in developing countries has been seen as a growing problem.
But it isn't just a cut from broken glass these mainly young scavengers are risking. Much of the discarded electronic kit contains tiny -- but valuable -- quantities of aluminum, copper, cadmium and other minerals, all of which can be sold on, if they can be recovered.
However they also contain highly toxic materials, which have been linked to reproductive problems and cancers.
"People living and working on and around the dump sites, many of whom are children, are exposed to a cocktail of dangerous chemicals that can cause severe damage to health, including cancer, damage to the nervous system and to brain development in children," Kim Schoppink, Toxics Campaigner at Greenpeace, told CNN.
"The open burning creates even more hazardous chemicals among which are cancerous dioxins."
No studies have been done on the extent of the chemical pollution of such sites in Nigeria, but in 2008 a Greenpeace report on similar dumps in nearby Ghana confirmed that high levels of lead, phthalates and dioxins were present in soils and the water of a nearby lagoon.
A Chinese academic report published in "Environmental Health Perspectives" in 2007 confirmed that children living in the same area had higher levels of toxic metals in their blood than other children living nearby.
Don't Miss
* Accounting for climate change
* How green is the Internet?
* Trash on top of the world
There is increasing evidence that this new health and environment problem is arriving in shipping containers from Western countries. Nigeria is one of the principal global destinations for "e-waste" -- the catch-all term for discarded consumer electronics.
Some of this may have been legitimately handed in to be recycled in an EU or U.S. city, but lax enforcement, vague legislation and a lack of political will has meant that it instead passes through a network of traders keen to profit from developing countries' hunger for hi-tech and a burgeoning second hand market.
According to the United Nations Environment Program around 20 to 50 million tons of e-waste are generated worldwide each year.
In 2008 a Greenpeace study, "Not in My Backyard", found that in Europe only 25 percent of the e-waste was recycled safely. In the U.S. it is only 20 percent and in developing countries it is less than one percent.
Extrapolating out from these figures the report concluded that a massive 80 percent of e-waste generated worldwide is not properly recycled. Some is burnt in Western incinerators or buried in landfill sites.
But much is exported to developing countries including India, China, Pakistan, Nigeria and Ghana. When it arrives, a further percentage may be repaired and sold on to populations desperate for affordable technology. But anything beyond the skills of local traders will end up dumped.
It's a profitable business, and is already attracting the attention of organized crime. A report issued by the United Nations in July said that the criminal gangs behind much of the drug trade in West Africa were becoming involved with e-waste trading.
The volume of material on the move is staggering. In 2005, more than 500 containers full of e-waste entered Nigerian ports every month, according to the Basel Action Network, a U.S. NGO campaigning on issues surrounding toxic waste.
Each one contains 10 to 15 tons of e-waste, totaling 60,000 to 90,000 tons per year. These figures are likely to have increased in recent years.
There seems little doubt that much of this waste is finding its way to Africa from Western countries. The Basel Action Network and Dutch NGO Danwatch have traced equipment from Europe to Nigerian dumps and earlier this year Greenpeace placed a radio tracking device in a broken TV handed in for safe recycling in the UK, but followed it to a Nigerian market.
"Greenpeace is disappointed especially by U.S. and EU authorities," said Schoppink.
"It is toxic waste from the U.S. and EU countries that is causing serious environmental and health problems in Nigeria, a country without the means to deal with this problem.
"The U.S. and EU must play the biggest role in stopping the spread of e-waste; they are most responsible for the problem and have the resources to tackle it. The export of e-waste from the EU is illegal under the Basel Convention and the Waste Shipment Directive, but the laws are not being sufficiently implemented. In the U.S., there is no such law banning this practice.
"In Nigeria the government is talking about stopping imports, but there has been no progress on this to date."
Signs of progress
There are calls from environmental groups likes Greenpeace for electronics producers to do more to phase out their use of hazardous substances, and there are some signs of progress.
Several electronics companies already make products using fewer hazardous substances, and others, including Nokia, Philips and Samsung are setting up voluntary collection and recycling systems in countries where they are not legally obliged to. Apple claims its products are now almost entirely free of the worst toxic chemicals.
"If producers continue to use hazardous chemicals in their electronics and to fail to take responsibility for the safe disposal of their products, e-waste will continue to be dumped in developing countries," said Schoppink.
"The pollution and related health problems in countries where e-waste is dumped will increase massively as the amount of electronics used worldwide is growing exponentially and the number of countries used as dump sites will grow."
But while the developing world needs the U.S. and EU to take responsibility for their waste, it also needs their discarded computers to train and build a 21st century workforce.
"Nobody is arguing that Africa should be denied access to computers," said Tony Roberts, Founder and Chief Executive Officer of Computer Aid International, a charity licensed by the UK Environment Agency, which provides recycled computers to developing countries to improve education and healthcare.
"Technical colleges and universities are always short of resources. It is, of course, essential to developing economies escaping poverty to have access to affordable modern technology."
Computer Aid works to close the digital divide between the north and southern hemispheres and offers corporations, including Coca Cola, as well as individuals, a positive way of disposing of electronics. They also believe learning about responsibility for that technology is a crucial part of the exchange.
"Computer Aid argues that, in addition to the PCs, it is essential to also build the skills, knowledge and operating capacity in every country to manage responsible re-use programs and environmentally sound end-of-life recycling."
advertisement
In the end, this is about everyone involved -- particularly the developed nations -- taking responsibility for their waste.
"It is clear that companies have a moral obligation to treat Africa in exactly the same way that they do, say, Germany," said Roberts. Until then, toxic black smoke will continue to cast a shadow over lives across the developing world.
For CNN
(CNN) -- Clouds of black smoke from burning plastic hang over the sites of Nigeria's vast dumps, as tiny figures pick their way through slicks of oily water, past cracked PC monitors and television screens.
Toxins from dumped electronics in developing countries has been seen as a growing problem.
But it isn't just a cut from broken glass these mainly young scavengers are risking. Much of the discarded electronic kit contains tiny -- but valuable -- quantities of aluminum, copper, cadmium and other minerals, all of which can be sold on, if they can be recovered.
However they also contain highly toxic materials, which have been linked to reproductive problems and cancers.
"People living and working on and around the dump sites, many of whom are children, are exposed to a cocktail of dangerous chemicals that can cause severe damage to health, including cancer, damage to the nervous system and to brain development in children," Kim Schoppink, Toxics Campaigner at Greenpeace, told CNN.
"The open burning creates even more hazardous chemicals among which are cancerous dioxins."
No studies have been done on the extent of the chemical pollution of such sites in Nigeria, but in 2008 a Greenpeace report on similar dumps in nearby Ghana confirmed that high levels of lead, phthalates and dioxins were present in soils and the water of a nearby lagoon.
A Chinese academic report published in "Environmental Health Perspectives" in 2007 confirmed that children living in the same area had higher levels of toxic metals in their blood than other children living nearby.
Don't Miss
* Accounting for climate change
* How green is the Internet?
* Trash on top of the world
There is increasing evidence that this new health and environment problem is arriving in shipping containers from Western countries. Nigeria is one of the principal global destinations for "e-waste" -- the catch-all term for discarded consumer electronics.
Some of this may have been legitimately handed in to be recycled in an EU or U.S. city, but lax enforcement, vague legislation and a lack of political will has meant that it instead passes through a network of traders keen to profit from developing countries' hunger for hi-tech and a burgeoning second hand market.
According to the United Nations Environment Program around 20 to 50 million tons of e-waste are generated worldwide each year.
In 2008 a Greenpeace study, "Not in My Backyard", found that in Europe only 25 percent of the e-waste was recycled safely. In the U.S. it is only 20 percent and in developing countries it is less than one percent.
Extrapolating out from these figures the report concluded that a massive 80 percent of e-waste generated worldwide is not properly recycled. Some is burnt in Western incinerators or buried in landfill sites.
But much is exported to developing countries including India, China, Pakistan, Nigeria and Ghana. When it arrives, a further percentage may be repaired and sold on to populations desperate for affordable technology. But anything beyond the skills of local traders will end up dumped.
It's a profitable business, and is already attracting the attention of organized crime. A report issued by the United Nations in July said that the criminal gangs behind much of the drug trade in West Africa were becoming involved with e-waste trading.
The volume of material on the move is staggering. In 2005, more than 500 containers full of e-waste entered Nigerian ports every month, according to the Basel Action Network, a U.S. NGO campaigning on issues surrounding toxic waste.
Each one contains 10 to 15 tons of e-waste, totaling 60,000 to 90,000 tons per year. These figures are likely to have increased in recent years.
There seems little doubt that much of this waste is finding its way to Africa from Western countries. The Basel Action Network and Dutch NGO Danwatch have traced equipment from Europe to Nigerian dumps and earlier this year Greenpeace placed a radio tracking device in a broken TV handed in for safe recycling in the UK, but followed it to a Nigerian market.
"Greenpeace is disappointed especially by U.S. and EU authorities," said Schoppink.
"It is toxic waste from the U.S. and EU countries that is causing serious environmental and health problems in Nigeria, a country without the means to deal with this problem.
"The U.S. and EU must play the biggest role in stopping the spread of e-waste; they are most responsible for the problem and have the resources to tackle it. The export of e-waste from the EU is illegal under the Basel Convention and the Waste Shipment Directive, but the laws are not being sufficiently implemented. In the U.S., there is no such law banning this practice.
"In Nigeria the government is talking about stopping imports, but there has been no progress on this to date."
Signs of progress
There are calls from environmental groups likes Greenpeace for electronics producers to do more to phase out their use of hazardous substances, and there are some signs of progress.
Several electronics companies already make products using fewer hazardous substances, and others, including Nokia, Philips and Samsung are setting up voluntary collection and recycling systems in countries where they are not legally obliged to. Apple claims its products are now almost entirely free of the worst toxic chemicals.
"If producers continue to use hazardous chemicals in their electronics and to fail to take responsibility for the safe disposal of their products, e-waste will continue to be dumped in developing countries," said Schoppink.
"The pollution and related health problems in countries where e-waste is dumped will increase massively as the amount of electronics used worldwide is growing exponentially and the number of countries used as dump sites will grow."
But while the developing world needs the U.S. and EU to take responsibility for their waste, it also needs their discarded computers to train and build a 21st century workforce.
"Nobody is arguing that Africa should be denied access to computers," said Tony Roberts, Founder and Chief Executive Officer of Computer Aid International, a charity licensed by the UK Environment Agency, which provides recycled computers to developing countries to improve education and healthcare.
"Technical colleges and universities are always short of resources. It is, of course, essential to developing economies escaping poverty to have access to affordable modern technology."
Computer Aid works to close the digital divide between the north and southern hemispheres and offers corporations, including Coca Cola, as well as individuals, a positive way of disposing of electronics. They also believe learning about responsibility for that technology is a crucial part of the exchange.
"Computer Aid argues that, in addition to the PCs, it is essential to also build the skills, knowledge and operating capacity in every country to manage responsible re-use programs and environmentally sound end-of-life recycling."
advertisement
In the end, this is about everyone involved -- particularly the developed nations -- taking responsibility for their waste.
"It is clear that companies have a moral obligation to treat Africa in exactly the same way that they do, say, Germany," said Roberts. Until then, toxic black smoke will continue to cast a shadow over lives across the developing world.
THOMAS NET OFFERS THIS
September 28, 2009
What E-Waste Regulations Mean to Your Business
By Ilya Leybovich
As production and use of electronic products increases, so do the regulations governing their disposal, making it vital for manufacturers and consumers to understand how to best discard electronic waste.
Electronic products have long played a prominent role in the consumer market, but the past two decades have seen substantial increases in the rate of manufacturing and consumption of electronic goods. With the frequent pace at which electronics are rendered obsolete by new models or advances in technology, a significant portion of these products eventually becomes electronic waste, or e-waste, that can harm the environment and incur fines or other penalties when disposed of incorrectly.
According to the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA), the United States consumer electronics industry grew from $137.3 billion to $178.6 billion between 2005 and 2008, with an average increase of roughly 9.2 percent per year. Since the recession hit, the industry is expected to contract by 7.7 percent through 2009, but this still leaves a market of $164.9 billion that is forecast to expand in 2010.
As the cost for common electronic goods has dropped, consumption has risen. A 2008 report, from CEA and PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), found that the number of electronic products owned in an average U.S. household rose from 10 in 1990 to 25 in 2007. According to the CEA/PwC report, 98 percent of households own a television, 82 percent a DVD player, 74 percent a computer and 73 percent a cell phone.
When older electronics are replaced or become obsolete, many of them are discarded. Although it is difficult to track the precise rate of electronic waste accumulation, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that in 2007 alone the U.S. generated 2.25 million tons of televisions, cell phones and computer products no longer in use. Of these, roughly 18 percent were collected for recycling and 82 percent for disposal, mainly in landfills.
The EPA attributes the 18 percent of recycled e-waste in 2007 (up from 15 percent the previous year) to the introduction of mandatory recycling and collection programs in several states. (The full list of state-by-state statutes and regulations can be found HERE.)
Currently, there are 19 states and one municipality with e-waste disposal laws in place. Many of these regulations require manufacturers to pay for some or all of the collection, transport, recycling or disposal processes. Some states have established administrative programs to regulate e-waste activities and enforce policy violations.
In many cases, electronics manufacturers and distributors with output above a set number of electronic devices are required to pay a registration fee along with renewal fees every year to provide funds for local recycling or disposal efforts. These payments range from an initial fee of $10,000 for manufacturers producing more than 1,000 video displays a year in West Virginia, to an advance recycling fee of $6 to $10 charged at the point of sale for each video display unit in California.
According to the EPA's regulations and standards, facilities that generate more than 220 pounds of electronic waste per month must have their disposal methods regulated under federal hazardous materials guidelines, while businesses that dispose of less than 220 pounds per month are exempt from the hazardous materials restrictions.
Electronic circuit boards are also subject to certain exemptions from federal e-waste disposal rules. Whole unused circuits boards are unregulated, while whole used circuit boards are treated as scrap metal and do not fall under hazardous waste restrictions. Depending on their composition and whether they are containerized, shredded circuit boards may be exempt from solid waste categorization.
Concern over electronic waste has become a global issue due to the rapidly rising accumulation of e-waste and expanding regulatory efforts to manage it.
"The pollution and related health problems in countries where e-waste is dumped will increase massively as the amount of electronics used worldwide is growing exponentially and the number of countries used as dump sites will grow," CNN.com claims.
According to a report from Pike Research, the volume of electronic waste worldwide is expected to peak at 73 million metric tons by 2015, after which it will begin to decline as e-waste disposal initiatives increase in effectiveness.
In the meantime, working within federal or state guidelines to properly dispose of electronic waste, thus avoiding penalties and hazardous risks, is an important process for electronics producers and consumers alike.
What E-Waste Regulations Mean to Your Business
By Ilya Leybovich
As production and use of electronic products increases, so do the regulations governing their disposal, making it vital for manufacturers and consumers to understand how to best discard electronic waste.
Electronic products have long played a prominent role in the consumer market, but the past two decades have seen substantial increases in the rate of manufacturing and consumption of electronic goods. With the frequent pace at which electronics are rendered obsolete by new models or advances in technology, a significant portion of these products eventually becomes electronic waste, or e-waste, that can harm the environment and incur fines or other penalties when disposed of incorrectly.
According to the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA), the United States consumer electronics industry grew from $137.3 billion to $178.6 billion between 2005 and 2008, with an average increase of roughly 9.2 percent per year. Since the recession hit, the industry is expected to contract by 7.7 percent through 2009, but this still leaves a market of $164.9 billion that is forecast to expand in 2010.
