LoneSomeSunday
Cherish Yesterday; Dream Tomorrow; Live Today.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Trashed Tech: Where Do Old Cell Phones, TVs and PCs Go to Die?
Trashed Tech: Where Do Old Cell Phones, TVs and PCs Go to Die?
Electronic waste is reaching critical mass, releasing toxic chemicals into the environment. The solution? Recycling and toxin-free electrical components
By Larry Greenemeier
Source Scientific American
The EPA is trying to promote the purchase of green products through a number of initiatives, including its epeat.net Web site, which lists manufacturers that have agreed to reduce the amount of toxic materials used in their products. This has had some influence, Lindsay says, because whether domestic or foreign, manufacturers want to have a good reputation in this country. Another program is Plug-In, which encourages manufacturers and retailers to take back used electronics so that customers do not simply throw them in the weekly trash.
PC makers including Apple, Dell, Hewlett-Packard and Sony now take back their products at no charge—an aggressive approach to a clean environment, CPA's McPherson says. But she notes that with the exception of Sony, the same cannot be said of most TV manufacturers.
Since September, Sony has allowed its consumer electronics customers to drop off their old products at one of Waste Management, Inc.'s 75 Recycle America eCycling drop-off sites throughout the U.S. Sony expects the number of these centers to double by the end of next year and plans to offer customers the option of shipping their used Sony products to the sites. This is part of a broader Sony goal of recycling one pound of old consumer electronics equipment for every pound of new products sold.
One Sony competitor has taken steps to produce a greener product. Panasonic Corporation of North America, the principal U.S. subsidiary of Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd., claimed in November 2006 that its plasma TVs featured lead oxide–free plasma display panels. The company estimated that last year it cut the use of about 300 metric tons of lead (roughly the weight of two 747 commercial airplanes) from its production environment.
PCs, however, are generally replaced more frequently than televisions. For that reason, computer manufacturers must make a concerted effort to take back old equipment from their customers, McPherson says. "We believe the research [shows that] if a company takes back its waste," she says, "it's more likely to design out harmful materials in the first place."
Labels: environment
Posted by LoneSomeSunday at
6:52 PM
0 Comment(s)
Trashed Tech: Where Do Old Cell Phones, TVs and PCs Go to Die?
Trashed Tech: Where Do Old Cell Phones, TVs and PCs Go to Die?
Electronic waste is reaching critical mass, releasing toxic chemicals into the environment. The solution? Recycling and toxin-free electrical components
By Larry Greenemeier
Source Scientific American
Just to give you an idea of Americans' love affair with TV: they purchased 2.5 million new TV sets just to watch the 2007 Super Bowl, up from 1.7 million the previous January, says the National Retail Federation, based in Washington, D.C. The flurry of new flat-screen LCD and plasma televisions has raised concern about toxins used in their production as well as what will happen to the televisions being replaced. "We've really struggled with understanding what TV makers are doing about take-back," says Alexandra McPherson, project director for Clean Production Action (CPA), a Spring Brook, N.Y., nonprofit that promotes the use of products free of poisonous materials.
The EPA acknowledges that toxins in electronics are a problem, but says there's no need to panic–at least, not yet. "We all feel that it is not an environmental crisis," says Clare Lindsay, project director for the EPA Office of Solid Waste's extended product responsibility program. "The presence of some toxic materials does not create a crisis. We believe that landfills can safely manage most of these waste products. Is it the best idea? No, the better way is recycling. But we haven't seen any contamination of ground water associated with electronics discarded in landfills."
She says there has been "enormous progress'' over the past five years in raising consumer awareness about the benefits of recycling over simply junking unwanted electronics. Manufacturers are also beginning to understand that if they avoid using toxic materials, their products will be much easier to recycle or trash.
"Arguably, the responsibility for recycling is more at the front end of the manufacturing process than at the back-end disposal," Lindsay says. "Everyone recognizes that reusing, refurbishing and upgrading older electronics is better for the environment. Recycling is better than simply throwing something out, but reselling and refurbishing is even better."
One of the biggest problems with used computers, though, is that it is often cheaper to buy a new one with the latest software and technology than to refurbish an aging machine.
Less than 20 percent of electronic devices discarded between 2003 and 2005 were sent to recycling facilities; the rest were dumped and mostly ended up in landfills. In 2005 about 61 percent (107,500 tons) of cathode-ray tube (CRT) monitors and televisions collected for recycling were exported outside the U.S. for remanufacture or refurbishment, the EPA says. That same year, about 24,000 tons of CRT glass—which is filled with lead to protect viewers from the x-rays produced by the monitor—was sold to markets abroad to replace damaged CRTs in various countries, and North American waste and recycling companies recovered about 10,000 tons of lead (meaning it was not placed into landfills or incinerated).
