|
We all know by now that the three R's should be our daily mantra - reduce, reuse, recycle. But as with all things in life it can be a lot more complicated that that. While recycling may provide a useful source of low-cost computers, their limited useful life, combined with the often limited support network, means that in practice recycling may simply be delaying the ultimate disposal problem by only a year or two, whilst relocating what is in reality "hazardous waste" to areas without the resources to ensure they are disposed of without impacting the environment. A recent article in the New York Times noted: Every old computer monitor contains about two kilos lead, and other parts are filled with heavy metals like mercury, arsenic, cadmium and chromium. They have toxins that hover in the air after incineration or leach into the water supply when buried in landfills.
When it is estimated that 70% of heavy metals in landfill originate from defunct computer equipment, it would seem unwise to shift the problem from wealthier to developing nations without creating the means to dispose of the eventual waste in a safe and environmental way. While purchasing new computers for development and aid projects is very clearly more expensive, they will also have a significantly longer usable life – probably outlasting two or three generations of recycled computers -or 70% less of an environmental impact for those who can do without an additional headache, while giving us some time to workout the real solution to disposing of technology. Recycling computers for school kids and community centres near home and using the cash to buy new computers for developing nations at least keeps the problem where it was created while still doing some good. All the warm fuzzy feeling without the impending guilt.
|
