Posted by admin in Green Articles, Green Companies, featured | 0 Comments
Guide to Greener Electronics released by Greenpeace
Warning: strip_tags() expects parameter 1 to be string, array given in /home/propelea/public_html/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 631
For the past 15 years, Greenpeace has created a Guide to Greener Electronics, letting concerned techies know which products score the best when it comes to the environment. The guide researches and ranks the top 18 manufacturers of personal computers, mobile devices, TVs and game consoles on company policies relating to use of toxic chemicals, recycling and climate change efforts.
This year’s May report put Nokia as the greenest producer for the second year in a row. Based on a scale of zero to 10, Nokia was given a score of 7.5, an increase from its score of 7.3 last year. Nokia’s high ranking was based off its successful phasing out of brominated flame retardants, chlorinated flame retardants, and antimony trioxide from all its new phones. The CEO of Nokia also publicly stated his support for the 30 percent proposed reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by industrialized countries by 2020.
Sony Ericsson trailed Nokia by 0.6 points, scoring the same 6.9 number as last year. According to the report, "It is the best performer on the toxic chemicals criteria of all ranked brands, being the first to score full marks on all chemicals criteria. It also does well on energy."
The brand to experience the biggest drop in placement was Toshiba, which fell from third to 14th place. Toshiba had committed to rid all its products of PVCs and BFRs by April 1 of this spring but failed to do so, contributing greatly to its low ranking. Toshiba did not create a new timeline for the successful completion of this goal.
Philips and Motorola were both given 5.1 points, while Apple, Panasonic, Sony and HP ranked in the middle, all with scores of 4.9. Nintendo remained in last place this year with only 1.8 points, which is actually up from the 1.4 points the company scored last year. The company’s lack of e-waste policies and its increased level of carbon dioxide emissions contributed to its placement.
Related Posts