An added benefit of recycling electronic materials—be they copper, lead or silicon—is that we will not have to mine as much from the earth, says Bob Dellinger, the EPA Office of Solid Waste's director of hazardous waste identification. "In essence, recycling stretches the raw materials we have available," he says. A lot of energy is wasted in the mining and refining of raw materials. For example, only 4 percent of copper ore is usable, the rest is waste.
Labels: environment
Posted by LoneSomeSunday at
6:50 PM
0 Comment(s)
Trashed Tech: Where Do Old Cell Phones, TVs and PCs Go to Die?
Trashed Tech: Where Do Old Cell Phones, TVs and PCs Go to Die?
Electronic waste is reaching critical mass, releasing toxic chemicals into the environment. The solution? Recycling and toxin-free electrical components
By Larry Greenemeier
Source Scientific American
BROKEN: Discarded electronics can crack during transport or when crushed by garbage trucks, tossed into landfills or incinerated (more of an issue in developing countries), thereby releasing toxic chemicals into the environment.
Courtesy of iStockphoto
Editor's note: This article is the first of two addressing the problems posed by aging electronic devices entering the waste stream. See also, Laws Fail to Keep up with Mounting E-Trash
With the holiday season officially upon us, the hunt is on for the hottest cell phones, flat-screen plasma TVs and video game systems. This seasonal new tech surge will no doubt please gadget lovers, but it will also result in a heap of old electronic devices being dumped into a waste stream already awash in refuse laden with cadmium, lead, mercury and other toxins.
A projected increase in toxic trash—such as analog television sets expected to become obsolete by the end of 2009—has government agencies and environmental watchdogs pushing for recycling options and the use of environment-friendly components in new devices. Still, it's a message that consumers and device manufacturers have yet to take to heart even as more products flood the market.
The electronics industry generates about $2 billion in U.S. sales annually, according to a report ("Management of Electronic Waste in the United States") released by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in April. The Consumer Electronics Association, an Arlington, Va.–based trade group says that Americans owned some three billion electronic devices in 2005, the latest year for which data is available, despite tossing or recycling about 304 million electronic devices that same year. About two thirds of the discarded devices were still functioning, upping the danger that they would crack during transport or when crushed by garbage trucks, tossed into landfills or incinerated (more of an issue in developing countries), thereby releasing toxic chemicals into the environment.
Two years ago, the U.S. generated an astonishing 2.6 million tons of electronic waste, which is 1.4 percent of the country's total waste stream. Only 12.6 percent of this so-called "e-waste" was recycled. Worse, e-waste is growing faster than any other type of trash the EPA regulates, including medical and industrial waste. Unwanted cell phones, televisions, PCs (including desktops, laptops, portables and computer monitors), computer peripherals (including printers, scanners and fax machines), computer mouses and keyboards amounted to more than 1.9 million tons of solid municipal waste in the U.S.; of that, more than 1.5 million tons were dumped primarily into landfills, whereas the rest was recycled, the EPA says.
A projected increase in sales will add to the growing e-junk pile. The EPA estimates that roughly 283 million PCs will be sold in 2008, up from 255 million this year. And these new computers are pushing the old models out the door at a rapid pace: U.S. residential and business users scrap about 133,000 PCs daily. Cell phones are also quickly becoming part of the waste stream. More than one billion mobile phones shipped worldwide in 2006, according to Framingham, Mass.–based technology research firm IDC—22.5 percent more than the 832.8 million units shipped a year earlier. By 2008, the United Nations Environment Programme (the U.N.'s environmental arm) projects that the number of cell phone users around the world will climb to two billion. Meanwhile, 130 million of these devices are thrown out annually.
Labels: environment
Posted by LoneSomeSunday at
6:46 PM
0 Comment(s)
10 Solutions for Climate Change
10 Solution for Climate Change
Ten possibilities for staving off catastrophic climate change
By David Biello
Source Scientific American
Biofuels can have a host of negative impacts, from driving up food prices to sucking up more energy than they produce. Hydrogen must be created, requiring either reforming natural gas or electricity to crack water molecules. Biodiesel hybrid electric vehicles (that can plug into the grid overnight) may offer the best transportation solution in the short term, given the energy density of diesel and the carbon neutral ramifications of fuel from plants as well as the emissions of electric engines. A recent study found that the present amount of electricity generation in the U.S. could provide enough energy for the country's entire fleet of automobiles to switch to plug-in hybrids, reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the process.