As the cost for common electronic goods has dropped, consumption has risen. A 2008 report, from CEA and PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), found that the number of electronic products owned in an average U.S. household rose from 10 in 1990 to 25 in 2007. According to the CEA/PwC report, 98 percent of households own a television, 82 percent a DVD player, 74 percent a computer and 73 percent a cell phone.
When older electronics are replaced or become obsolete, many of them are discarded. Although it is difficult to track the precise rate of electronic waste accumulation, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that in 2007 alone the U.S. generated 2.25 million tons of televisions, cell phones and computer products no longer in use. Of these, roughly 18 percent were collected for recycling and 82 percent for disposal, mainly in landfills.
The EPA attributes the 18 percent of recycled e-waste in 2007 (up from 15 percent the previous year) to the introduction of mandatory recycling and collection programs in several states. (The full list of state-by-state statutes and regulations can be found HERE.)
Currently, there are 19 states and one municipality with e-waste disposal laws in place. Many of these regulations require manufacturers to pay for some or all of the collection, transport, recycling or disposal processes. Some states have established administrative programs to regulate e-waste activities and enforce policy violations.
In many cases, electronics manufacturers and distributors with output above a set number of electronic devices are required to pay a registration fee along with renewal fees every year to provide funds for local recycling or disposal efforts. These payments range from an initial fee of $10,000 for manufacturers producing more than 1,000 video displays a year in West Virginia, to an advance recycling fee of $6 to $10 charged at the point of sale for each video display unit in California.
According to the EPA's regulations and standards, facilities that generate more than 220 pounds of electronic waste per month must have their disposal methods regulated under federal hazardous materials guidelines, while businesses that dispose of less than 220 pounds per month are exempt from the hazardous materials restrictions.
Electronic circuit boards are also subject to certain exemptions from federal e-waste disposal rules. Whole unused circuits boards are unregulated, while whole used circuit boards are treated as scrap metal and do not fall under hazardous waste restrictions. Depending on their composition and whether they are containerized, shredded circuit boards may be exempt from solid waste categorization.
Concern over electronic waste has become a global issue due to the rapidly rising accumulation of e-waste and expanding regulatory efforts to manage it.
"The pollution and related health problems in countries where e-waste is dumped will increase massively as the amount of electronics used worldwide is growing exponentially and the number of countries used as dump sites will grow," CNN.com claims.
According to a report from Pike Research, the volume of electronic waste worldwide is expected to peak at 73 million metric tons by 2015, after which it will begin to decline as e-waste disposal initiatives increase in effectiveness.
In the meantime, working within federal or state guidelines to properly dispose of electronic waste, thus avoiding penalties and hazardous risks, is an important process for electronics producers and consumers alike.
Monday, September 28, 2009
USEFUL DOCUMENT FROM E-WASTE U.K.
Where do we bin the box?
Posted: 28 Sep 2009 01:00 AM PDT
2012 is almost here, and the big switchover from analogue television signals to digital services is well and truly upon us. But with the majority of us choosing to upgrade our TV sets, what will happen to the masses of old and outdated equipment? Are we set for a landfill explosion? And where do the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Regulations come into the equation?
Of course, it isn’t imperative that we throw out our old sets, there is the option of buying a Freeview digibox, which will convert existing televisions to receive digital broadcasts. But with new technologies offering sleeker designs, smaller footprints and larger screens the temptation to upgrade is more irresistible than ever. When you combine these facts with the additional benefit that new televisions often have Freeview built in, it would appear that there will be a lot of old sets ready for the scrapheap.
When you also consider that the UK creates approximately 1.8 million tonnes of Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) each year, you can see why it is more important than ever to think very carefully about what we are going to do with the TVs we no longer want or need.
In Wales, the Environment Agency, which started its digital switchover on August 12th 2009, is quite clear that landfill is an unsustainable solution for discarding our waste. The agency has confirmed that the disposal of Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) televisions comes under the requirements of the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Regulations.
So what do we do?
Well, thankfully there are a few options:
Ask the retailer where you purchased your equipment if they will take your equipment back, or arrange for the retailer who delivers you new equipment to take away your old appliances. Remember that retailers, known as distributors in the UK WEEE regulations, of household electrical or electronic equipment (EEE) are legally obliged to ensure that WEEE from private households can be returned for recycling.
Take your old equipment to a local civic amenity site, or arrange for your Local Authority to collect larger appliances (bear in mind that some Local Authorities provide a free collection service and others charge).
Unfortunately, Local Authorities have no direct legal obligations under the WEEE Regulations to recycle your electrical waste, but they are incentivised by the Government to help, so it is worth checking out what your options are.
Another couple of things worth bearing in mind are that second-hand electrical and electronic equipment that is in good working order is not classified as waste and can be donated or sold to other organisations such as charities. However, broken electrical and electronic equipment that cannot be reused is classified as waste.
If you know the facts and what resources and options are available to you, there is every chance that the current 1.8 million tonnes of WEEE we produce each year won’t balloon in the lead up to 2012.
But as always, knowledge is power…
More information on your local area's facilities can be found by contacting your local council's Waste and Recycling departments directly.
The full public list of all the approved authorised treatment facilities (AATFs) in the UK for WEEE can be found on the Environment Agency's website: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/topics/waste/32086.aspx
The Environment Agency has also created a useful document called ‘What do the WEEE Regulations mean for householders?’ which can be found at: http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/pdf/GEHO0507BMOM-e-e.pdf
For more information on the implications of the digital switchover, visit http://www.digitaluk.co.uk/localgov/council_services/environment_and_planning
Posted: 28 Sep 2009 01:00 AM PDT
2012 is almost here, and the big switchover from analogue television signals to digital services is well and truly upon us. But with the majority of us choosing to upgrade our TV sets, what will happen to the masses of old and outdated equipment? Are we set for a landfill explosion? And where do the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Regulations come into the equation?
Of course, it isn’t imperative that we throw out our old sets, there is the option of buying a Freeview digibox, which will convert existing televisions to receive digital broadcasts. But with new technologies offering sleeker designs, smaller footprints and larger screens the temptation to upgrade is more irresistible than ever. When you combine these facts with the additional benefit that new televisions often have Freeview built in, it would appear that there will be a lot of old sets ready for the scrapheap.
When you also consider that the UK creates approximately 1.8 million tonnes of Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) each year, you can see why it is more important than ever to think very carefully about what we are going to do with the TVs we no longer want or need.
In Wales, the Environment Agency, which started its digital switchover on August 12th 2009, is quite clear that landfill is an unsustainable solution for discarding our waste. The agency has confirmed that the disposal of Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) televisions comes under the requirements of the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Regulations.
So what do we do?
Well, thankfully there are a few options:
Ask the retailer where you purchased your equipment if they will take your equipment back, or arrange for the retailer who delivers you new equipment to take away your old appliances. Remember that retailers, known as distributors in the UK WEEE regulations, of household electrical or electronic equipment (EEE) are legally obliged to ensure that WEEE from private households can be returned for recycling.
Take your old equipment to a local civic amenity site, or arrange for your Local Authority to collect larger appliances (bear in mind that some Local Authorities provide a free collection service and others charge).
Unfortunately, Local Authorities have no direct legal obligations under the WEEE Regulations to recycle your electrical waste, but they are incentivised by the Government to help, so it is worth checking out what your options are.
Another couple of things worth bearing in mind are that second-hand electrical and electronic equipment that is in good working order is not classified as waste and can be donated or sold to other organisations such as charities. However, broken electrical and electronic equipment that cannot be reused is classified as waste.
If you know the facts and what resources and options are available to you, there is every chance that the current 1.8 million tonnes of WEEE we produce each year won’t balloon in the lead up to 2012.
But as always, knowledge is power…
More information on your local area's facilities can be found by contacting your local council's Waste and Recycling departments directly.
The full public list of all the approved authorised treatment facilities (AATFs) in the UK for WEEE can be found on the Environment Agency's website: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/topics/waste/32086.aspx
The Environment Agency has also created a useful document called ‘What do the WEEE Regulations mean for householders?’ which can be found at: http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/pdf/GEHO0507BMOM-e-e.pdf
For more information on the implications of the digital switchover, visit http://www.digitaluk.co.uk/localgov/council_services/environment_and_planning
Sunday, September 27, 2009
PRINTING REMAINS A PROBLEM
sacbee.com
This story is taken from Sacbee / Our Region / Top Stories
California's 'green' ink-cartridge recycling fails to cut pollution, or costs
tknudson@sacbee.com
Published Sunday, Sep. 27, 2009
On paper, the recycling program was touted as a bold step toward California's green, climate-friendly future.
A mountain of plastic and metal would be diverted from landfills. Greenhouse gas emissions would tumble. And one of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's climate change goals – trimming power use in state buildings by 20 percent – would nudge closer to reality as agencies snapped up new, more efficient office printers.
That is what state and Hewlett-Packard officials said last year when they joined forces to ship used HP printer ink cartridges from state offices to Virginia to be ground up and recycled into auto parts, serving trays, clothes hangers and other products.
But a Bee investigation, based on more than 100 pages of e-mails and other records, has found that 17 months after it was created, the program has delivered few if any of its promised climate benefits.
Almost from the start it ran into opposition from the state's purchasing specialists at the Department of General Services, who were not consulted about it and who – once they started asking questions – turned up other concerns, including allegations of unfair competition and ink waste.
They also favored reusing cartridges by refilling them at local businesses, a process known as remanufacturing.
"It is to HP's advantage to get as many remanufacturable cartridges off the market as possible," Robert Tetz, manager of the department's environmentally preferable purchasing program, said in an e-mail to his boss last year. "I don't believe that this partnership arrangement passes the smell test."
The recycling plan is one of many purportedly eco-friendly initiatives launched in California, a state that portrays itself as a green-minded model for the world. But Scot Case, who investigates green marketing claims, said the state HP plan is the wrong choice for the environment.
"It is completely ridiculous to ship a product from California to Virginia to be reground when you could refill those cartridges in California and reuse them," said Case, vice president of TerraChoice Environmental Marketing, which places the green "EcoLogo" label on thousands of consumer products – but not on new printer cartridges.
"You would use fewer resources," Case said. "And you would create significantly less global warming impacts."
For their part, most DGS employees are not free to speak to The Bee. "We have a policy that we have high-level spokespeople … respond to questions," said Jeffrey Young, the agency's deputy director of public affairs.
And Tetz, the green purchasing manager, has been ordered to clam up. "Bob, per my voicemail, I need you to stand down on any communication with Mr. Knudson. Call me …" Jim Butler, DGS' chief procurement officer, said in an e-mail.
But their views come through clearly in electronic correspondence.
"The bottom line is that it is environmentally preferable and fiscally prudent to buy remanufactured toner cartridges for state laser printers from California small businesses," wrote Ben Martin, an engineering branch manager at DGS, in an e-mail to a colleague.
Targeting a river of waste
Printer cartridges are a mainstay of the modern office – and a vexing waste problem. One 2007 industry report estimated 46 percent of the larger kind, known as laser jet cartridges, and 84 percent of the smaller inkjet cartridges are dumped in landfills after one use. A follow-up study, commissioned by HP, found 34 percent of the company's laser jet cartridges and 78 percent of its inkjets end up in landfills after one use.
The state-HP recycling effort was aimed at shrinking that river of waste by diverting up to 100 tons of spent state cartridges from landfills every year. But state and HP officials said it would have an additional benefit, striking a blow against climate change by curbing greenhouse gas emissions by 500 tons annually.
Here's how it was supposed to work: For every HP cartridge purchased and recycled, state agencies would earn points toward buying new, more energy-efficient HP printers. Top officials said that would trim power use and slice pollution.
"I'm very excited to announce this project and encourage every state agency and department to recognize the big impact small actions can have to reduce our environmental footprint," said Rosario Marin, then secretary of the State and Consumer Services Agency, in an April 2008 news release.
"Working together to find creative ways to reduce pollution and save money is the best model for a public-private partnership. We strive to be green, while saving lots of green."
Marin, who resigned earlier this year after it was learned that she had accepted money for speeches from drug companies, could not be reached for comment. But records show her advisers believed the plan would be an easy sell.
"These exchanges are low-hanging fruit," said one agency document. "This program will be quickly adopted by other government agencies … because of its inherent efficiency and cost saving potential."
Reuse called better option
That turned out to be wildly optimistic. At the Department of General Services, where the words "Building Green – Buying Green – Working Green" are displayed prominently on a first floor wall, the plan met with disbelief.
"The only way the huge reductions in greenhouse gases are achievable is if higher-priced, more efficient HP equipment is purchased statewide," wrote Tetz in an e-mail. His program seeks to ensure that state purchases are environmentally sound.
He added that DGS, which draws up contracts for the purchase of everything from copy paper to fluorescent lights, had not researched the plan's claims and could not "ensure an ongoing contractual relationship with HP to achieve these 'goals.'
"I have a significant amount of data that suggests remanufactured cartridges are … a much better proposition," he said in other e-mails. "Just avoiding shipments of pallets by FedEx to Virginia is a big greenhouse gas saving … "
Scott Canonico, environmental program manager for HP, disagreed, saying in an interview that used cartridges are worse for the environment because they are poorer quality and waste more paper.
"With that waste … any benefits of remanufacturing can easily be offset," he said. "That's why HP has stuck with a single use and recycling model – to deliver on our promise of quality and reliability."
He said HP has examined the environmental and climate costs of its recycling program, such as energy consumption, and found them acceptable. Asked to provide data to back his claim, Canonico declined. "Those are internal decision-making type of assessments," he said.
Nationwide, reused cartridges are growing in popularity. "It saves us a ton of money," said Eric Nelson, environmental purchasing manager for King County, Wash., which for years has bought remanufactured cartridges. "We're not using new petro-chemicals to make new cartridges. We know we are doing a good thing for resource conservation."
There have been no quality or waste problems, Nelson said, calling their experience "great."
Inside a Cartridge World franchise in El Dorado Hills, owners Gary and Micaela McConnell recently ticked off a list of customers buying remanufactured cartridges from their store. It included Marshall Hospital, Red Hawk Casino and McDonald's – but not the state.
"They're not reusing," Gary McConnell said. "They are just recycling."
HP wouldn't correct defect
It wasn't the recycle vs. reuse debate that caught the attention of Dave Henning, a buyer in the Food Acquisitions Group at DGS. It was toner waste.
And it began with a routine office job – changing out an empty cartridge on an HP color laser printer. "Dave noticed that the toner cartridges needed to be changed more often than he expected and often felt like they were nearly full," a DGS report says.
An investigation found that cartridges were being shipped back to Virginia for recycling when they were over half full.
"When the printer uses color, all three color cartridges record one use, regardless of which colors were actually used," the report says. "When any of the three color cartridges becomes empty, the printer will not print unless all three cartridges are changed."
Serious money was at stake. Color cartridges for the 5500dn model cost $560 for all three. Since last year, the state has bought 399 of the HP printers, for about $2,700 each.
In an employee suggestion report, Henning tallied up the numbers and estimated the state was losing $1.5 million a year "in unnecessary cartridge replacement. Hewlett Packard should correct this defect."
HP, though, declined to do so. "We are limited in our ability to modify these products due to resource and business constraints," an account manager wrote DGS in an e-mail obtained through the California Public Records Act.
Tetz was dubious. "I share staff opinion that they could if they wanted to," he wrote in an e-mail, "or perhaps if it were profitable to do so."
DGS responded by dropping the model from the state printer contract. For his part, Henning applied for a state merit award – a cash prize given to employees who spotlight waste. He will soon pick up his winning $3,476 check.
As Henning was examining cartridges, Martin – who, as engineering branch manager, worked in the procurement division – was calling attention to another concern: unfair competition.
"Perceptions of favoritism or an uneven playing field are counter to the division's image," Martin said in an e-mail.
His concern gained traction. The problem, documents show, was a provision in which agencies were encouraged to switch to new, more efficient HP printers by accumulating points for buying and recycling HP cartridges.
