I completely agree with Ms. Siddiqui's comments. Eloquent and well thought out. We, the consumers, need to think about the effect our favorite toys have on the world, and funds should be directed toward research on the topic.

Very sloppy journalism, unfortunately. Apple has committed to eliminate toxic substances by the end of the 2008, not 2010 as stated. This puts Apple at the front of the industry in taking the toxic elimination topic seriously.

Hamilton, I suggest you check your facts before you call anybody a sloppy journalist. While Apple has agreed to eliminate toxic materials by 2008, by 2010 Apple will be recycling more than Dell or HP. A minor point of confusion.

Please note that for clarity, we have edited the statement about Apple. Thanks very much to Hamilton and Saba for writing in.

This issue strikes me as yet another example of "everyone complains about the weather, but no one does anything about it." I know that I am inclined toward hypocrisy when it comes to environmental issues--I feel a certain sense of guilt about sending my old monitor who-knows-where when I replace it with the latest flat screen version. But it passes. And I can somehow convince myself that I am being eco-friendly by shopping online instead of driving to the mall. It's hard to accept that there is no such thing as a free lunch.

I can appreciate most who say they want to be included in being more "green" or environmentally responsible; however isn't all this computer junk such a tiny part of a problem next to all the other stuff being the main cause that it just isn't worth much time worrying about it?

Look at things like this--aren't there more active volcanos erupting around the world than ever before? This means they're spewing out more CO2 than all the cars in the entire world. Just one active volcano puts out more CO2 than all the cars running at once in the USA, and just think, that's only one.

Now think about how irresponsible South American countries are about destroying their forests and not replacing many trees. That adds to the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere. So unless someone can figure out how to cap most of the active volcanos in the world, there isn't much man can do. It's mostly nature as well as a phase this earth is going through.

It's still a good idea to be able to use less oil so we don't depend so much on the Arabs or anyone else for most of our energy needs. Also, if the alternatives can be cheaper than oil and safer than what we use now "oil, coal, and nuclear," then by all means let's use it, but don't say it's man who's mostly responsible--it's not.

On the efforts of computer companies, if it lowers the cost of computer systems and they are every bit as reliable, I say go for it.

Shadow,

Actually, humans put out approximately 150 times more carbon dioxide then volcanos and this includes both calm and erupting volcanos. The USGS at HVO pins the numbers as such:

Volcanoes: 200,000,000 tons per year
Humans: 26,800,000,000 tons per year

http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html

And volcanos aren't erupting more then ever either. In fact, despite more attention from the media to volcanism, they're actually in a pretty calm period right now.

But this is really not the point. One of the main problems with e-waste is the fact that it has toxins that, when not disposed of properly, can leach into soil and poison our groundwater on which we rely for our taps. Not everything that has to do with the environment boils down to carbon dioxide emissions and global warming. On this level, volcanic eruptions initially cool the planet by sending millions of tons of fine ash into the stratosphere and blocking out the sun. It would take a truly monster event like a magma fissure to heat up the planet, and something like that last happened 250 million years ago in the Permian period.

Unfortunately, alternatives are a ways away, most of them in conceptual or very early experimentation stages at this point, so there's not much that can be done beyond the recycling and substitution efforts already being conducted by computer makers.

If man can't do much, then why all this fuss? Let's all try our best to create better living conditions (not for us) for generations to come.

You failed to mention that all of IBM's server brands (system x,i,p,z) are already compliant with the European Reduction of Hazardous Substances directive, as of earlier this year in 2007, showing that it is leading the way in green IT hardware.

IBM states that its servers are compliant with the European Reduction of Hazardous Substances directive in its corporate responsibility reports, but I've not found a nod from a third party confirming the claim. In Apple's case, the nod (although very grudgingly) comes from Greenpeace.

My one computer (a slightly more energy-efficient laptop, rather than a desktop) comes from a company that seems committed to real environmental effort via recycling programs and fewer hazardous chemicals: Dell. I recycle my old cell phones. I don't see the need to buy a new piece of technology every month or even every year, just because Microsoft tells me to. I definitely don't need a Wii (although I love video games as much as the next person, so many other things are more important, including the heath of the planet). I know not every person can give up a car or every single convenience, but my life (based on a principle of considering the impact of my actions) is a lot easier than the lives of the people I see overwhelmed by consumerism--of which electronics are a mere part.

Just a brief comment for those of you who think that "no one does anything about it."

Hi Everyone,

We, as consumers, can't do much at our end except for being ready to chip in a few more bucks for an eco-friendly piece of technology. This should give the electronics' manufacturers a much needed fillip to think in an environment-friendly direction. Computers and other electronics rule our lives at the moment, and our dependency on these gadgets is bound to grow going forward.

Alexandria's effort is creditable, but this is a rare scenario, and more important, we don't have too much time left before the world is swamped with hazards of global warming and e-waste.

My two cents,
Deepesh

Until there are laws against using toxic substances, or these externalities are paid by the companies themselves, any environmental benefits are purely voluntary for the company, and we shouldn't expect big changes. It's not their fault the laws against emitting these substances is broken--it is ours.

The idea of refurbishers is a good one. If they came door to door like Goodwill, they'd get a lot of business.