Green points for Hewlett Packard and Apple in our latest electronics guide

Posted by jossc - 1 October 2009 at 11:55am - Comments

Apple and Hewlett Packard get green points this month, as HP is rewarded in the latest edition of our Guide to Greener Electronics and Apple releases details of their greenhouse gas emissions. But the big points go to activist consumers for proving once again that public pressure creates positive change.

HP made a commitment in 2007 to have all PC products toxic-free in 2009, but went soft on that earlier this year.

So we painted a protest on Hewlett-Packard's roof saying that HP stood for 'Hazardous Products', and organized a phone-in protest with the voice talents of William Shatner. With the new HP ProBook 5310m notebook, HP has made the first step in catching up with Apple, which eliminated these materials from its entire product line almost a year ago, and now puts pressure squarely on HP's competitors to put more products on the market that are cleaner and safer.

Apple are still ahead on removing toxic components, having eliminated these materials from its entire product line almost a year ago. This is partly as a result of our Green my Apple campaign which brought consumer pressure to bear from people who loved their Macs, but really wished they came in green.

More from our international site »

Article tagged as: apple, green electronics guide, hewlett packard

Comments Commenting is now closed

Something is troubling me and I wonder if you can help. Solar photovoltaic panels use silicon and hence much of the same technology to manufacture them as does the industry that makes computer chips. So the following applies to both computer chips and solar panels.

A report, published in January 2009 and called "Towards a just and sustainable solar energy industry" (Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition), lists all the corrosive and toxic chemicals used in their production - including the greenhouse gases sulphur hexafluoride and nitrogen trifluoride.

The first of these two chemicals is 25,000 times worse than carbon dioxide in its global warming ability. The second is used to clean reactors and etch polysilicon semiconductors and is 17,200 times worse than CO2; furthermore it emits toxic fumes when burned or reacted, and can cause breathing problems. (source: Wikipedia --->IPCC)

Whether these chemicals are emitted to the outside environment is presently unknown and that is what I want to find out.

The report (which you can find here: http://tinyurl.com/ygjuc2w ) says that there may be no cause for alarm in countries with well regulated environmental pollution regimes, but increasingly solar panels are being manufactured in China and other parts of the world where it’s not clear that such controls exist.

Ironic or what? That’s not all. Here are a few of the other worrying substances used to make them:
• caustic chemicals dangerous to the eyes, lungs, and skin - sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide - used to smooth the surface of the silicon
• corrosive chemicals like hydrochloric acid, sulphuric acid, nitric acid, and hydrogen fluoride - used to remove impurities.
• toxic phosphine, arsine gas, phosphorous oxychloride, phosphorous trichloride, boron bromide, and boron trichloride - used in the doping of the semiconductor material - occupational risks.
• lead - often used for wiring, solder-coated copper strips, and some lead-based printing pastes
• chemicals released in fugitive air emissions by known manufacturing facilities include trichloroethane, acetone, ammonia, and isopropyl alcohol
• trichloroethylene, a known carcinogen, - used for cleaning
• arsenic - highly toxic and carcinogenic.

It's good that bromides and PVC are being phased out. But still, we simply don’t know what horrors are being created in one corner of the environment - and presenting risks to some workforces - to supposedly benefit another part. I would hate to Greenpeace and everyone else including myself to be advocating the use of solar panels, yet alone computers, if actually the benefit of solar panels is outweighed by their costs to the environment.

Can you shed any light on this please?

By lowcarbonkid - 8 October 2009 at 8:25pm

Something is troubling me and I wonder if you can help. Solar photovoltaic panels use silicon and hence much of the same technology to manufacture them as does the industry that makes computer chips. So the following applies to both computer chips and solar panels. A report, published in January 2009 and called "Towards a just and sustainable solar energy industry" (Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition), lists all the corrosive and toxic chemicals used in their production - including the greenhouse gases sulphur hexafluoride and nitrogen trifluoride. The first of these two chemicals is 25,000 times worse than carbon dioxide in its global warming ability. The second is used to clean reactors and etch polysilicon semiconductors and is 17,200 times worse than CO2; furthermore it emits toxic fumes when burned or reacted, and can cause breathing problems. (source: Wikipedia --->IPCC) Whether these chemicals are emitted to the outside environment is presently unknown and that is what I want to find out. The report (which you can find here: http://tinyurl.com/ygjuc2w ) says that there may be no cause for alarm in countries with well regulated environmental pollution regimes, but increasingly solar panels are being manufactured in China and other parts of the world where it’s not clear that such controls exist. Ironic or what? That’s not all. Here are a few of the other worrying substances used to make them: • caustic chemicals dangerous to the eyes, lungs, and skin - sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide - used to smooth the surface of the silicon • corrosive chemicals like hydrochloric acid, sulphuric acid, nitric acid, and hydrogen fluoride - used to remove impurities. • toxic phosphine, arsine gas, phosphorous oxychloride, phosphorous trichloride, boron bromide, and boron trichloride - used in the doping of the semiconductor material - occupational risks. • lead - often used for wiring, solder-coated copper strips, and some lead-based printing pastes • chemicals released in fugitive air emissions by known manufacturing facilities include trichloroethane, acetone, ammonia, and isopropyl alcohol • trichloroethylene, a known carcinogen, - used for cleaning • arsenic - highly toxic and carcinogenic. It's good that bromides and PVC are being phased out. But still, we simply don’t know what horrors are being created in one corner of the environment - and presenting risks to some workforces - to supposedly benefit another part. I would hate to Greenpeace and everyone else including myself to be advocating the use of solar panels, yet alone computers, if actually the benefit of solar panels is outweighed by their costs to the environment. Can you shed any light on this please?

By lowcarbonkid - 8 October 2009 at 8:25pm