That could potentially steer business to HP without competitive bidding. "The points had the potential of influencing purchasing decisions," Jim Butler, deputy director and chief procurement officer at DGS, told The Bee. "We did not want anyone to feel like they had a conflict of interest."
Ultimately, DGS dropped the provision.
The points were dropped in October 2008, meaning no new energy-efficient, climate-friendly HP printers would be plugged into state office buildings in exchange for print cartridges after that date – and no greenhouse gas reductions would accumulate, either.
Where things stand
Today, the program limps along on recycling only. And not much of that is even getting done. At the state Consumer and Services Agency – which announced the program – only about 10 cartridges a year are recycled.
More than 600 were shipped by DGS back to Virginia for recycling, but none have left the agency's loading dock since March. Butler, who generally favors reusing cartridges, said DGS is working on a more environmentally responsible purchasing contract requiring that all new state printers be compatible with remanufactured cartridges.
Statewide, new cartridge purchases continue to dwarf remanufactured ones. From May 2007 through April 2008, agencies using the state office supplies contract spent $6.2 million on new toner cartridges, DGS figures show, and just $807,000 – or 11 percent – on reused ones.
Butler said he believes the numbers may be higher, because not all purchases are included in the contract.
Those numbers do not please Tetz, the purchasing manager. But they also are no longer his problem because he was transferred out of his job nine days ago in a move Butler said is unrelated to his criticism of the HP partnership.
"I'm pleased with the work Mr. Tetz has done," Butler said. "I think he has a great deal to be proud of."
Despite repeated requests by The Bee, Butler declined to let Tetz speak for himself. "I think we can give you the answers you're looking for by talking to me," Butler said.
For his part, Tetz is angry and frustrated by the events of the past 17 months.
"We continue to waste millions of dollars per year … to the detriment of the environment," he wrote in a letter to the Bureau of State Audits in August. "I have attempted for well over a year to address and resolve a serious problem and … have been ignored or thwarted at every turn."
This story is taken from Sacbee / Our Region / Top Stories
California's 'green' ink-cartridge recycling fails to cut pollution, or costs
tknudson@sacbee.com
Published Sunday, Sep. 27, 2009
On paper, the recycling program was touted as a bold step toward California's green, climate-friendly future.
A mountain of plastic and metal would be diverted from landfills. Greenhouse gas emissions would tumble. And one of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's climate change goals – trimming power use in state buildings by 20 percent – would nudge closer to reality as agencies snapped up new, more efficient office printers.
That is what state and Hewlett-Packard officials said last year when they joined forces to ship used HP printer ink cartridges from state offices to Virginia to be ground up and recycled into auto parts, serving trays, clothes hangers and other products.
But a Bee investigation, based on more than 100 pages of e-mails and other records, has found that 17 months after it was created, the program has delivered few if any of its promised climate benefits.
Almost from the start it ran into opposition from the state's purchasing specialists at the Department of General Services, who were not consulted about it and who – once they started asking questions – turned up other concerns, including allegations of unfair competition and ink waste.
They also favored reusing cartridges by refilling them at local businesses, a process known as remanufacturing.
"It is to HP's advantage to get as many remanufacturable cartridges off the market as possible," Robert Tetz, manager of the department's environmentally preferable purchasing program, said in an e-mail to his boss last year. "I don't believe that this partnership arrangement passes the smell test."
The recycling plan is one of many purportedly eco-friendly initiatives launched in California, a state that portrays itself as a green-minded model for the world. But Scot Case, who investigates green marketing claims, said the state HP plan is the wrong choice for the environment.
"It is completely ridiculous to ship a product from California to Virginia to be reground when you could refill those cartridges in California and reuse them," said Case, vice president of TerraChoice Environmental Marketing, which places the green "EcoLogo" label on thousands of consumer products – but not on new printer cartridges.
"You would use fewer resources," Case said. "And you would create significantly less global warming impacts."
For their part, most DGS employees are not free to speak to The Bee. "We have a policy that we have high-level spokespeople … respond to questions," said Jeffrey Young, the agency's deputy director of public affairs.
And Tetz, the green purchasing manager, has been ordered to clam up. "Bob, per my voicemail, I need you to stand down on any communication with Mr. Knudson. Call me …" Jim Butler, DGS' chief procurement officer, said in an e-mail.
But their views come through clearly in electronic correspondence.
"The bottom line is that it is environmentally preferable and fiscally prudent to buy remanufactured toner cartridges for state laser printers from California small businesses," wrote Ben Martin, an engineering branch manager at DGS, in an e-mail to a colleague.
Targeting a river of waste
Printer cartridges are a mainstay of the modern office – and a vexing waste problem. One 2007 industry report estimated 46 percent of the larger kind, known as laser jet cartridges, and 84 percent of the smaller inkjet cartridges are dumped in landfills after one use. A follow-up study, commissioned by HP, found 34 percent of the company's laser jet cartridges and 78 percent of its inkjets end up in landfills after one use.
The state-HP recycling effort was aimed at shrinking that river of waste by diverting up to 100 tons of spent state cartridges from landfills every year. But state and HP officials said it would have an additional benefit, striking a blow against climate change by curbing greenhouse gas emissions by 500 tons annually.
Here's how it was supposed to work: For every HP cartridge purchased and recycled, state agencies would earn points toward buying new, more energy-efficient HP printers. Top officials said that would trim power use and slice pollution.
"I'm very excited to announce this project and encourage every state agency and department to recognize the big impact small actions can have to reduce our environmental footprint," said Rosario Marin, then secretary of the State and Consumer Services Agency, in an April 2008 news release.
"Working together to find creative ways to reduce pollution and save money is the best model for a public-private partnership. We strive to be green, while saving lots of green."
Marin, who resigned earlier this year after it was learned that she had accepted money for speeches from drug companies, could not be reached for comment. But records show her advisers believed the plan would be an easy sell.
"These exchanges are low-hanging fruit," said one agency document. "This program will be quickly adopted by other government agencies … because of its inherent efficiency and cost saving potential."
Reuse called better option
That turned out to be wildly optimistic. At the Department of General Services, where the words "Building Green – Buying Green – Working Green" are displayed prominently on a first floor wall, the plan met with disbelief.
"The only way the huge reductions in greenhouse gases are achievable is if higher-priced, more efficient HP equipment is purchased statewide," wrote Tetz in an e-mail. His program seeks to ensure that state purchases are environmentally sound.
He added that DGS, which draws up contracts for the purchase of everything from copy paper to fluorescent lights, had not researched the plan's claims and could not "ensure an ongoing contractual relationship with HP to achieve these 'goals.'
"I have a significant amount of data that suggests remanufactured cartridges are … a much better proposition," he said in other e-mails. "Just avoiding shipments of pallets by FedEx to Virginia is a big greenhouse gas saving … "
Scott Canonico, environmental program manager for HP, disagreed, saying in an interview that used cartridges are worse for the environment because they are poorer quality and waste more paper.
"With that waste … any benefits of remanufacturing can easily be offset," he said. "That's why HP has stuck with a single use and recycling model – to deliver on our promise of quality and reliability."
He said HP has examined the environmental and climate costs of its recycling program, such as energy consumption, and found them acceptable. Asked to provide data to back his claim, Canonico declined. "Those are internal decision-making type of assessments," he said.
Nationwide, reused cartridges are growing in popularity. "It saves us a ton of money," said Eric Nelson, environmental purchasing manager for King County, Wash., which for years has bought remanufactured cartridges. "We're not using new petro-chemicals to make new cartridges. We know we are doing a good thing for resource conservation."
There have been no quality or waste problems, Nelson said, calling their experience "great."
Inside a Cartridge World franchise in El Dorado Hills, owners Gary and Micaela McConnell recently ticked off a list of customers buying remanufactured cartridges from their store. It included Marshall Hospital, Red Hawk Casino and McDonald's – but not the state.
"They're not reusing," Gary McConnell said. "They are just recycling."
HP wouldn't correct defect
It wasn't the recycle vs. reuse debate that caught the attention of Dave Henning, a buyer in the Food Acquisitions Group at DGS. It was toner waste.
And it began with a routine office job – changing out an empty cartridge on an HP color laser printer. "Dave noticed that the toner cartridges needed to be changed more often than he expected and often felt like they were nearly full," a DGS report says.
An investigation found that cartridges were being shipped back to Virginia for recycling when they were over half full.
"When the printer uses color, all three color cartridges record one use, regardless of which colors were actually used," the report says. "When any of the three color cartridges becomes empty, the printer will not print unless all three cartridges are changed."
Serious money was at stake. Color cartridges for the 5500dn model cost $560 for all three. Since last year, the state has bought 399 of the HP printers, for about $2,700 each.
In an employee suggestion report, Henning tallied up the numbers and estimated the state was losing $1.5 million a year "in unnecessary cartridge replacement. Hewlett Packard should correct this defect."
HP, though, declined to do so. "We are limited in our ability to modify these products due to resource and business constraints," an account manager wrote DGS in an e-mail obtained through the California Public Records Act.
Tetz was dubious. "I share staff opinion that they could if they wanted to," he wrote in an e-mail, "or perhaps if it were profitable to do so."
DGS responded by dropping the model from the state printer contract. For his part, Henning applied for a state merit award – a cash prize given to employees who spotlight waste. He will soon pick up his winning $3,476 check.
As Henning was examining cartridges, Martin – who, as engineering branch manager, worked in the procurement division – was calling attention to another concern: unfair competition.
"Perceptions of favoritism or an uneven playing field are counter to the division's image," Martin said in an e-mail.
His concern gained traction. The problem, documents show, was a provision in which agencies were encouraged to switch to new, more efficient HP printers by accumulating points for buying and recycling HP cartridges.
That could potentially steer business to HP without competitive bidding. "The points had the potential of influencing purchasing decisions," Jim Butler, deputy director and chief procurement officer at DGS, told The Bee. "We did not want anyone to feel like they had a conflict of interest."
Ultimately, DGS dropped the provision.
The points were dropped in October 2008, meaning no new energy-efficient, climate-friendly HP printers would be plugged into state office buildings in exchange for print cartridges after that date – and no greenhouse gas reductions would accumulate, either.
Where things stand
Today, the program limps along on recycling only. And not much of that is even getting done. At the state Consumer and Services Agency – which announced the program – only about 10 cartridges a year are recycled.
More than 600 were shipped by DGS back to Virginia for recycling, but none have left the agency's loading dock since March. Butler, who generally favors reusing cartridges, said DGS is working on a more environmentally responsible purchasing contract requiring that all new state printers be compatible with remanufactured cartridges.
Statewide, new cartridge purchases continue to dwarf remanufactured ones. From May 2007 through April 2008, agencies using the state office supplies contract spent $6.2 million on new toner cartridges, DGS figures show, and just $807,000 – or 11 percent – on reused ones.
Butler said he believes the numbers may be higher, because not all purchases are included in the contract.
Those numbers do not please Tetz, the purchasing manager. But they also are no longer his problem because he was transferred out of his job nine days ago in a move Butler said is unrelated to his criticism of the HP partnership.
"I'm pleased with the work Mr. Tetz has done," Butler said. "I think he has a great deal to be proud of."
Despite repeated requests by The Bee, Butler declined to let Tetz speak for himself. "I think we can give you the answers you're looking for by talking to me," Butler said.
For his part, Tetz is angry and frustrated by the events of the past 17 months.
"We continue to waste millions of dollars per year … to the detriment of the environment," he wrote in a letter to the Bureau of State Audits in August. "I have attempted for well over a year to address and resolve a serious problem and … have been ignored or thwarted at every turn."
NYT AND DEADLY E-WASTE
September 27, 2009
Smuggling Europe’s Waste to Poorer Countries
By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL
ROTTERDAM, the Netherlands — When two inspectors swung open the doors of a battered red shipping container here, they confronted a graveyard of Europe’s electronic waste — old wires, electricity meters, circuit boards — mixed with remnants of cardboard and plastic.
“This is supposed to be going to China, but it isn’t going anywhere,” said Arno Vink, an inspector from the Dutch environment ministry who impounded the container because of Europe’s strict new laws that place restrictions on all types of waste exports, from dirty pipes to broken computers to household trash.
Exporting waste illegally to poor countries has become a vast and growing international business, as companies try to minimize the costs of new environmental laws, like those here, that tax waste or require that it be recycled or otherwise disposed of in an environmentally responsible way.
Rotterdam, the busiest port in Europe, has unwittingly become Europe’s main external garbage chute, a gateway for trash bound for places like China, Indonesia, India and Africa. There, electronic waste and construction debris containing toxic chemicals are often dismantled by children at great cost to their health. Other garbage that is supposed to be recycled according to European law may be simply burned or left to rot, polluting air and water and releasing the heat-trapping gases linked to global warming.
While much of the international waste trade is legal, sent to qualified overseas recyclers, a big chunk is not. For a price, underground traders make Europe’s waste disappear overseas.
After Europe first mandated recycling electronics like televisions and computers, two to three tons of electronic waste was turned in last year, far less than the seven tons anticipated. Much of the rest was probably exported illegally, according to the European Environment Agency.
Paper, plastic and metal trash exported from Europe rose tenfold from 1995 to 2007, the agency says, with 20 million containers of waste now shipped each year either legally or illegally. Half of that passes through this huge port, where trucks and ships exchange goods around the clock.
In the United States, more states are passing laws that require the recycling of goods, especially electronics. But because the United States places fewer restrictions on trash exports and monitors them far less than Europe, that increasing volume is flowing relatively freely overseas, mostly legally, experts say. Up to 100 containers of waste from the United States and Canada arrive each day, according to environmental groups and local authorities in Hong Kong.
“Now we are collecting far more, but they can’t prevent it from going offshore. People talk about ‘leakage,’ but it’s really a hemorrhage,” said Jim Puckett, director of the Basel Action Network, a Seattle-based environmental nonprofit that tracks waste exported from the United States.
The temptation to export waste is great because recycling properly at home is expensive: Because of Europe’s new environmental laws, it is four times as expensive to incinerate trash in the Netherlands as to put it — illegally — on a boat to China. And the vast container ships that arrive in Europe and North America from Asia filled with cheap garments and electrical goods now have a profitable return cargo: garbage like steel cables, circuit boards and leftovers from last night’s pasta meal.
“The traffic in waste exports has become enormous,” said Christian Fischer, chief consultant on waste to the European Environment Agency, which released its first study on the topic this year, “but we need much better information about it.”
The Dutch have taken a lonely lead in inspecting waste exports and curbing the traffic, providing a rare window into the trade. They estimate that 16 percent of the exports are illegal. But in most ports where customs inspectors typically check imports far more thoroughly than exports, much probably passes through unnoticed.
In July, a shipment of 1,400 metric tons of British household garbage that was illegally sent to South America — labeled as clean plastic for recycling — was apprehended only after it landed in Brazil.
Rotterdam uses X-rays and computer analysis of shipping documents to pick out suspicious containers. But other countries need to do more, said Albert Klingenberg of the Dutch environment ministry, adding: “When they can’t get it out in Rotterdam, they go to Antwerp or Hamburg.”
The European Union’s laws governing waste disposal require more recycling of paper and plastic each year, and generally prohibit dumping in landfills. Incineration is now heavily taxed in most European countries.
The regulations also prohibit exporting waste to poorer parts of the world unless the receiving country accepts that kind of waste and it is going to a certified recycler. The guidelines fully ban the export of certain hazardous materials and so-called “problematic” waste, defined as waste that is not amenable to recycling and so would be harmful to the environment at its destination, for example, waste that is soggy or mixed household garbage.
The European laws generally follow the guidelines of the 1992 Basel Convention, the treaty that regulates dangerous exports of waste, and a proposed 1998 amendment.