But plug-in hybrids would still rely on electricity, now predominantly generated by burning dirty coal. Massive investment in low-emission energy generation, whether solar-thermal power or nuclear fission, would be required to radically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And even more speculative energy sources—hyperefficient photovoltaic cells, solar energy stations in orbit or even fusion—may ultimately be required.
The solutions above offer the outline of a plan to personally avoid contributing to global warming. But should such individual and national efforts fail, there is another, potentially desperate solution:
Experiment Earth—Climate change represents humanity's first planetwide experiment. But, if all else fails, it may not be the last. So-called geoengineering, radical interventions to either block sunlight or reduce greenhouse gases, is a potential last resort for addressing the challenge of climate change.
Among the ideas: releasing sulfate particles in the air to mimic the cooling effects of a massive volcanic eruption; placing millions of small mirrors or lenses in space to deflect sunlight; covering portions of the planet with reflective films to bounce sunlight back into space; fertilizing the oceans with iron or other nutrients to enable plankton to absorb more carbon; and increasing cloud cover or the reflectivity of clouds that already form.
All may have unintended consequences, making the solution worse than the original problem. But it is clear that at least some form of geoengineering will likely be required: capturing carbon dioxide before it is released and storing it in some fashion, either deep beneath the earth, at the bottom of the ocean or in carbonate minerals. Such carbon capture and storage is critical to any serious effort to combat climate change.
Additional reporting by Larry Greenemeier and Nikhil Swaminathan.
Labels: environment
Posted by LoneSomeSunday at
6:33 PM
0 Comment(s)
10 Solutions for Climate Change
10 Solution for Climate Change
Ten possibilities for staving off catastrophic climate change
By David Biello
Source Scientific American
Stop Cutting Down Trees—Every year, 33 million acres of forests are cut down. Timber harvesting in the tropics alone contributes 1.5 billion metric tons of carbon to the atmosphere. That represents 20 percent of human-made greenhouse gas emissions and a source that could be avoided relatively easily.
Improved agricultural practices along with paper recycling and forest management—balancing the amount of wood taken out with the amount of new trees growing—could quickly eliminate this significant chunk of emissions.
And when purchasing wood products, such as furniture or flooring, buy used goods or, failing that, wood certified to have been sustainably harvested. The Amazon and other forests are not just the lungs of the earth, they may also be humanity's best short-term hope for limiting climate change.
Unplug—Believe it or not, U.S. citizens spend more money on electricity to power devices when off than when on. Televisions, stereo equipment, computers, battery chargers and a host of other gadgets and appliances consume more energy when seemingly switched off, so unplug them instead.
Purchasing energy-efficient gadgets can also save both energy and money—and thus prevent more greenhouse gas emissions. To take but one example, efficient battery chargers could save more than one billion kilowatt-hours of electricity—$100 million at today's electricity prices—and thus prevent the release of more than one million metric tons of greenhouse gases.
Swapping old incandescent lightbulbs for more efficient replacements, such as compact fluorescents (warning: these lightbulbs contain mercury and must be properly disposed of at the end of their long life), would save billions of kilowatt-hours. In fact, according to the EPA, replacing just one incandescent lightbulb in every American home would save enough energy to provide electricity to three million American homes.
One Child—There are at least 6.6 billion people living today, a number that is predicted by the United Nations to grow to at least nine billion by mid-century. The U.N. Environmental Program estimates that it requires 54 acres to sustain an average human being today—food, clothing and other resources extracted from the planet. Continuing such population growth seems unsustainable.
Falling birth rates in some developed and developing countries (a significant portion of which are due to government-imposed limits on the number of children a couple can have) have begun to reduce or reverse the population explosion. It remains unclear how many people the planet can comfortably sustain, but it is clear that per capita energy consumption must go down if climate change is to be controlled.
Ultimately, a one child per couple rule is not sustainable either and there is no perfect number for human population. But it is clear that more humans means more greenhouse gas emissions.
Future Fuels—Replacing fossil fuels may prove the great challenge of the 21st century. Many contenders exist, ranging from ethanol derived from crops to hydrogen electrolyzed out of water, but all of them have some drawbacks, too, and none are immediately available at the scale needed.
