Would you pay more for a greener PC?

[STEED]

No I would not, not because I am anti green, I just don't have the money to pay more.

PC users 'want greener machines'
Consumers are willing to pay up to an extra £108 ($197) for a PC containing fewer chemicals, a survey has found.

People also feel manufacturers should take responsibility for the disposal of old machines, the research shows.
So-called e-waste is a growing global problem, with 30 million PCs being dumped each year in the US alone.
The study by Ipsos-Mori for Greenpeace coincides with an announcement by PC maker Dell to phase out a number of toxic chemicals in its products.
The nine-nation research found that UK computer users were willing to pay an extra £64 ($117), while people in China were prepared for spend up to £108 ($197) for a more environmentally sound PC.
E-waste

HAZARDOUS WASTE
1: Lead in cathode ray tube and solder
2: Arsenic in older cathode ray tubes
3: Selenium in circuit boards as power supply rectifier
4: Polybrominated flame retardants in plastic casings, cables and circuit boards
5: Antimony trioxide as flame retardant
6: Cadmium in circuit boards and semiconductors
7: Chromium in steel as corrosion protection
8: Cobalt in steel for structure and magnetivity
9: Mercury in switches and housing

A report published by the UN University in 2004 said making the average PC required 10 times the weight of the machine in chemicals and fossil fuels.
The study also found that the short life of computer equipment was leading to a mountain of toxic waste, mainly in India and China.
Electronic waste, or e-waste, is a massive global problem. Thirty million computers are thrown out every year in the US alone.
About 70% of heavy metals, such as lead and mercury, in landfill sites come from e-waste.
Greenpeace International spokeswoman Zeina al-Hajj said: "Consumers not only want greener PCs but they are willing to pay extra for them.
"Dell's decision to remove these harmful chemicals reflects a move within the electronics industry in the right direction to become cleaner."
The environmental group has long campaigned for the sector to move to cleaner production methods.
Dell says it will eliminate the use of all brominated flame retardants (BFRs) and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) in its products by 2009.
A number of other firms, including Hewlett Packard, Nokia, Samsung and Sony Ericsson, have also made commitments to phase out the use of hazardous chemicals in the near future.
What are your views on the issues covered in this story? Send us your comments.

Your comments

It helps deal with the global pollution problem
Winter's Shadow, Camas, USA

I don't mind paying a little (or in some cases a lot) extra for a PC that is more nature friendly. It helps deal with the global pollution problem and I'm willing to pay to solve a problem that could become extremely dangerous.
Winter's Shadow, Camas, USA

I can't believe it has taken this long for the majority of IT manufacturers to catch on to the green message. How have they got away with it for so long when other areas are so strongly scrutinised in these issues? I own a Brother printer which is made from recycled material when it comes to the end of its life they will collect it and recycle it for me at no cost to myself!!
Ryan, Cheshire

I agree "e-waste" is a problem, but why not mention discarded cars and building materials in the same article? I'm more concerned about the mountains of packaging materials and unwanted junk mail I go through every day.
Alex Cybriwsky, San Diego, CA

Would be more interesting to find out how much electricity prices have gone up since everyone started buying home computers, now there are at least one if not 2 computers per household.
Spudgun, Portsmouth

I recycle bottles, cans, bags, paper and food waste - but if some computer equipment has to go it can only go to the tip. Either they need to start making things such as the casings from better biodegradable or recyclable materials, or the government must provide a public service for recycling of the components through re-use.
Inferno_str1ke, Manchester
I don't believe it for a second. Average couple walk into a PC shop and see one computer they like for £500, and another they like for £600, performance wise the difference is negligible, but one is 'greener'. They won't waste £100 on it However, I do believe the toxins in computers should be dealt with properly, and if possible not used at all.
Philip
It's easy to pick on PCs as it's something most of us have. And of course, it's good to be greener. But PCs usually last for a few years and most people only have one of them. Wouldn't it be better to focus on something we use every day? I'd be more interested to know how much energy goes into making CDs, or how many trees go into the average novel.
Flash Wilson, London, UK



Name:
Email address:
Town and Country:
Phone number (optional):
Comments:
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/h...gy/5107642.stm

Published: 2006/06/26 14:56:47 GMT

© BBC MMVI

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by STEED

No I would not, not because I am anti green, I just don't have the money to pay more.