The United States, during the Bush administration, was one of the few countries that did not ratify the convention. And much of the trash trade banned by Europe is still legal in the United States, where laws focus on only the most hazardous waste.
That may change. A State Department official, who insisted on anonymity because the new administration had not formally reviewed its policy, said, “We’ll be grappling with that in this administration.”
Some types of waste exports are environmentally sound, experts say. If products and packaging used in Europe are manufactured in Asia it may make sense to ship them back for recycling. The waste trade — legal and illegal — is partly propelled by the fact that fast-growing economies like China’s and India’s need the raw material. From Rotterdam, paper, plastic and metals tend to be sent to China. Electronic waste tends to go to African countries, in particular Ghana, Egypt and Nigeria.
But companies in Africa and Asia are “highly variable” in their recycling capabilities, dependability and safety records, said Mr. Fischer, the consultant to the environment agency.
In Rotterdam, inspectors uncover endless ploys to subvert the system: Containers are packed with legal goods in front to hide illegal material. TVs and computers are labeled as secondhand goods, which can be legally shipped, even though they are destined for dismantling.
The inspections office here is filled with plastic bags containing evidence; grease-covered pipes, fluid from toner cartridges and a mix of paper and plastic scraps share space with more traditional trafficking fare like cocaine, weapons and fake Croc clogs.
Despite fines of up to $22,000, traffickers feel it is worth the risk to send trash abroad, although repeat violations can lead to criminal prosecution.
Last year, the Dutch returned 80 illegal shipments to their countries of origin, their usual policy. But that is not always possible.
In one case, inspectors seized an American container carrying old paint cans and other material to Nigeria. They could not send it back, because the United States is not a party to the Basel Convention. Anyway, the hazardous contents were leaking, and the Dutch were left to dispose of them properly.
Smuggling Europe’s Waste to Poorer Countries
By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL
ROTTERDAM, the Netherlands — When two inspectors swung open the doors of a battered red shipping container here, they confronted a graveyard of Europe’s electronic waste — old wires, electricity meters, circuit boards — mixed with remnants of cardboard and plastic.
“This is supposed to be going to China, but it isn’t going anywhere,” said Arno Vink, an inspector from the Dutch environment ministry who impounded the container because of Europe’s strict new laws that place restrictions on all types of waste exports, from dirty pipes to broken computers to household trash.
Exporting waste illegally to poor countries has become a vast and growing international business, as companies try to minimize the costs of new environmental laws, like those here, that tax waste or require that it be recycled or otherwise disposed of in an environmentally responsible way.
Rotterdam, the busiest port in Europe, has unwittingly become Europe’s main external garbage chute, a gateway for trash bound for places like China, Indonesia, India and Africa. There, electronic waste and construction debris containing toxic chemicals are often dismantled by children at great cost to their health. Other garbage that is supposed to be recycled according to European law may be simply burned or left to rot, polluting air and water and releasing the heat-trapping gases linked to global warming.
While much of the international waste trade is legal, sent to qualified overseas recyclers, a big chunk is not. For a price, underground traders make Europe’s waste disappear overseas.
After Europe first mandated recycling electronics like televisions and computers, two to three tons of electronic waste was turned in last year, far less than the seven tons anticipated. Much of the rest was probably exported illegally, according to the European Environment Agency.
Paper, plastic and metal trash exported from Europe rose tenfold from 1995 to 2007, the agency says, with 20 million containers of waste now shipped each year either legally or illegally. Half of that passes through this huge port, where trucks and ships exchange goods around the clock.
In the United States, more states are passing laws that require the recycling of goods, especially electronics. But because the United States places fewer restrictions on trash exports and monitors them far less than Europe, that increasing volume is flowing relatively freely overseas, mostly legally, experts say. Up to 100 containers of waste from the United States and Canada arrive each day, according to environmental groups and local authorities in Hong Kong.
“Now we are collecting far more, but they can’t prevent it from going offshore. People talk about ‘leakage,’ but it’s really a hemorrhage,” said Jim Puckett, director of the Basel Action Network, a Seattle-based environmental nonprofit that tracks waste exported from the United States.
The temptation to export waste is great because recycling properly at home is expensive: Because of Europe’s new environmental laws, it is four times as expensive to incinerate trash in the Netherlands as to put it — illegally — on a boat to China. And the vast container ships that arrive in Europe and North America from Asia filled with cheap garments and electrical goods now have a profitable return cargo: garbage like steel cables, circuit boards and leftovers from last night’s pasta meal.
“The traffic in waste exports has become enormous,” said Christian Fischer, chief consultant on waste to the European Environment Agency, which released its first study on the topic this year, “but we need much better information about it.”
The Dutch have taken a lonely lead in inspecting waste exports and curbing the traffic, providing a rare window into the trade. They estimate that 16 percent of the exports are illegal. But in most ports where customs inspectors typically check imports far more thoroughly than exports, much probably passes through unnoticed.
In July, a shipment of 1,400 metric tons of British household garbage that was illegally sent to South America — labeled as clean plastic for recycling — was apprehended only after it landed in Brazil.
Rotterdam uses X-rays and computer analysis of shipping documents to pick out suspicious containers. But other countries need to do more, said Albert Klingenberg of the Dutch environment ministry, adding: “When they can’t get it out in Rotterdam, they go to Antwerp or Hamburg.”
The European Union’s laws governing waste disposal require more recycling of paper and plastic each year, and generally prohibit dumping in landfills. Incineration is now heavily taxed in most European countries.
The regulations also prohibit exporting waste to poorer parts of the world unless the receiving country accepts that kind of waste and it is going to a certified recycler. The guidelines fully ban the export of certain hazardous materials and so-called “problematic” waste, defined as waste that is not amenable to recycling and so would be harmful to the environment at its destination, for example, waste that is soggy or mixed household garbage.
The European laws generally follow the guidelines of the 1992 Basel Convention, the treaty that regulates dangerous exports of waste, and a proposed 1998 amendment.
The United States, during the Bush administration, was one of the few countries that did not ratify the convention. And much of the trash trade banned by Europe is still legal in the United States, where laws focus on only the most hazardous waste.
That may change. A State Department official, who insisted on anonymity because the new administration had not formally reviewed its policy, said, “We’ll be grappling with that in this administration.”
Some types of waste exports are environmentally sound, experts say. If products and packaging used in Europe are manufactured in Asia it may make sense to ship them back for recycling. The waste trade — legal and illegal — is partly propelled by the fact that fast-growing economies like China’s and India’s need the raw material. From Rotterdam, paper, plastic and metals tend to be sent to China. Electronic waste tends to go to African countries, in particular Ghana, Egypt and Nigeria.
But companies in Africa and Asia are “highly variable” in their recycling capabilities, dependability and safety records, said Mr. Fischer, the consultant to the environment agency.
In Rotterdam, inspectors uncover endless ploys to subvert the system: Containers are packed with legal goods in front to hide illegal material. TVs and computers are labeled as secondhand goods, which can be legally shipped, even though they are destined for dismantling.
The inspections office here is filled with plastic bags containing evidence; grease-covered pipes, fluid from toner cartridges and a mix of paper and plastic scraps share space with more traditional trafficking fare like cocaine, weapons and fake Croc clogs.
Despite fines of up to $22,000, traffickers feel it is worth the risk to send trash abroad, although repeat violations can lead to criminal prosecution.
Last year, the Dutch returned 80 illegal shipments to their countries of origin, their usual policy. But that is not always possible.
In one case, inspectors seized an American container carrying old paint cans and other material to Nigeria. They could not send it back, because the United States is not a party to the Basel Convention. Anyway, the hazardous contents were leaking, and the Dutch were left to dispose of them properly.
NYT AND DEADLY E-WASTE
September 27, 2009
Smuggling Europe’s Waste to Poorer Countries
By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL
ROTTERDAM, the Netherlands — When two inspectors swung open the doors of a battered red shipping container here, they confronted a graveyard of Europe’s electronic waste — old wires, electricity meters, circuit boards — mixed with remnants of cardboard and plastic.
“This is supposed to be going to China, but it isn’t going anywhere,” said Arno Vink, an inspector from the Dutch environment ministry who impounded the container because of Europe’s strict new laws that place restrictions on all types of waste exports, from dirty pipes to broken computers to household trash.
Exporting waste illegally to poor countries has become a vast and growing international business, as companies try to minimize the costs of new environmental laws, like those here, that tax waste or require that it be recycled or otherwise disposed of in an environmentally responsible way.
Rotterdam, the busiest port in Europe, has unwittingly become Europe’s main external garbage chute, a gateway for trash bound for places like China, Indonesia, India and Africa. There, electronic waste and construction debris containing toxic chemicals are often dismantled by children at great cost to their health. Other garbage that is supposed to be recycled according to European law may be simply burned or left to rot, polluting air and water and releasing the heat-trapping gases linked to global warming.
While much of the international waste trade is legal, sent to qualified overseas recyclers, a big chunk is not. For a price, underground traders make Europe’s waste disappear overseas.
After Europe first mandated recycling electronics like televisions and computers, two to three tons of electronic waste was turned in last year, far less than the seven tons anticipated. Much of the rest was probably exported illegally, according to the European Environment Agency.
Paper, plastic and metal trash exported from Europe rose tenfold from 1995 to 2007, the agency says, with 20 million containers of waste now shipped each year either legally or illegally. Half of that passes through this huge port, where trucks and ships exchange goods around the clock.
In the United States, more states are passing laws that require the recycling of goods, especially electronics. But because the United States places fewer restrictions on trash exports and monitors them far less than Europe, that increasing volume is flowing relatively freely overseas, mostly legally, experts say. Up to 100 containers of waste from the United States and Canada arrive each day, according to environmental groups and local authorities in Hong Kong.
“Now we are collecting far more, but they can’t prevent it from going offshore. People talk about ‘leakage,’ but it’s really a hemorrhage,” said Jim Puckett, director of the Basel Action Network, a Seattle-based environmental nonprofit that tracks waste exported from the United States.
The temptation to export waste is great because recycling properly at home is expensive: Because of Europe’s new environmental laws, it is four times as expensive to incinerate trash in the Netherlands as to put it — illegally — on a boat to China. And the vast container ships that arrive in Europe and North America from Asia filled with cheap garments and electrical goods now have a profitable return cargo: garbage like steel cables, circuit boards and leftovers from last night’s pasta meal.
“The traffic in waste exports has become enormous,” said Christian Fischer, chief consultant on waste to the European Environment Agency, which released its first study on the topic this year, “but we need much better information about it.”
The Dutch have taken a lonely lead in inspecting waste exports and curbing the traffic, providing a rare window into the trade. They estimate that 16 percent of the exports are illegal. But in most ports where customs inspectors typically check imports far more thoroughly than exports, much probably passes through unnoticed.
In July, a shipment of 1,400 metric tons of British household garbage that was illegally sent to South America — labeled as clean plastic for recycling — was apprehended only after it landed in Brazil.
Rotterdam uses X-rays and computer analysis of shipping documents to pick out suspicious containers. But other countries need to do more, said Albert Klingenberg of the Dutch environment ministry, adding: “When they can’t get it out in Rotterdam, they go to Antwerp or Hamburg.”
The European Union’s laws governing waste disposal require more recycling of paper and plastic each year, and generally prohibit dumping in landfills. Incineration is now heavily taxed in most European countries.
The regulations also prohibit exporting waste to poorer parts of the world unless the receiving country accepts that kind of waste and it is going to a certified recycler. The guidelines fully ban the export of certain hazardous materials and so-called “problematic” waste, defined as waste that is not amenable to recycling and so would be harmful to the environment at its destination, for example, waste that is soggy or mixed household garbage.
The European laws generally follow the guidelines of the 1992 Basel Convention, the treaty that regulates dangerous exports of waste, and a proposed 1998 amendment.
The United States, during the Bush administration, was one of the few countries that did not ratify the convention. And much of the trash trade banned by Europe is still legal in the United States, where laws focus on only the most hazardous waste.
That may change. A State Department official, who insisted on anonymity because the new administration had not formally reviewed its policy, said, “We’ll be grappling with that in this administration.”
Some types of waste exports are environmentally sound, experts say. If products and packaging used in Europe are manufactured in Asia it may make sense to ship them back for recycling. The waste trade — legal and illegal — is partly propelled by the fact that fast-growing economies like China’s and India’s need the raw material. From Rotterdam, paper, plastic and metals tend to be sent to China. Electronic waste tends to go to African countries, in particular Ghana, Egypt and Nigeria.
But companies in Africa and Asia are “highly variable” in their recycling capabilities, dependability and safety records, said Mr. Fischer, the consultant to the environment agency.
In Rotterdam, inspectors uncover endless ploys to subvert the system: Containers are packed with legal goods in front to hide illegal material. TVs and computers are labeled as secondhand goods, which can be legally shipped, even though they are destined for dismantling.
The inspections office here is filled with plastic bags containing evidence; grease-covered pipes, fluid from toner cartridges and a mix of paper and plastic scraps share space with more traditional trafficking fare like cocaine, weapons and fake Croc clogs.
Despite fines of up to $22,000, traffickers feel it is worth the risk to send trash abroad, although repeat violations can lead to criminal prosecution.
Last year, the Dutch returned 80 illegal shipments to their countries of origin, their usual policy. But that is not always possible.
In one case, inspectors seized an American container carrying old paint cans and other material to Nigeria. They could not send it back, because the United States is not a party to the Basel Convention. Anyway, the hazardous contents were leaking, and the Dutch were left to dispose of them properly.
Smuggling Europe’s Waste to Poorer Countries
By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL
ROTTERDAM, the Netherlands — When two inspectors swung open the doors of a battered red shipping container here, they confronted a graveyard of Europe’s electronic waste — old wires, electricity meters, circuit boards — mixed with remnants of cardboard and plastic.
“This is supposed to be going to China, but it isn’t going anywhere,” said Arno Vink, an inspector from the Dutch environment ministry who impounded the container because of Europe’s strict new laws that place restrictions on all types of waste exports, from dirty pipes to broken computers to household trash.
Exporting waste illegally to poor countries has become a vast and growing international business, as companies try to minimize the costs of new environmental laws, like those here, that tax waste or require that it be recycled or otherwise disposed of in an environmentally responsible way.
Rotterdam, the busiest port in Europe, has unwittingly become Europe’s main external garbage chute, a gateway for trash bound for places like China, Indonesia, India and Africa. There, electronic waste and construction debris containing toxic chemicals are often dismantled by children at great cost to their health. Other garbage that is supposed to be recycled according to European law may be simply burned or left to rot, polluting air and water and releasing the heat-trapping gases linked to global warming.
While much of the international waste trade is legal, sent to qualified overseas recyclers, a big chunk is not. For a price, underground traders make Europe’s waste disappear overseas.
After Europe first mandated recycling electronics like televisions and computers, two to three tons of electronic waste was turned in last year, far less than the seven tons anticipated. Much of the rest was probably exported illegally, according to the European Environment Agency.
Paper, plastic and metal trash exported from Europe rose tenfold from 1995 to 2007, the agency says, with 20 million containers of waste now shipped each year either legally or illegally. Half of that passes through this huge port, where trucks and ships exchange goods around the clock.
In the United States, more states are passing laws that require the recycling of goods, especially electronics. But because the United States places fewer restrictions on trash exports and monitors them far less than Europe, that increasing volume is flowing relatively freely overseas, mostly legally, experts say. Up to 100 containers of waste from the United States and Canada arrive each day, according to environmental groups and local authorities in Hong Kong.
“Now we are collecting far more, but they can’t prevent it from going offshore. People talk about ‘leakage,’ but it’s really a hemorrhage,” said Jim Puckett, director of the Basel Action Network, a Seattle-based environmental nonprofit that tracks waste exported from the United States.