Labels: environment
Posted by LoneSomeSunday at
6:31 PM
0 Comment(s)
10 Solutions for Climate Change
10 Solution for Climate Change
Ten possibilities for staving off catastrophic climate change
By David Biello
Source Scientific American
One way to dramatically curtail transportation fuel needs is to move closer to work, use mass transit, or switch to walking, cycling or some other mode of transport that does not require anything other than human energy. There is also the option of working from home and telecommuting several days a week.
Cutting down on long-distance travel would also help, most notably airplane flights, which are one of the fastest growing sources of greenhouse gas emissions and a source that arguably releases such emissions in the worst possible spot (higher in the atmosphere). Flights are also one of the few sources of globe-warming pollution for which there isn't already a viable alternative: jets rely on kerosene, because it packs the most energy per pound, allowing them to travel far and fast, yet it takes roughly 10 gallons of oil to make one gallon of JetA fuel. Restricting flying to only critical, long-distance trips—in many parts of the world, trains can replace planes for short- to medium-distance trips—would help curb airplane emissions.
Consume Less—The easiest way to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions is simply to buy less stuff. Whether by forgoing an automobile or employing a reusable grocery sack, cutting back on consumption results in fewer fossil fuels being burned to extract, produce and ship products around the globe.
Think green when making purchases. For instance, if you are in the market for a new car, buy one that will last the longest and have the least impact on the environment. Thus, a used vehicle with a hybrid engine offers superior fuel efficiency over the long haul while saving the environmental impact of new car manufacture.
Paradoxically, when purchasing essentials, such as groceries, buying in bulk can reduce the amount of packaging—plastic wrapping, cardboard boxes and other unnecessary materials. Sometimes buying more means consuming less.
Be Efficient—A potentially simpler and even bigger impact can be made by doing more with less. Citizens of many developed countries are profligate wasters of energy, whether by speeding in a gas-guzzling sport-utility vehicle or leaving the lights on when not in a room.
Good driving—and good car maintenance, such as making sure tires are properly inflated—can limit the amount of greenhouse gas emissions from a vehicle and, perhaps more importantly, lower the frequency of payment at the pump.
Similarly, employing more efficient refrigerators, air conditioners and other appliances, such as those rated highly under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Energy Star program, can cut electric bills while something as simple as weatherproofing the windows of a home can reduce heating and cooling bills. Such efforts can also be usefully employed at work, whether that means installing more efficient turbines at the power plant or turning the lights off when you leave the office.
Eat Smart, Go Vegetarian?—Corn grown in the U.S. requires barrels of oil for the fertilizer to grow it and the diesel fuel to harvest and transport it. Some grocery stores stock organic produce that do not require such fertilizers, but it is often shipped from halfway across the globe. And meat, whether beef, chicken or pork, requires pounds of feed to produce a pound of protein.
Choosing food items that balance nutrition, taste and ecological impact is no easy task. Foodstuffs often bear some nutritional information, but there is little to reveal how far a head of lettuce, for example, has traveled.
Labels: environment
Posted by LoneSomeSunday at
6:28 PM
0 Comment(s)
10 Solutions for Climate Change
Ten possibilities for staving off catastrophic climate change
By David Biello
Source Scientific American
EARTHWIDE EXPERIMENT: Climate change could turn catastrophic if efforts are not made to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that cause it.
NASA
The enormity of global warming can be daunting and dispiriting. What can one person, or even one nation, do on their own to slow and reverse climate change? But just as ecologist Stephen Pacala and physicist Robert Socolow, both at Princeton University, came up with 15 so-called "wedges" for nations to utilize toward this goal—each of which is challenging but feasible and, in some combination, could reduce greenhouse gas emissions to safer levels—there are personal lifestyle changes that you can make too that, in some combination, can help reduce your carbon impact. Not all are right for everybody. Some you may already be doing or absolutely abhor. But implementing just a few of them could make a difference.
Forego Fossil Fuels—The first challenge is eliminating the burning of coal, oil and, eventually, natural gas. This is perhaps the most daunting challenge as denizens of richer nations literally eat, wear, work, play and even sleep on the products made from such fossilized sunshine. And citizens of developing nations want and arguably deserve the same comforts, which are largely thanks to the energy stored in such fuels.
Oil is the lubricant of the global economy, hidden inside such ubiquitous items as plastic and corn, and fundamental to the transportation of both consumers and goods. Coal is the substrate, supplying roughly half of the electricity used in the U.S. and nearly that much worldwide—a percentage that is likely to grow, according to the International Energy Agency. There are no perfect solutions for reducing dependence on fossil fuels (for example, carbon neutral biofuels can drive up the price of food and lead to forest destruction, and while nuclear power does not emit greenhouse gases, it does produce radioactive waste), but every bit counts.