I don't care about a greener pc, what i do care about is having a very energy efficient pc.
A pc with a 500W-1kW power supply ? WTF ?
The word is efficiency and cost effective.
I couldn't care less about 4GHz dual-triple-quadruple cores, sli video cards, triple video cards etc... if in the end i will need a nuclear plant just to power up the pc.

[SUBMAN1]

I don't care for a greener PC either. I actually turn off all the power saving features on mine because I have had one too many instances where the thing goes into power save mode right in the middle of a compression or something.

Looking at the list above, I keep using the same monitor year after year, so I don't think I am adding to the waste described. I am forever on the CRT bandwagon too, since I think flat panels suck (I own 2 and dislike them for gaming even though one of them is a fast 8 ms). Nothing beats a CRT for the gamer that constantly messes with their screen res.

Case in point - SHIII is a 1024x768 game without special modification. Tack this onto a 1280x1024 monitor (Which seems to be the standard) and it just looks ugly. A CRT has none of these problems.

Give me a 24" CRT (At work I even run dual 21's) and I am happy.


-S

[Skybird]

Yes. Willing to accept a system's price to raise by 10% for that. but power supplies receive even mor eattention from me, since "green PC" are not to be found i stores. My current system consumes 350W. It already makes itself felt in the yearly electricity bill. I have no intention to built a system that consumes even more.did you know that during the nineties the spreading of PCs and the constant climbing of power supplie'S consummation rates made the electricity companies needing to adopt new distribution patterns and attach more powerhouses to the supply net to counter the drastic increase in electricity need? PC power consumation is a very prominent item on the list of power consumers, even more so since many people tend to let their systems running day in, day out, like refrigerators. I know that some do not only leave them on during night, but even when they go into holiday. Here at the lastest it starts to become ridiculous, I think.I leave it on when I interrupt PC work for only half an hour or so. when I knwo that I will not sit tat the PC for the next 2 or 3 hours hours to come, I turn it off. The energy saving fucntion of Windows I do not trust anymore, the waking up did not work reliable for me one time too often.

[TteFAboB]

You have missed the other computer thread.

Dell is changing stuff in their machines because they explode on a random basis.

The green thing is just a charming excuse.

[The Avon Lady]

Well some of us would like greener explosions.

[STEED]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

Well some of us would like greener explosions.

:hmm:

[Bertgang]

"Pay more" and "more expensive" are words sounding very badly, for me.

The environmental problem is, anyway, a serious thing, and greener goods could be a first step on the right way.

Maybe the actual tech could give us these kind of tools without increasing prices; the financial side here is often unclear.

As example, new safety devices on cars could have dramatically raised their prices but, for what I can see, now we have better cars, no more expensive than once.

That happens. I suppose, just because the old car tech now is outlaw quite everywhere, like some other things seen as dangerous for our health; sort of imposed advancement, free of charges for the final customer.

I would like a PC made of vegetables and make a soup out of it when it gets old. Joking apart...yes, I would pay more for a greener PC.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Bertgang

"Pay more" and "more expensive" are words sounding very badly, for me.

The environmental problem is, anyway, a serious thing, and greener goods could be a first step on the right way.

Maybe the actual tech could give us these kind of tools without increasing prices; the financial side here is often unclear.

As example, new safety devices on cars could have dramatically raised their prices but, for what I can see, now we have better cars, no more expensive than once.

That happens. I suppose, just because the old car tech now is outlaw quite everywhere, like some other things seen as dangerous for our health; sort of imposed advancement, free of charges for the final customer.

More expensive cars? Last time I checked, a BMW 7 series still costs what it costs back in the late 80's. Cars my friend are getting much cheaper made in my book and trim - is a joke! It is even OK now to show the seam on a leather seat. Things like that. Best cars I think were early to mid 90's. Cars went downlhill from there and tried to compensate by adding electronic gadgets.

-S