smallbusiness.aol.com — But recently, scientific studies analyzing the many components involved in making the world 100% digital have uncovered the severely negative impact of technology on the environment. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been working to improve the design and recyclability of electronics for over 10 years cites the following concerns.
Jan 16, 2010 View in Crawl 4
bonerfideJan 17, 2010
Or you get the manual but because it's printed in multiple languages they only cover the basics in English
Closed AccountJan 17, 2010
we need to get rid of more people...
reaper527Jan 17, 2010
is he good at what he does? it sounds likes time for an upgrade
addiktionJan 18, 2010
Yeah, the problem is the system isn't designed to be very resource friendly. Businesses profit by releasing new products annually or sooner than that. The planned obsolescence creates numerous obsolete products quickly, thus resulting in more trashed electronic devices. Products can't be built to last forever because then the business would not survive the next year, so the result, is innovation is intentionally slowed to spur profits. Obviously it helps a businesses image if they use greener products, but there isn't enough people who care about this to really get on the band wagon and hold these companies accountable. If businesses find it difficult to comply, they simply lobby millions for congress to support their motive of continuing the pollution.
metaprinterJan 18, 2010
oh wait, i jumped the gun. there is a link... under Don Carli
Closed AccountJan 18, 2010
you mean like hemp?
ironnickJan 18, 2010
I can see your logic, but I disagree with it. Land space on earth is a zero-sum game (obviously) because space is limited. The land that is freed up by going paperless can now be used for something else, like farming, or left to revert back to natural state.All that aside, ever year there are 4 billion trees cut down for paper. That's 10 million trees per day. While growth is supposedly exceeding harvest today, this is still not sustainable indefinitely without negative environmental impacts.Bottom line: lessening human impact on our life-sustaining planet is ALWAYS a good thing.
chefsartainFeb 17, 2010
Yes, technological alternatives to paper are also detrimental to the environment. I don’t see making electronic components recyclable as a viable option because it will simply take too long to develop and it will be too costly. Programs like Apple Computer’s, wherein every time you purchase a new Mac or display, you are given a pre-paid shipping label to drop off your old equipment at any FedEx drop-off are a good start to actually getting equipment properly recycled. Apple states that it “does not allow the disposal of hazardous electronic waste in solid waste landfills or incinerators, including waste-to-energy incinerators." Clearly this kind of commitment needs to be adopted by all producers of “e-waste” in order to work towards a positive environmental impact.Now for the question of paper-based distribution of information being less harmful. I do not accept that print media is “based on comparatively benign and renewable materials.” is made from a natural renewable resource, wood, which has the capacity to be produced in an endless cycle. This blanket statement doesn’t take into account the actual practices of forestry, paper milling and distribution, not to mention any increases in efficiencies in the production of pre-consumer product or post-consumer waste. I’m Jesse Sartain and I maintain a blog about recycling at <a class="user" href="http://www.jessesartain.us" rel="nofollow">http://www.jessesartain.us</a>