The temptation to export waste is great because recycling properly at home is expensive: Because of Europe’s new environmental laws, it is four times as expensive to incinerate trash in the Netherlands as to put it — illegally — on a boat to China. And the vast container ships that arrive in Europe and North America from Asia filled with cheap garments and electrical goods now have a profitable return cargo: garbage like steel cables, circuit boards and leftovers from last night’s pasta meal.
“The traffic in waste exports has become enormous,” said Christian Fischer, chief consultant on waste to the European Environment Agency, which released its first study on the topic this year, “but we need much better information about it.”
The Dutch have taken a lonely lead in inspecting waste exports and curbing the traffic, providing a rare window into the trade. They estimate that 16 percent of the exports are illegal. But in most ports where customs inspectors typically check imports far more thoroughly than exports, much probably passes through unnoticed.
In July, a shipment of 1,400 metric tons of British household garbage that was illegally sent to South America — labeled as clean plastic for recycling — was apprehended only after it landed in Brazil.
Rotterdam uses X-rays and computer analysis of shipping documents to pick out suspicious containers. But other countries need to do more, said Albert Klingenberg of the Dutch environment ministry, adding: “When they can’t get it out in Rotterdam, they go to Antwerp or Hamburg.”
The European Union’s laws governing waste disposal require more recycling of paper and plastic each year, and generally prohibit dumping in landfills. Incineration is now heavily taxed in most European countries.
The regulations also prohibit exporting waste to poorer parts of the world unless the receiving country accepts that kind of waste and it is going to a certified recycler. The guidelines fully ban the export of certain hazardous materials and so-called “problematic” waste, defined as waste that is not amenable to recycling and so would be harmful to the environment at its destination, for example, waste that is soggy or mixed household garbage.
The European laws generally follow the guidelines of the 1992 Basel Convention, the treaty that regulates dangerous exports of waste, and a proposed 1998 amendment.
The United States, during the Bush administration, was one of the few countries that did not ratify the convention. And much of the trash trade banned by Europe is still legal in the United States, where laws focus on only the most hazardous waste.
That may change. A State Department official, who insisted on anonymity because the new administration had not formally reviewed its policy, said, “We’ll be grappling with that in this administration.”
Some types of waste exports are environmentally sound, experts say. If products and packaging used in Europe are manufactured in Asia it may make sense to ship them back for recycling. The waste trade — legal and illegal — is partly propelled by the fact that fast-growing economies like China’s and India’s need the raw material. From Rotterdam, paper, plastic and metals tend to be sent to China. Electronic waste tends to go to African countries, in particular Ghana, Egypt and Nigeria.
But companies in Africa and Asia are “highly variable” in their recycling capabilities, dependability and safety records, said Mr. Fischer, the consultant to the environment agency.
In Rotterdam, inspectors uncover endless ploys to subvert the system: Containers are packed with legal goods in front to hide illegal material. TVs and computers are labeled as secondhand goods, which can be legally shipped, even though they are destined for dismantling.
The inspections office here is filled with plastic bags containing evidence; grease-covered pipes, fluid from toner cartridges and a mix of paper and plastic scraps share space with more traditional trafficking fare like cocaine, weapons and fake Croc clogs.
Despite fines of up to $22,000, traffickers feel it is worth the risk to send trash abroad, although repeat violations can lead to criminal prosecution.
Last year, the Dutch returned 80 illegal shipments to their countries of origin, their usual policy. But that is not always possible.
In one case, inspectors seized an American container carrying old paint cans and other material to Nigeria. They could not send it back, because the United States is not a party to the Basel Convention. Anyway, the hazardous contents were leaking, and the Dutch were left to dispose of them properly.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
TV RECYCLING
BBC NEWS
Digital move prompts TV recycling
Devon and Cornwall have seen big rises in the number of televisions being recycled before the counties' analogue television signals are switched off.
For the year up to July 2008, Devon was recycling about 8,000 sets a month. That was up to 15,000 by July 2009.
Cornwall was recycling about 5,800 sets a month to July 2008. It is now 9,500.
Councils and recycling experts said people should replace sets after they broke. The South West switchover will be completed on 9 September.
Up to 90% of a television set's parts can be recycled.
'Truly green'
But councils and recycling specialists said they were concerned that many of the sets being sent for recycling were not broken.
Jacqui Simpson of Sims Metal Management in Exeter said: "We're a lot more environmentally conscious than we used to be, but people who want to do want to be environmentally friendly and be truly green should invest in a set top box.
"They should hang on to their old television and run it until, ultimately, it breaks down."
Digital UK, the independent body leading the switchover, said virtually all televisions could be converted to receive digital signals, even black and white ones.
Councils added that people upgrading their televisions should ensure they dispose of old equipment properly.
Councillor Michael Leaves of Plymouth City Council said they should be taken to proper recycling facilities.
He said: "Old TVs and recorders contain materials and chemicals including lead, dangerous phosphors and glass.
"Dumping them on the street or putting them out with your household rubbish means they end up in landfills where they are hazardous and will pollute the environment."
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/england/8212529.stm
Published: 2009/08/20 14:46:28 GMT
Digital move prompts TV recycling
Devon and Cornwall have seen big rises in the number of televisions being recycled before the counties' analogue television signals are switched off.
For the year up to July 2008, Devon was recycling about 8,000 sets a month. That was up to 15,000 by July 2009.
Cornwall was recycling about 5,800 sets a month to July 2008. It is now 9,500.
Councils and recycling experts said people should replace sets after they broke. The South West switchover will be completed on 9 September.
Up to 90% of a television set's parts can be recycled.
'Truly green'
But councils and recycling specialists said they were concerned that many of the sets being sent for recycling were not broken.
Jacqui Simpson of Sims Metal Management in Exeter said: "We're a lot more environmentally conscious than we used to be, but people who want to do want to be environmentally friendly and be truly green should invest in a set top box.
"They should hang on to their old television and run it until, ultimately, it breaks down."
Digital UK, the independent body leading the switchover, said virtually all televisions could be converted to receive digital signals, even black and white ones.
Councils added that people upgrading their televisions should ensure they dispose of old equipment properly.
Councillor Michael Leaves of Plymouth City Council said they should be taken to proper recycling facilities.
He said: "Old TVs and recorders contain materials and chemicals including lead, dangerous phosphors and glass.
"Dumping them on the street or putting them out with your household rubbish means they end up in landfills where they are hazardous and will pollute the environment."
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/england/8212529.stm
Published: 2009/08/20 14:46:28 GMT
Friday, September 25, 2009
apple and business week
nnovation & Technology September 24, 2009, 6:00PM EST text size: TT
Apple Launches Major Green Effort
It's being more forthcoming with environmental data—and working to change the terms of the debate
By Peter Burrows
In recent years, Apple (AAPL) has been hammered by several environmental groups. Greenpeace singled it out for its use of toxic chemicals in 2007, and it has done poorly in rankings of the greenest corporations. The criticism is jarring for a company with a cool, progressive image and Mr. Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore, on its board.
Now, Apple is set to launch its most aggressive effort yet to counter green critics. On Sept. 24, the company will release more of the details environmental groups have been clamoring for, on its Web site and elsewhere. Apple, for example, will reveal its annual corporate carbon emissions for the first time. Lack of disclosure of that figure has hurt the company in several rankings, especially because rivals such as Hewlett-Packard (HPQ) and Dell (DELL) have given it out.
Apple's real goal is to change the terms of the debate. Company executives say that most existing green rankings are flawed in several respects. They count the promises companies make about green plans rather than actual achievements. And most focus on the environmental impact of a company's operations, but exclude that of its products.
Apple argues that broader, more comprehensive figures for carbon emissions should be used—for everything from materials mined for its products to the electricity used to power them—and it's offering up its own data to make the case. Executives say that consumers' use of Apple products accounts for 53% of the company's total 10.2 million tons of carbon emissions annually. That's more than the 38% that occurs as the products are manufactured in Asia or the 3% that comes from Apple's own operations. "A lot of companies publish how green their building is, but it doesn't matter if you're shipping millions of power-hungry products with toxic chemicals in them," says CEO Steve Jobs in an interview. "It's like asking a cigarette company how green their office is."
Apple's total carbon figure is an eye-opener. HP and Dell put their carbon emissions at 8.4 million tons and 471,000 tons respectively, though both are larger than Apple in terms of revenue. Their numbers exclude product use and at least some manufacturing, though. The companies have said that including those factors would boost their carbon totals severalfold.
Jobs and Apple have been working on their effort for several years. They brought in the consultant Fraunhofer Institute to help crunch data and hired chemists to eliminate toxins. The company is disclosing its data days after it was beaten out in another green ranking by Dell, Hewlett-Packard, and IBM (IBM), but Jobs says that was not the reason for the timing of its disclosures. "This is when we just got the work done," he says.
Some environmental experts applaud Apple's move. They say green rankings have been limited by the data companies provide, and Apple is setting a high bar for calculating and disclosing carbon emissions. "This could completely change how companies are evaluated," says Alexandra McPherson, project director with Clean Production Action, an environmental group.
Other experts aren't so sure. Some say companies shouldn't get credit or blame for the carbon emissions from their products, because such data can be manipulated. Apple may be trying to count the impact of products simply because such calculations make the company look good against its peers. "All of these companies report in ways that favor their business model," says Conrad MacKerron, director of corporate social responsibility programs at the As You Sow Foundation, a corporate accountability group.
Ramping Up Recycling
Apple counters that it's time for companies, in tech and elsewhere, to examine their environmental impact as broadly as possible. For tech companies, that should include the energy-gobbling products they sell. "We're not being intellectually honest with ourselves if we don't deal with the products that we make," says Timothy D. Cook, Apple's chief operating officer.
The company is disclosing new product information, as well as overall carbon emissions. Apple will document on the new Web site data that it ended the use of controversial polyvinyl chlorides (PVCs) and bromide flame retardants (BFRs) in its devices last year. HP and Dell had promised to do the same by 2009, but recently pushed that back. Apple is also going further and pushing suppliers to get rid of bromine and chlorine, the harmful ingredients in PVCs and BFRs.
Jobs admits criticism from Greenpeace and others motivated Apple to improve its environmental efforts, but he fumed over the tactics at the time. Greenpeace attacked Apple because it wouldn't publicly set long-term goals for carbon reduction and toxic removals. Jobs says it's more important to deliver results than make promises, noting that Apple was the first computer maker to ditch CRT monitors in all its products because they contain lead. "I thought Greenpeace was being very unfair with us at the beginning, and that they were using us to get visibility," he says. "To have people saying we didn't care and that we were callous in this area was very painful—and untrue."
Jobs insists he won't start setting long-term environmental targets to satisfy critics. But Apple is becoming more transparent on its Web site and other fronts. Last year, the Carbon Disclosure Project put Apple near the bottom of its rankings for corporate disclosure, with seven points on a 100-point scale. On Sept. 21, when the group released its 2009 rankings, Apple scored a 73. Paul Dickinson, president of the project, says Apple's effort to make measurement of carbon impact more comprehensive is a step in the right direction. "Its approach is legitimate, and to be encouraged," he says.
Business Exchange: Read, save, and add content on BW's new Web 2.0 topic network
Eco Laggard
Apple has done poorly in several environmental rankings, including Newsweek's report on The Greenest Big Companies In America in its Sept. 21 issue. Rivals Hewlett-Packard and Dell ranked first and second on the list, while Apple was miles behind at 133. The company suffered in part because it hasn't set long-term environmental goals publicly.
For Newsweek's coverage, go to bx.businessweek.com/green-business/reference/
With Arik Hesseldahl
Burrows is a senior writer for BusinessWeek, based in Silicon Valley.
Apple Launches Major Green Effort
It's being more forthcoming with environmental data—and working to change the terms of the debate
By Peter Burrows
In recent years, Apple (AAPL) has been hammered by several environmental groups. Greenpeace singled it out for its use of toxic chemicals in 2007, and it has done poorly in rankings of the greenest corporations. The criticism is jarring for a company with a cool, progressive image and Mr. Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore, on its board.
Now, Apple is set to launch its most aggressive effort yet to counter green critics. On Sept. 24, the company will release more of the details environmental groups have been clamoring for, on its Web site and elsewhere. Apple, for example, will reveal its annual corporate carbon emissions for the first time. Lack of disclosure of that figure has hurt the company in several rankings, especially because rivals such as Hewlett-Packard (HPQ) and Dell (DELL) have given it out.
Apple's real goal is to change the terms of the debate. Company executives say that most existing green rankings are flawed in several respects. They count the promises companies make about green plans rather than actual achievements. And most focus on the environmental impact of a company's operations, but exclude that of its products.
Apple argues that broader, more comprehensive figures for carbon emissions should be used—for everything from materials mined for its products to the electricity used to power them—and it's offering up its own data to make the case. Executives say that consumers' use of Apple products accounts for 53% of the company's total 10.2 million tons of carbon emissions annually. That's more than the 38% that occurs as the products are manufactured in Asia or the 3% that comes from Apple's own operations. "A lot of companies publish how green their building is, but it doesn't matter if you're shipping millions of power-hungry products with toxic chemicals in them," says CEO Steve Jobs in an interview. "It's like asking a cigarette company how green their office is."
Apple's total carbon figure is an eye-opener. HP and Dell put their carbon emissions at 8.4 million tons and 471,000 tons respectively, though both are larger than Apple in terms of revenue. Their numbers exclude product use and at least some manufacturing, though. The companies have said that including those factors would boost their carbon totals severalfold.
Jobs and Apple have been working on their effort for several years. They brought in the consultant Fraunhofer Institute to help crunch data and hired chemists to eliminate toxins. The company is disclosing its data days after it was beaten out in another green ranking by Dell, Hewlett-Packard, and IBM (IBM), but Jobs says that was not the reason for the timing of its disclosures. "This is when we just got the work done," he says.
Some environmental experts applaud Apple's move. They say green rankings have been limited by the data companies provide, and Apple is setting a high bar for calculating and disclosing carbon emissions. "This could completely change how companies are evaluated," says Alexandra McPherson, project director with Clean Production Action, an environmental group.
Other experts aren't so sure. Some say companies shouldn't get credit or blame for the carbon emissions from their products, because such data can be manipulated. Apple may be trying to count the impact of products simply because such calculations make the company look good against its peers. "All of these companies report in ways that favor their business model," says Conrad MacKerron, director of corporate social responsibility programs at the As You Sow Foundation, a corporate accountability group.
Ramping Up Recycling
Apple counters that it's time for companies, in tech and elsewhere, to examine their environmental impact as broadly as possible. For tech companies, that should include the energy-gobbling products they sell. "We're not being intellectually honest with ourselves if we don't deal with the products that we make," says Timothy D. Cook, Apple's chief operating officer.
The company is disclosing new product information, as well as overall carbon emissions. Apple will document on the new Web site data that it ended the use of controversial polyvinyl chlorides (PVCs) and bromide flame retardants (BFRs) in its devices last year. HP and Dell had promised to do the same by 2009, but recently pushed that back. Apple is also going further and pushing suppliers to get rid of bromine and chlorine, the harmful ingredients in PVCs and BFRs.
Jobs admits criticism from Greenpeace and others motivated Apple to improve its environmental efforts, but he fumed over the tactics at the time. Greenpeace attacked Apple because it wouldn't publicly set long-term goals for carbon reduction and toxic removals. Jobs says it's more important to deliver results than make promises, noting that Apple was the first computer maker to ditch CRT monitors in all its products because they contain lead. "I thought Greenpeace was being very unfair with us at the beginning, and that they were using us to get visibility," he says. "To have people saying we didn't care and that we were callous in this area was very painful—and untrue."