So try to employ alternatives when possible—plant-derived plastics, biodiesel, wind power—and to invest in the change, be it by divesting from oil stocks or investing in companies practicing carbon capture and storage.
Infrastructure Upgrade—Buildings worldwide contribute around one third of all greenhouse gas emissions (43 percent in the U.S. alone), even though investing in thicker insulation and other cost-effective, temperature-regulating steps can save money in the long run. Electric grids are at capacity or overloaded, but power demands continue to rise. And bad roads can lower the fuel economy of even the most efficient vehicle. Investing in new infrastructure, or radically upgrading existing highways and transmission lines, would help cut greenhouse gas emissions and drive economic growth in developing countries.
Of course, it takes a lot of cement, a major source of greenhouse gas emissions, to construct new buildings and roads. The U.S. alone contributed 50.7 million metric tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere in 2005 from cement production, which requires heating limestone and other ingredients to 1,450 degrees Celsius (2,642 degrees Fahrenheit). Mining copper and other elements needed for electrical wiring and transmission also causes globe-warming pollution.
But energy-efficient buildings and improved cement-making processes (such as using alternative fuels to fire up the kiln) could reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the developed world and prevent them in the developing world.
Labels: environment
Posted by LoneSomeSunday at
6:21 PM
0 Comment(s)
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Japan's Cherry Trees Bloom in Fall; Warming to Blame?
Tony McNicol in
for National Geographic News
Ornamental cherry trees all over the Japanese archipelago have been blossoming unseasonably this fall, according to local media reports.
A few sakura trees—as they are known in
But with more blossoms appearing earlier this year, there is concern that climate change is affecting a much-loved national symbol of spring.
The popular Somei Yoshino variety of cherry tree produces buds in mid-summer, but a hormone in the leaves causes the buds to hibernate.
When the leaves fall from the tree in spring, the flowers blossom, creating for a few short days a brilliant cloud of white to pale pink blooms.
If the tree loses its leaves prematurely for any reason while the weather is warm, the buds may bloom early—and once they have bloomed, they won't flower again that year.
According to Hiroyuki Wada, chief researcher at the Flower Association of Japan, this year a number of factors have contributed to cherry trees' early leaf loss.
One was an unusually dry, hot summer followed by a severe typhoon that stripped many trees of their leaves.
Another was a warm, late fall that allowed leaf-eating cherry caterpillars and fall webworms to flourish.
With their leaves stripped and the temperatures balmy, many sakura trees were "tricked" into thinking fall was actually spring.
Wada believes that climate change could be the root cause of the phenomenon.
"There is probably a connection with global warming," he said.
Typhoons seem to be getting stronger and making landfall more often, he noted, while summer rains are less frequent but heavier.
There are reports that other plants such as azaleas and the Japanese ume plum trees are also blooming off season.
And Wada has heard that
In 2005 the Japan Meteorological Agency issued a report about how rising temperatures are affecting Japanese plants and animals.
The agency found that spring cherry trees are now flowering on average about four days earlier than they did 54 years ago, when record keeping began.
The report also found that Japanese maple leaves are now changing colors 15 days later.
But Hiroyuki Uehara, chief of the applied weather information section at the Japan Meteorological Agency, is still cautious about a link between these trends and climate change.
"I think that one possible reason may be global warming, although it is not clear how temperature variations actually affect such phenomena," he said.
"All we can do is provide long-term observation data."
Fragile Icon
Meanwhile, the Japanese people are particularly sensitive to any threat to this cultural icon, Wada said.
In addition to the widespread Somei Yoshino, about 350 varieties of ornamental cherry tree grow in
The tiny flowers symbolize the fragile transience of life and are featured in everything from J-pop music to pottery to kabuki theater. Viewing parties across the country celebrate their blossoms each spring.
And a famous festival in
Traditionally,
"When I was a student in
He pointed out that the cherry blossom season traditionally coincides with the start of
"Sakura was linked to that turning point in people's lives," Wada said. "If the time of the [cherry blossom] season changes, so will Japanese sensibility."
Labels: environment
Posted by LoneSomeSunday at
8:47 PM
1 Comment(s)
Credits
Designed & Coded by LoneSomeSunday
[http://lonesomesunday.blogspot.com/]
Code Template by Eka at Bad Obsession
[http://obsess.little-bombs.com/]
Pattern by Squidfingers
[http://squidfingers.com]