Jobs insists he won't start setting long-term environmental targets to satisfy critics. But Apple is becoming more transparent on its Web site and other fronts. Last year, the Carbon Disclosure Project put Apple near the bottom of its rankings for corporate disclosure, with seven points on a 100-point scale. On Sept. 21, when the group released its 2009 rankings, Apple scored a 73. Paul Dickinson, president of the project, says Apple's effort to make measurement of carbon impact more comprehensive is a step in the right direction. "Its approach is legitimate, and to be encouraged," he says.
Business Exchange: Read, save, and add content on BW's new Web 2.0 topic network
Eco Laggard
Apple has done poorly in several environmental rankings, including Newsweek's report on The Greenest Big Companies In America in its Sept. 21 issue. Rivals Hewlett-Packard and Dell ranked first and second on the list, while Apple was miles behind at 133. The company suffered in part because it hasn't set long-term environmental goals publicly.
For Newsweek's coverage, go to bx.businessweek.com/green-business/reference/
With Arik Hesseldahl
Burrows is a senior writer for BusinessWeek, based in Silicon Valley.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
WOT THE ITU HAS TO SAY
High-Level Segment (HLS) of Council 2008
Geneva, 12-13 November 2008
ITU Secretary-General's Declaration on Cybersecurity and Climate Change
ITU Secretary-General adressing HLS-08 participantsCybersecurity is one of the most important challenges of our time. The rapid growth of ICT networks has enabled opportunists to exploit online vulnerabilities and attack countriesÆ critical infrastructure. Spam is a constant and growing problem that threatens to stretch the capacity of the Internet to transport data to the fullest, while phishing and malware affect computer systems around the globe. The costs associated with cyberthreats and cyber-attacks are real and significant û not only in terms of lost revenue, breaches of sensitive data, cyber-attacks and network outages but also in terms of lives ruined by identity theft, debts run up on plundered credit cards or the online exploitation of children. Our very trust in the online world is at stake ù jeopardizing the future of the information society, which is in danger from these growing cyberthreats.
ITU has taken a leading role in promoting cybersecurity and trying to combat the growing tidal wave of cyberthreats. On the occasion of the World Telecommunication and Information Society Day 2007, ITU launched the Global Cybersecurity Agenda. A High-Level Experts Group (HLEG) has spent the last year reviewing the issues and developing proposals for long-term strategies to promote cybersecurity, an achievement honoured with the award of the ITU Silver Medal to the Chair of the HLEG, Chief Judge Stein Schjolberg.
The GCA is now moving into its operational phase and ITU is undertaking a vital partnership in conjunction with IMPACT ù the International Multilateral Partnership Against Cyber-Threats ù hosted by the Government of Malaysia, which will put a global early warning system at the disposal of all Member States. The Child Online Protection (COP) initiative is a vitally important project that will protect one of the most vulnerable groups online by providing valuable guidance on safe online behaviour, in conjunction with other UN agencies and partners. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon yesterday welcomed ITUÆs COP initiative and urged all States to support it. ITU Member States stand united in their determination to combat the growing menace of cybercrime and the risks posed by new and emerging cyberthreats.
Climate change is another profound challenge that is at work, transforming the face of the world. Whatever the underlying cause, at current rates of extinction, scientists predict that two-thirds of all bird, mammal, butterfly, and plant species will be extinct by the end of this century. Not only the species, but the very survival of the world we live in and the planet itself, is now in jeopardy. Climate change is a global challenge that the world simply cannot afford to lose ù not just for our sake, but for the sake of our children.
ITU is mainstreaming this major issue into its regular work programme. ITU is undertaking important work on how ICTs can help prevent and avert climate change. There is a strong role for ITU in standards for energy efficiency of the ICT equipment on which our digital economy depends. ITU has always taken the lead in setting high standards for telecommunications and ICTs, and this is another key area in which ITU can make a real difference.
The Resolution passed recently at the World Telecommunication Standardization Assembly (WTSA) in Johannesburg encourages ITU Member States to work towards reductions in Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions arising from the use of ICTs, in line with the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. ITU aims to achieve climate neutrality for its operations within three years, and ITU is at the forefront of this progress compared with many other international organizations.
In the global effort to combat climate change, ITU is continuing to help developing countries to mitigate the effects of climate change, including the use of emergency telecommunications and alerting systems for disaster relief. ITU, in collaboration with its membership, is identifying the necessary radio-frequency spectrum for climate monitoring and disaster prediction, detection and relief, including a promising cooperation with the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in the field of remote-sensing applications.
ITU will continue to join efforts in the context of the UN system, in order to "deliver as one" with a principal focus on ICTs and climate change. In 2000, UN Members adopted the Millennium Declaration as a renewed commitment to human development, including the eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). However, climate change impacts will tend to offset progress being made to meet the MDGs by 2015, so it is crucial to empower developing countries by facilitating their access to the ICTs needed for climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction.
It is widely acknowledged that the issue of climate change is rapidly emerging as a global concern, which needs a global response. The High-Level Segment underlined that Member States are committed to combating climate change: ITU remains committed to combating climate change. ITUÆs work is in line with the needs and priorities of our Member States in the vital importance of taking action to combat climate change.
Dr Hamadoun I. TourÚ
ITU Secretary-General
Geneva, 12-13 November 2008
ITU Secretary-General's Declaration on Cybersecurity and Climate Change
ITU Secretary-General adressing HLS-08 participantsCybersecurity is one of the most important challenges of our time. The rapid growth of ICT networks has enabled opportunists to exploit online vulnerabilities and attack countriesÆ critical infrastructure. Spam is a constant and growing problem that threatens to stretch the capacity of the Internet to transport data to the fullest, while phishing and malware affect computer systems around the globe. The costs associated with cyberthreats and cyber-attacks are real and significant û not only in terms of lost revenue, breaches of sensitive data, cyber-attacks and network outages but also in terms of lives ruined by identity theft, debts run up on plundered credit cards or the online exploitation of children. Our very trust in the online world is at stake ù jeopardizing the future of the information society, which is in danger from these growing cyberthreats.
ITU has taken a leading role in promoting cybersecurity and trying to combat the growing tidal wave of cyberthreats. On the occasion of the World Telecommunication and Information Society Day 2007, ITU launched the Global Cybersecurity Agenda. A High-Level Experts Group (HLEG) has spent the last year reviewing the issues and developing proposals for long-term strategies to promote cybersecurity, an achievement honoured with the award of the ITU Silver Medal to the Chair of the HLEG, Chief Judge Stein Schjolberg.
The GCA is now moving into its operational phase and ITU is undertaking a vital partnership in conjunction with IMPACT ù the International Multilateral Partnership Against Cyber-Threats ù hosted by the Government of Malaysia, which will put a global early warning system at the disposal of all Member States. The Child Online Protection (COP) initiative is a vitally important project that will protect one of the most vulnerable groups online by providing valuable guidance on safe online behaviour, in conjunction with other UN agencies and partners. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon yesterday welcomed ITUÆs COP initiative and urged all States to support it. ITU Member States stand united in their determination to combat the growing menace of cybercrime and the risks posed by new and emerging cyberthreats.
Climate change is another profound challenge that is at work, transforming the face of the world. Whatever the underlying cause, at current rates of extinction, scientists predict that two-thirds of all bird, mammal, butterfly, and plant species will be extinct by the end of this century. Not only the species, but the very survival of the world we live in and the planet itself, is now in jeopardy. Climate change is a global challenge that the world simply cannot afford to lose ù not just for our sake, but for the sake of our children.
ITU is mainstreaming this major issue into its regular work programme. ITU is undertaking important work on how ICTs can help prevent and avert climate change. There is a strong role for ITU in standards for energy efficiency of the ICT equipment on which our digital economy depends. ITU has always taken the lead in setting high standards for telecommunications and ICTs, and this is another key area in which ITU can make a real difference.
The Resolution passed recently at the World Telecommunication Standardization Assembly (WTSA) in Johannesburg encourages ITU Member States to work towards reductions in Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions arising from the use of ICTs, in line with the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. ITU aims to achieve climate neutrality for its operations within three years, and ITU is at the forefront of this progress compared with many other international organizations.
In the global effort to combat climate change, ITU is continuing to help developing countries to mitigate the effects of climate change, including the use of emergency telecommunications and alerting systems for disaster relief. ITU, in collaboration with its membership, is identifying the necessary radio-frequency spectrum for climate monitoring and disaster prediction, detection and relief, including a promising cooperation with the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in the field of remote-sensing applications.
ITU will continue to join efforts in the context of the UN system, in order to "deliver as one" with a principal focus on ICTs and climate change. In 2000, UN Members adopted the Millennium Declaration as a renewed commitment to human development, including the eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). However, climate change impacts will tend to offset progress being made to meet the MDGs by 2015, so it is crucial to empower developing countries by facilitating their access to the ICTs needed for climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction.
It is widely acknowledged that the issue of climate change is rapidly emerging as a global concern, which needs a global response. The High-Level Segment underlined that Member States are committed to combating climate change: ITU remains committed to combating climate change. ITUÆs work is in line with the needs and priorities of our Member States in the vital importance of taking action to combat climate change.
Dr Hamadoun I. TourÚ
ITU Secretary-General
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
EWASTE FOUNDATION
has a new certificate-based offset program--take a peek
http://ewastefoundation.org/index.html
http://ewastefoundation.org/index.html
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
2 FAB QUOTATIONS
The community in question occupied a tract of land at the foot of the mesa. Above it hunkered the remains of Reciclaje Integral, a deserted smelting and battery recycling plant. For years the residents of Vista Nueva had reported skin ulcers, respiratory ailments, birth defects. A number of children had died. …
When it became apparent that charges would be brought against him in a Mexican court, however, the owner, an American, simply filed for bankruptcy in Mexico, left the factory as it stood, and withdrew across the border, where he continued to prosper. … He lived in a million-dollar house somewhere in San Diego County while his deserted plant continued to poison the residents of Vista Nueva—Kem Nunn (Tijuana Straits 25)
Going further back in time, the San Remo of my childhood springs to mind, and I see the dustbin man with his sack on his back walking up the hairpins of the drive as far as the villa to collect the rubbish from the zinc bin: our genteel lifestyle seemed guaranteed for all eternity by the availability of cheap labour—Italo Calvino (The Road to San Giovanni 99)
When it became apparent that charges would be brought against him in a Mexican court, however, the owner, an American, simply filed for bankruptcy in Mexico, left the factory as it stood, and withdrew across the border, where he continued to prosper. … He lived in a million-dollar house somewhere in San Diego County while his deserted plant continued to poison the residents of Vista Nueva—Kem Nunn (Tijuana Straits 25)
Going further back in time, the San Remo of my childhood springs to mind, and I see the dustbin man with his sack on his back walking up the hairpins of the drive as far as the villa to collect the rubbish from the zinc bin: our genteel lifestyle seemed guaranteed for all eternity by the availability of cheap labour—Italo Calvino (The Road to San Giovanni 99)
Thursday, September 17, 2009
california energy commission and tvs
Frequently Asked Questions - FAQs
Energy Efficiency Standards for Televisions
Just the Facts, the Truth About Proposed TV Standards
(Acrobat PDF file, 2 pgs)
Picture of LCD televisions in showroom.
What exactly is being proposed for new televisions?
The California Energy Commission is proposing energy efficiency standards for new televisions offered for sale in California beginning in 2011 and 2013. The standards would improve the energy efficiency of televisions without affecting the quality of the television.
Is California considering banning plasma, large screen, or HD televisions?
No, the state is not banning any type of TV. Consumers have the freedom to choose any type and size of television that meets the efficiency standard.
Why propose energy efficiency standards for televisions now?
In California, televisions (along with DVRs, DVD players, and cable boxes) now consume 10 percent of a home's electricity. Increasing sales of flat screen televisions, larger screen sizes, the growing number of TVs per household, and increased daily use of televisions all contribute to greater electricity consumption.
Does this affect the television in my home?
No, the proposed standard has no effect on existing televisions. It only applies to TVs sold in California after January 1, 2011.
Why enact these regulations?
These proposed standards will save consumers money on their electricity bill, conserve energy, protect the environment, and achieve it with on-the-shelf technology currently available. Additionally, these regulations will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and decrease the need to build additional, large power plants.
When will this new technology be available?
The technology to make TVs more energy efficient is available now and currently used now in a variety of models. Nearly 850 models already meet the 2011 standard; and of those, 231 models meet the 2013 standard. Please download this PDF file (220 kb) for a list of models that already meet these proposed standards.
Will this proposal cause job losses in California?
A high-powered television industry lobby assumes that televisions that do not comply with the proposed efficiency standards will simply go away leaving void in the marketplace. For an industry that prides itself in innovation, this premise is simply flawed. Innovation, like energy efficiency, drives the market and offers new televisions with new features for a media-savvy consumer. New energy efficient models will take the place of noncompliant TVs offering the same or better picture and performance. Consumers overwhelmingly want efficient TVs, retailers now will be able to market their products to a desirable demographic.
Who is supporting these proposals?
The second largest manufacturer of flat screen TVs in the nation, Vizio; television component manufacturers 3M and Agoura Technologies; the LCD Television Association; the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and all three major California electric utility companies (Pacific Gas and Electric, San Diego Gas & Electric, and Southern California Edison) endorse the proposed regulations.
Many well-known retailers including Wal*Mart, Costco, and Sam's Club have all agreed to emphasize selling energy efficient TVs.
When would these proposed standards take effect?
The first standard (Tier 1) would take effect January 1, 2011, and reduce energy consumption by average of 33 percent. The second measure (Tier 2) would take effect in 2013 and, in conjunction with Tier 1, reduce energy consumption by an average of 49 percent.
Why are energy efficiency standards important?
Despite increased population and more appliances consuming power in homes and businesses, energy efficiency standards have helped keep per capita electricity consumption in California flat for the past 30 years.
California's per capita electricity consumption has remained constant at approximately 7,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh) for the last 30 years due in large part to strict standards for homes and appliances. The rest of the U.S. has increased 40 percent (or roughly 12,000 kWh per person). See www.energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/us_per_capita_electricity_2005.html
While new power plants with an installed capacity of 13,180 megawatts were built in the last 10 years, efficiency standards have helped the state avoid building several additional power plants.
Why not regulate refrigerators instead?
Actually, the Energy Commission has passed regulations on refrigerators, air conditioners, and lighting among other appliances. By implementing standards on inefficient refrigerators 30 years ago, Californians now enjoy less expensive appliances and greater comfort, features, and convenience at 25 percent of the electricity consumption. Refrigerators today use one-fourth the amount of electricity as those 30 years ago.
Why does the Energy Commission issue efficiency standards?
Energy efficiency is the cleanest and cheapest form of "renewable" energy. Part of the Commission's mandate is to adopt energy efficiency standards for appliances that require a significant amount of energy on a statewide basis. Regulations proposed by the Energy Commission must be cost-effective, energy efficient, and technically feasible.
How much will this add to my cost for buying a new television?
In most cases, adding efficiency technologies in televisions does not result in increased cost of the television because other components can be reduced, offsetting any increased cost.
How much money can these proposals save?
These proposals can save consumers $18 to nearly $30 per year per television.
How much energy can these proposals save consumers?
After the existing stock of televisions is replaced, these proposed standards will save 3,831 gigawatt hours (GWh) in 2011; 2,684 GWh in 2013. The total savings is 6,515 GWh.
What does 6,515 gigawatt hours translate to?
The total energy savings of 6,515 GWh is enough energy to power 864,000 single-family homes for an entire year. That's enough electricity to power the cities of Anaheim, Burbank, Glendale, and Palo Alto combined.
How many televisions are there in California?
There are an estimated 35 million TVs in California consuming 8,772 gigawatt hours annually. A gigawatt hour is equivalent to having 40,000 televisions on for five hours a day for an entire year.
Why propose standards if the federal Energy Star® program already exists?
The national Energy Star® program is a voluntary program that induces manufacturers to produce efficient televisions to achieve an Energy Star label but does not prevent the sale of inefficient televisions that will cost consumers money over time. Most Energy Star televisions on sale today already meet the proposed Tier 1 standard.
Will these standards lead to an Internet 'black market' for noncompliant TVs?
No, the Energy Commission is working with major online retailers to ensure that televisions sold in California comply with the new energy efficiency regulations.
What is the next step in the process?
The Energy Commission will consider comments received in January and consider changes to the proposed standards. Additional public input will be sought at stakeholders meetings, public hearing, and written comments. A vote on this proposal is expected by summer 2009.
How much wattage do different types (CRT - cathode ray tube, liquid crystal display - LCD, plasma) of televisions use?
It's hard to compare CRTs to LCDs and plasmas. On average, CRTs use 0.23-watts per square inch of the screen, LCDs use 0.27-watts per square inch, and plasmas use 0.36-watts per square inch. Below are comparisons of the "average size" of each type of television and the wattage they use, and a comparison of wattage used by a 42-inch LCD versus a 42-inch plasma.
There are few direct-view CRTs that are as large as the big LCDs and plasma TVs. A 40-inch (diagonal), direct-view HDTV is the industry's largest direct-view cathode ray tube. It uses 280 watts while in operation and only one watt in stand-by mode.
Energy Efficiency Standards for Televisions
Just the Facts, the Truth About Proposed TV Standards
(Acrobat PDF file, 2 pgs)
Picture of LCD televisions in showroom.
What exactly is being proposed for new televisions?
The California Energy Commission is proposing energy efficiency standards for new televisions offered for sale in California beginning in 2011 and 2013. The standards would improve the energy efficiency of televisions without affecting the quality of the television.
Is California considering banning plasma, large screen, or HD televisions?
No, the state is not banning any type of TV. Consumers have the freedom to choose any type and size of television that meets the efficiency standard.
Why propose energy efficiency standards for televisions now?
In California, televisions (along with DVRs, DVD players, and cable boxes) now consume 10 percent of a home's electricity. Increasing sales of flat screen televisions, larger screen sizes, the growing number of TVs per household, and increased daily use of televisions all contribute to greater electricity consumption.
Does this affect the television in my home?
No, the proposed standard has no effect on existing televisions. It only applies to TVs sold in California after January 1, 2011.
Why enact these regulations?
These proposed standards will save consumers money on their electricity bill, conserve energy, protect the environment, and achieve it with on-the-shelf technology currently available. Additionally, these regulations will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and decrease the need to build additional, large power plants.
When will this new technology be available?
The technology to make TVs more energy efficient is available now and currently used now in a variety of models. Nearly 850 models already meet the 2011 standard; and of those, 231 models meet the 2013 standard. Please download this PDF file (220 kb) for a list of models that already meet these proposed standards.
Will this proposal cause job losses in California?
A high-powered television industry lobby assumes that televisions that do not comply with the proposed efficiency standards will simply go away leaving void in the marketplace. For an industry that prides itself in innovation, this premise is simply flawed. Innovation, like energy efficiency, drives the market and offers new televisions with new features for a media-savvy consumer. New energy efficient models will take the place of noncompliant TVs offering the same or better picture and performance. Consumers overwhelmingly want efficient TVs, retailers now will be able to market their products to a desirable demographic.
Who is supporting these proposals?
The second largest manufacturer of flat screen TVs in the nation, Vizio; television component manufacturers 3M and Agoura Technologies; the LCD Television Association; the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and all three major California electric utility companies (Pacific Gas and Electric, San Diego Gas & Electric, and Southern California Edison) endorse the proposed regulations.
Many well-known retailers including Wal*Mart, Costco, and Sam's Club have all agreed to emphasize selling energy efficient TVs.
When would these proposed standards take effect?
The first standard (Tier 1) would take effect January 1, 2011, and reduce energy consumption by average of 33 percent. The second measure (Tier 2) would take effect in 2013 and, in conjunction with Tier 1, reduce energy consumption by an average of 49 percent.
Why are energy efficiency standards important?
Despite increased population and more appliances consuming power in homes and businesses, energy efficiency standards have helped keep per capita electricity consumption in California flat for the past 30 years.
California's per capita electricity consumption has remained constant at approximately 7,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh) for the last 30 years due in large part to strict standards for homes and appliances. The rest of the U.S. has increased 40 percent (or roughly 12,000 kWh per person). See www.energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/us_per_capita_electricity_2005.html
While new power plants with an installed capacity of 13,180 megawatts were built in the last 10 years, efficiency standards have helped the state avoid building several additional power plants.
Why not regulate refrigerators instead?
Actually, the Energy Commission has passed regulations on refrigerators, air conditioners, and lighting among other appliances. By implementing standards on inefficient refrigerators 30 years ago, Californians now enjoy less expensive appliances and greater comfort, features, and convenience at 25 percent of the electricity consumption. Refrigerators today use one-fourth the amount of electricity as those 30 years ago.
Why does the Energy Commission issue efficiency standards?
Energy efficiency is the cleanest and cheapest form of "renewable" energy. Part of the Commission's mandate is to adopt energy efficiency standards for appliances that require a significant amount of energy on a statewide basis. Regulations proposed by the Energy Commission must be cost-effective, energy efficient, and technically feasible.
How much will this add to my cost for buying a new television?
In most cases, adding efficiency technologies in televisions does not result in increased cost of the television because other components can be reduced, offsetting any increased cost.
How much money can these proposals save?
These proposals can save consumers $18 to nearly $30 per year per television.
How much energy can these proposals save consumers?
After the existing stock of televisions is replaced, these proposed standards will save 3,831 gigawatt hours (GWh) in 2011; 2,684 GWh in 2013. The total savings is 6,515 GWh.
What does 6,515 gigawatt hours translate to?
The total energy savings of 6,515 GWh is enough energy to power 864,000 single-family homes for an entire year. That's enough electricity to power the cities of Anaheim, Burbank, Glendale, and Palo Alto combined.
How many televisions are there in California?
There are an estimated 35 million TVs in California consuming 8,772 gigawatt hours annually. A gigawatt hour is equivalent to having 40,000 televisions on for five hours a day for an entire year.
Why propose standards if the federal Energy Star® program already exists?
The national Energy Star® program is a voluntary program that induces manufacturers to produce efficient televisions to achieve an Energy Star label but does not prevent the sale of inefficient televisions that will cost consumers money over time. Most Energy Star televisions on sale today already meet the proposed Tier 1 standard.
Will these standards lead to an Internet 'black market' for noncompliant TVs?
No, the Energy Commission is working with major online retailers to ensure that televisions sold in California comply with the new energy efficiency regulations.
What is the next step in the process?
The Energy Commission will consider comments received in January and consider changes to the proposed standards. Additional public input will be sought at stakeholders meetings, public hearing, and written comments. A vote on this proposal is expected by summer 2009.
How much wattage do different types (CRT - cathode ray tube, liquid crystal display - LCD, plasma) of televisions use?
It's hard to compare CRTs to LCDs and plasmas. On average, CRTs use 0.23-watts per square inch of the screen, LCDs use 0.27-watts per square inch, and plasmas use 0.36-watts per square inch. Below are comparisons of the "average size" of each type of television and the wattage they use, and a comparison of wattage used by a 42-inch LCD versus a 42-inch plasma.
There are few direct-view CRTs that are as large as the big LCDs and plasma TVs. A 40-inch (diagonal), direct-view HDTV is the industry's largest direct-view cathode ray tube. It uses 280 watts while in operation and only one watt in stand-by mode.
YOU GO, CALI--OUR CONSTITUTION AND ECONOMY MAY BE NUTTY, BUT...
Giant screen TVs under fire in California
STORY FROM RBR.COMTVBR.COM 09-16-09
The Golden State has long charted its own course on automobile regulations and, effectively, forced the rest of the nation to follow suit, due to its huge market. Now California is proposing to do much the same with television sets – and that has the manufacturers up in arms.
Under a regulation pending before the California Energy Commission (CEC), television sets sold in the state after January 1, 2011 would have to meet energy efficiency standards designed to reduce electrical consumption by an average of 33%. Even stricter limits would take effect two years later, which combined with the earlier move would reduce energy consumption by an average of 49%.
As you would expect, this is not sitting well with the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA), which is battling the proposed regulation. It has joined with other organizations in launching a campaign against the proposal, arguing that it would reduce consumer choice and cost jobs. CEC attacked CEA on its website as “a high-powered television industry lobby” and dismissed its arguments, saying it “assumes that televisions that do not comply with the proposed efficiency standards will simply go away leaving a void in the marketplace.” CEC insists that new, more energy-efficient models will fill that void. And it notes that nearly 850 models already meet the proposed 2011 standard, including 231 models that meet the 2013 standard.
A Zogby poll commissioned by CEA has found widespread citizen opposition to the proposed standard – with 57% of those surveyed against regulating electricity usage by televisions. 61% said there are already too many regulations in California. 59% said what TV to buy should be a consumer’s choice, not the government’s. 58% said the proposed CEC regulation was another “costly and unnecessary” government burden on small business owners. And 55% believe Governor Arnold Schwarzenner (R) should block the CEC from adopting the regulation.
Business groups and other organizations opposed to the CEC proposal have banded together as Californians for Smart Energy. It released results of the Zogby poll commissioned by CEA to demonstrate how widespread the opposition is to the proposed regulation. “If adopted, television manufacturers would be required to meet an artificial energy use limit in order to sell their televisions in California. The CEC’s regulation would effectively ban the sale of 25 percent of current big screen TV models and 100 percent of plasma TVs larger than 60 inches in California. According to a Resolution Economics, LLC study, the CEC’s regulation would cost California $50 million a year in lost tax revenues and destroy 4,600 jobs,” the group stated.
RBR/TVBR observation: The California Energy Commission is trying to portray this as much ado about nothing, since the proposed regulation would not kick in until 2011 and lots of models already meet the energy efficiency limits. The Consumer Electronics Association, quite rightly, sees this as a slippery slope, with ever-tightening regulations ahead. And, just as with autos, the California market is so large that the state can essentially impose its will on the entire country by making it impractical for a manufacturer to make one model for California and another for the rest of the US. We doubt that any manufacturer would be willing to take the other course, and bow out of the huge consumer market in California.
STORY FROM RBR.COMTVBR.COM 09-16-09
The Golden State has long charted its own course on automobile regulations and, effectively, forced the rest of the nation to follow suit, due to its huge market. Now California is proposing to do much the same with television sets – and that has the manufacturers up in arms.
Under a regulation pending before the California Energy Commission (CEC), television sets sold in the state after January 1, 2011 would have to meet energy efficiency standards designed to reduce electrical consumption by an average of 33%. Even stricter limits would take effect two years later, which combined with the earlier move would reduce energy consumption by an average of 49%.
As you would expect, this is not sitting well with the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA), which is battling the proposed regulation. It has joined with other organizations in launching a campaign against the proposal, arguing that it would reduce consumer choice and cost jobs. CEC attacked CEA on its website as “a high-powered television industry lobby” and dismissed its arguments, saying it “assumes that televisions that do not comply with the proposed efficiency standards will simply go away leaving a void in the marketplace.” CEC insists that new, more energy-efficient models will fill that void. And it notes that nearly 850 models already meet the proposed 2011 standard, including 231 models that meet the 2013 standard.
A Zogby poll commissioned by CEA has found widespread citizen opposition to the proposed standard – with 57% of those surveyed against regulating electricity usage by televisions. 61% said there are already too many regulations in California. 59% said what TV to buy should be a consumer’s choice, not the government’s. 58% said the proposed CEC regulation was another “costly and unnecessary” government burden on small business owners. And 55% believe Governor Arnold Schwarzenner (R) should block the CEC from adopting the regulation.
Business groups and other organizations opposed to the CEC proposal have banded together as Californians for Smart Energy. It released results of the Zogby poll commissioned by CEA to demonstrate how widespread the opposition is to the proposed regulation. “If adopted, television manufacturers would be required to meet an artificial energy use limit in order to sell their televisions in California. The CEC’s regulation would effectively ban the sale of 25 percent of current big screen TV models and 100 percent of plasma TVs larger than 60 inches in California. According to a Resolution Economics, LLC study, the CEC’s regulation would cost California $50 million a year in lost tax revenues and destroy 4,600 jobs,” the group stated.
RBR/TVBR observation: The California Energy Commission is trying to portray this as much ado about nothing, since the proposed regulation would not kick in until 2011 and lots of models already meet the energy efficiency limits. The Consumer Electronics Association, quite rightly, sees this as a slippery slope, with ever-tightening regulations ahead. And, just as with autos, the California market is so large that the state can essentially impose its will on the entire country by making it impractical for a manufacturer to make one model for California and another for the rest of the US. We doubt that any manufacturer would be willing to take the other course, and bow out of the huge consumer market in California.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
delhi again
Tackling e-waste
This growing problem demands urgent solutions
Business Standard / New Delhi September 11, 2009, 0:47 IST
The New Delhi Municipal Committee’s reported plan to tie up with a private company to get electronic waste (e-waste) recycled and disposed of safely seems a well-conceived move aimed at tackling the health and environmental hazards posed by discarded modern gadgets. Almost unheard of till a couple of decades back, e-waste now constitutes a sizeable chunk of urban waste. In the absence of appropriate arrangements for its safe disposal, much of this hazardous junk either lands in the usual garbage landfills or is recycled in a crude and highly unsafe manner by the unorganised sector. The electronic and electrical equipment commonly used in homes, offices and factories, including computers, mobile phones, TVs, refrigerators and air-conditioners, contain highly toxic substances like lead, cadmium, mercury, hexavalent chromium, arsenic and others which can cause nervous and respiratory ailments, muscular weakness and dreaded diseases like cancer. Worse still, some of these substances are capable of damaging the DNA and causing genetic disorders. When dumped in landfills along with other garbage, these can spew environment-damaging fumes and leach down to pollute underground water, rendering it unfit for drinking and other purposes.
It is, therefore, imperative that these items, when discarded, are handled separately from other solid waste and disposed of in a safe manner. Only technically competent bodies can do this, and many countries have put in place mandatory systems and stringent norms for the purpose. In India, unfortunately, the guidelines issued by the environment ministry seek voluntary compliance and, hence, are not enforceable. The system of making it obligatory for manufacturers to take back life-expired items for safe disposal, which is working quite well in quite a few countries, does not seem practical in Indian conditions though some companies have voluntarily opted to do so. A sizable part of the electrical and electronic items, including computers and TVs which constitute the largest chunk of e-waste, are assembled in the unorganised sector where no single entity can be held responsible for taking back the discards. Besides, collecting junked items is a formidable problem for companies and unless such collections are sizeable enough it is uneconomic for them to set up recycling and disposal plants. However, exclusive e-waste handling units, capable of scientific processing of electronic gadgets regardless of their make, can be viable as they can source their supplies from the kabadiwalas (junk dealers).
Considering the rapid growth in the use of electronic items, the country’s e-waste generation, estimated by the industry at about 3.8 million tonnes in 2008, seems set to rise several-fold in the years to come. What is worse, some of the e-waste produced abroad also lands up in India under the guise of charity items for re-use. Such imports are believed to constitute about 15 per cent of the country’s total e-waste. While, on the one hand, such a vast quantity of e-waste poses a challenge, on the other it offers an opportunity for entrepreneurs to capitalise by investing in e-waste disposal plants. The government, on its part, needs to come out, without delay, with a clear-cut e-waste management policy and a strictly-enforceable set of rules and guidelines for e-waste disposal.
This growing problem demands urgent solutions
Business Standard / New Delhi September 11, 2009, 0:47 IST
The New Delhi Municipal Committee’s reported plan to tie up with a private company to get electronic waste (e-waste) recycled and disposed of safely seems a well-conceived move aimed at tackling the health and environmental hazards posed by discarded modern gadgets. Almost unheard of till a couple of decades back, e-waste now constitutes a sizeable chunk of urban waste. In the absence of appropriate arrangements for its safe disposal, much of this hazardous junk either lands in the usual garbage landfills or is recycled in a crude and highly unsafe manner by the unorganised sector. The electronic and electrical equipment commonly used in homes, offices and factories, including computers, mobile phones, TVs, refrigerators and air-conditioners, contain highly toxic substances like lead, cadmium, mercury, hexavalent chromium, arsenic and others which can cause nervous and respiratory ailments, muscular weakness and dreaded diseases like cancer. Worse still, some of these substances are capable of damaging the DNA and causing genetic disorders. When dumped in landfills along with other garbage, these can spew environment-damaging fumes and leach down to pollute underground water, rendering it unfit for drinking and other purposes.
It is, therefore, imperative that these items, when discarded, are handled separately from other solid waste and disposed of in a safe manner. Only technically competent bodies can do this, and many countries have put in place mandatory systems and stringent norms for the purpose. In India, unfortunately, the guidelines issued by the environment ministry seek voluntary compliance and, hence, are not enforceable. The system of making it obligatory for manufacturers to take back life-expired items for safe disposal, which is working quite well in quite a few countries, does not seem practical in Indian conditions though some companies have voluntarily opted to do so. A sizable part of the electrical and electronic items, including computers and TVs which constitute the largest chunk of e-waste, are assembled in the unorganised sector where no single entity can be held responsible for taking back the discards. Besides, collecting junked items is a formidable problem for companies and unless such collections are sizeable enough it is uneconomic for them to set up recycling and disposal plants. However, exclusive e-waste handling units, capable of scientific processing of electronic gadgets regardless of their make, can be viable as they can source their supplies from the kabadiwalas (junk dealers).
Considering the rapid growth in the use of electronic items, the country’s e-waste generation, estimated by the industry at about 3.8 million tonnes in 2008, seems set to rise several-fold in the years to come. What is worse, some of the e-waste produced abroad also lands up in India under the guise of charity items for re-use. Such imports are believed to constitute about 15 per cent of the country’s total e-waste. While, on the one hand, such a vast quantity of e-waste poses a challenge, on the other it offers an opportunity for entrepreneurs to capitalise by investing in e-waste disposal plants. The government, on its part, needs to come out, without delay, with a clear-cut e-waste management policy and a strictly-enforceable set of rules and guidelines for e-waste disposal.
TURKEY GETS REAL
Demand rises for centers to assess electronic waste
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
ISTANBUL - Anatolia News Agency
As many new tech retailers open in Turkey, the need for the collection of electronic waste also rises. Currently, there is demand for 850 collection centers nationwide and 15 regional centers for electronic waste, an official says
One official says the electronic waste centers should be formed by municipalities. Bloomberg photo
One official says the electronic waste centers should be formed by municipalities. Bloomberg photo
Turkey’s electronic waste totaled 330,000 tons in 2008 and is expected to rise to 400,000 tons by 2015, said a ministry official, expressing the need for collection centers.
“There is a demand for 850 collection centers nationwide and 15 regional centers for electronic waste,” said Kemal Kurusakız, head of the special waste section at the Ministry of Environment and Forestry.
Speaking at a conference on the Sustainable Management of Istanbul Local E-Waste, or SMILE, led by the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality, Kurusakız said the European Union has two directives on electronic waste. The ministry has issued the Restriction of Hazardous Substances, or RoHS, directive, but a good audit mechanism and laboratories are required to implement this regulation, he said.
In EU member countries, a total of 8.5 million tons of electronic waste was released in 2005, and the figure is predicted to reach 12 million tons by 2020, Kurusakız said. Regarding Turkey’s situation, there is an evaluation study covering 2007 and 2015. “There is a demand for 850 collection centers nationwide and 15 regional centers for electronic waste,” he said. “However, these centers should be formed by municipalities.”
İbrahim Demir, director of the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality Department of Environmental Protection and Development, said most of the regulations introduced in Turkey are not applicable.
“In order for the regulation on electronic waste to be applicable, we will express the knowledge and experience we have attained from the 30-month-long project to the Ministry of Environment and Forestry.”
Project target
The Environmental and Cultural Heritage Conservation Association, or ÇEVKU, and Greek ecological recycling societies are also taking part in the SMILE project, which is supported by the EU, said Eyüp Korkut, director of the Waste Management Department of the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality’s Department of Environmental Protection and Development.
The project, which aims to minimize the damage on the environment by collecting computer waste, has a budget of 1.6 million Turkish Liras, he said, adding that it started on March 12, 2007, and will end on Monday but because it is a sustainable project, it will continue.
The goal of the project is to prepare plans, databases and pilot projects for the collection, recycling and disposal of electrical and electronic waste in Istanbul, Korkut said.
The project aims to prepare a feasibility report, collect computer waste of at least 6,000 units, repair at least 60 percent of the collected items, form the inventory of the collected parts and conduct market research for the parts that cannot be used again. It will also contribute to the applicability of the waste electrical and electronic goods regulation, which will be issued soon.
Within the framework of the project, 11,720 units have been collected, 681 units have been put into use again while 7,988 units have been recycled, 324 units granted and 3,051 units are still waiting, he said.
In EU member countries, 14 kilograms of electronic waste per capita is created annually on average and 90 percent of the amount is disposed unregulated, said Talat Yüksel, vice managing director at MESS Entegre Geri Kazanım ve Enerji Sanayi Ticaret, a company active in integrated recycling.
The aim in Europe is to collect 4 kilograms electronic wastes per capita, he said, adding that there are noteworthy revision activities in European countries. Now, producer firms are responsible for waste recycling, he said.
Turkey is Europe’s second- or third-largest white goods producer, Yüksel said. Therefore, the upcoming regulation in Turkey should be extensive and applicable.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
ISTANBUL - Anatolia News Agency
As many new tech retailers open in Turkey, the need for the collection of electronic waste also rises. Currently, there is demand for 850 collection centers nationwide and 15 regional centers for electronic waste, an official says
One official says the electronic waste centers should be formed by municipalities. Bloomberg photo
One official says the electronic waste centers should be formed by municipalities. Bloomberg photo
Turkey’s electronic waste totaled 330,000 tons in 2008 and is expected to rise to 400,000 tons by 2015, said a ministry official, expressing the need for collection centers.
“There is a demand for 850 collection centers nationwide and 15 regional centers for electronic waste,” said Kemal Kurusakız, head of the special waste section at the Ministry of Environment and Forestry.
Speaking at a conference on the Sustainable Management of Istanbul Local E-Waste, or SMILE, led by the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality, Kurusakız said the European Union has two directives on electronic waste. The ministry has issued the Restriction of Hazardous Substances, or RoHS, directive, but a good audit mechanism and laboratories are required to implement this regulation, he said.
In EU member countries, a total of 8.5 million tons of electronic waste was released in 2005, and the figure is predicted to reach 12 million tons by 2020, Kurusakız said. Regarding Turkey’s situation, there is an evaluation study covering 2007 and 2015. “There is a demand for 850 collection centers nationwide and 15 regional centers for electronic waste,” he said. “However, these centers should be formed by municipalities.”
İbrahim Demir, director of the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality Department of Environmental Protection and Development, said most of the regulations introduced in Turkey are not applicable.
“In order for the regulation on electronic waste to be applicable, we will express the knowledge and experience we have attained from the 30-month-long project to the Ministry of Environment and Forestry.”
Project target
The Environmental and Cultural Heritage Conservation Association, or ÇEVKU, and Greek ecological recycling societies are also taking part in the SMILE project, which is supported by the EU, said Eyüp Korkut, director of the Waste Management Department of the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality’s Department of Environmental Protection and Development.
The project, which aims to minimize the damage on the environment by collecting computer waste, has a budget of 1.6 million Turkish Liras, he said, adding that it started on March 12, 2007, and will end on Monday but because it is a sustainable project, it will continue.
The goal of the project is to prepare plans, databases and pilot projects for the collection, recycling and disposal of electrical and electronic waste in Istanbul, Korkut said.
The project aims to prepare a feasibility report, collect computer waste of at least 6,000 units, repair at least 60 percent of the collected items, form the inventory of the collected parts and conduct market research for the parts that cannot be used again. It will also contribute to the applicability of the waste electrical and electronic goods regulation, which will be issued soon.
Within the framework of the project, 11,720 units have been collected, 681 units have been put into use again while 7,988 units have been recycled, 324 units granted and 3,051 units are still waiting, he said.
In EU member countries, 14 kilograms of electronic waste per capita is created annually on average and 90 percent of the amount is disposed unregulated, said Talat Yüksel, vice managing director at MESS Entegre Geri Kazanım ve Enerji Sanayi Ticaret, a company active in integrated recycling.
The aim in Europe is to collect 4 kilograms electronic wastes per capita, he said, adding that there are noteworthy revision activities in European countries. Now, producer firms are responsible for waste recycling, he said.
Turkey is Europe’s second- or third-largest white goods producer, Yüksel said. Therefore, the upcoming regulation in Turkey should be extensive and applicable.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
GRAUNIAD STORY EXCELLENT
Camsemi
A 2008 contender makes it to the 2009 Global Cleantech 100 list
* Oliver Tickell
* The Guardian
Think of clean energy technology and what comes to mind? Wind turbines on our mountain tops? Millions of roofs covered with solar cells? Futuristic cars from a sci-fi movie? Well, try again.
Think of something the size of a matchhead that you will probably never see, or even know it's there. Think super-efficient power conversion chips inside your mobile phone charger, laptop power supply, lighting systems and other mains-powered devices. The chips may be minute and out of sight, but the new energy-saving technologies they contain, developed by Cambridge-based CamSemi, could be transformational. The company's power management controllers promise to set off a quiet revolution in the electronics industry - and save hundreds of millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions.
"Your old cordless phone is probably wasting a third of the electricity it consumes - and that's in a product that is left plugged in all the time," says CamSemi's chief executive officer, David Baillie. "Your mobile phone charger is probably throwing away half the energy while it's actually charging, and all the time it's left plugged in on the wall it's burning a watt, day in day out. It doesn't sound like much but multiply that watt by a billion chargers around the world and it's a gigawatt, or a big coal fired power station. And many people have more than one mobile phone, they have mp3 players, digital cameras, bluetooth headsets, portable games machines ... so it's not just mobile phones but the whole consumer electronics sector."
The world consumer market for chargers and power supplies is about 2 billion units a year - and CamSemi is aiming to take a "leadership position" in the sector, getting its chips into at least 20% of them. "We believe our technology is the best around for manufacturers of chargers or adapters for mobile phones, and for consumer networking technologies like modems and routers and WiFi access points," says Baillie. "So we have every hope of achieving that ambition."
Paradoxically, CamSemi is supporting efforts to reduce the size of its market by developing a "universal charger solution" so that a wide range of mobile phones and other devices can share chargers via a PC-type USB interface. Apart from the convenience to consumers, this would have a huge "green" payoff by reducing waste and electronics landfill. "There are multiple green aspects in what we do," says Baillie. "Not having to make holes in the ground, smelt metals and dump electronic waste is definitely part of our mission."
Moreover, CamSemi is eyeing up even bigger markets. "Power conversion is everywhere - it is ubiquitous," says Baillie. "Hardly anything that plugs into the mains does not contain a power conversion and electronic control somewhere. Energy efficiency legislation will drive everything to have intelligent power conversion and the sky is the limit. There are so many places where we could play."
The lighting market is an example. Incandescent or filament bulbs are one of the few products to run directly from the mains - but they throw away 95% of their energy as heat, turning only 5% into light. Thanks to efficiency regulations, this 10 billion-unit-a-year market is disappearing, to be taken over by compact fluorescent bulbs and LEDs - both of which need power converters.
The company is thinking big but remains small for now: it turned over $2m last year and has yet to make a profit. Hence the importance of clean-tech investors who have been financing CamSemi since 2002, most recently culminating in a third investment round in April 2008 in which the Carbon Trust and BankInvest joined existing investors to subscribe $34m. "Having the Carbon Trust on board adds a lot of value through its industry connections but it also validates our green credentials and adds reassurance," says Baillie. "Our job now is to deliver a great return - for our investors and for the environment."
A 2008 contender makes it to the 2009 Global Cleantech 100 list
* Oliver Tickell
* The Guardian
Think of clean energy technology and what comes to mind? Wind turbines on our mountain tops? Millions of roofs covered with solar cells? Futuristic cars from a sci-fi movie? Well, try again.
Think of something the size of a matchhead that you will probably never see, or even know it's there. Think super-efficient power conversion chips inside your mobile phone charger, laptop power supply, lighting systems and other mains-powered devices. The chips may be minute and out of sight, but the new energy-saving technologies they contain, developed by Cambridge-based CamSemi, could be transformational. The company's power management controllers promise to set off a quiet revolution in the electronics industry - and save hundreds of millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions.
"Your old cordless phone is probably wasting a third of the electricity it consumes - and that's in a product that is left plugged in all the time," says CamSemi's chief executive officer, David Baillie. "Your mobile phone charger is probably throwing away half the energy while it's actually charging, and all the time it's left plugged in on the wall it's burning a watt, day in day out. It doesn't sound like much but multiply that watt by a billion chargers around the world and it's a gigawatt, or a big coal fired power station. And many people have more than one mobile phone, they have mp3 players, digital cameras, bluetooth headsets, portable games machines ... so it's not just mobile phones but the whole consumer electronics sector."
The world consumer market for chargers and power supplies is about 2 billion units a year - and CamSemi is aiming to take a "leadership position" in the sector, getting its chips into at least 20% of them. "We believe our technology is the best around for manufacturers of chargers or adapters for mobile phones, and for consumer networking technologies like modems and routers and WiFi access points," says Baillie. "So we have every hope of achieving that ambition."
Paradoxically, CamSemi is supporting efforts to reduce the size of its market by developing a "universal charger solution" so that a wide range of mobile phones and other devices can share chargers via a PC-type USB interface. Apart from the convenience to consumers, this would have a huge "green" payoff by reducing waste and electronics landfill. "There are multiple green aspects in what we do," says Baillie. "Not having to make holes in the ground, smelt metals and dump electronic waste is definitely part of our mission."
Moreover, CamSemi is eyeing up even bigger markets. "Power conversion is everywhere - it is ubiquitous," says Baillie. "Hardly anything that plugs into the mains does not contain a power conversion and electronic control somewhere. Energy efficiency legislation will drive everything to have intelligent power conversion and the sky is the limit. There are so many places where we could play."
The lighting market is an example. Incandescent or filament bulbs are one of the few products to run directly from the mains - but they throw away 95% of their energy as heat, turning only 5% into light. Thanks to efficiency regulations, this 10 billion-unit-a-year market is disappearing, to be taken over by compact fluorescent bulbs and LEDs - both of which need power converters.
The company is thinking big but remains small for now: it turned over $2m last year and has yet to make a profit. Hence the importance of clean-tech investors who have been financing CamSemi since 2002, most recently culminating in a third investment round in April 2008 in which the Carbon Trust and BankInvest joined existing investors to subscribe $34m. "Having the Carbon Trust on board adds a lot of value through its industry connections but it also validates our green credentials and adds reassurance," says Baillie. "Our job now is to deliver a great return - for our investors and for the environment."
Sunday, September 6, 2009
BUYGREEN OFFERS TECH PRODUCTS--are these kosher? let me know
http://www.buygreen.com/technologyandelectronics.aspx
NEW EPA STANDARDS FOR TV GREEN CLAIMS
can be found at
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=revisions.television_spec
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=revisions.television_spec
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
