Guide to greener electronics! Which company is the greenest? Which one pollutes the most?

As we all know, using computers, and all that incredibly-brilliant technology we all love, pollutes the planet (in the sense that all technological devices require energy to be used, and most of that energy comes from fossil fuels –i.e. petrol–). Yes, even listening to a folk metal band talking about nature pollutes the planet (ironic, is it not?) . I'm not here to say that you should stop listening to nature-loving Folk/Black/Acoustic Metal; au contraire, I think you should do it more! (When is the last time YOU heard Borknagar?) However, you should know which are the companies that are polluting the most when making the products you (and I love). In this link you can check everything that the companies are (not) doing to keep the world a green place. There's a PDF version available for download, try reading it.

Winner: NOKIA.

Finns do really love nature! Congratulations to the land of wolves! Finland is a great example to how Latin-American countries should be: It moved from an agriculture-based society to one of the most developed countries of the world. The answer, the key, to everything? A large investment in EDUCATION and a huge respect for professors and nature (most of the country is still virgin forests).

Nokia7.5
15th Edition, May 2010

Nokia stays in 1st place with a slightly increased score of 7.5, up from 7.3. It gains points for achieving its goal of phasing out brominated compounds, chlorinated flame retardants and antimony trioxide in all new models of products and for its CEO’s statement in support of 30% cuts in greenhouse gas emissions in industrialised countries by 2020. However, despite Nokia’s support for further restrictions for chlorinated and brominated substances in legislation, it loses a point on its position on the RoHS (Restriction of Hazardous Substances in electronics) Directive, as it does not openly support restrictions on at least PVC vinyl plastic, chlorinated flame retardants (CFRs) and brominated flame retardants (BFRs) in the next 3-5 years i.e. in RoHS 2.0.

Loser: NINTENDO.

The biggest characteristic of Japan, I believe, is its double morale. They state that they love nature, but the reality is much, much more different. As the country becomes (or is?) the third largest economy of the world, swiftly beaten by China (despite the "housing bubble" of the latter), will 日本 , the Land of the Rising Sun, continue to destroy their forests in order to follow a Western-capitalist, consumerist, empty way of life?

"

Nintendo1.8
15th Edition, May 2010

Nintendo remains in last place but has increased its score to 1.8 out of 10, up from 1.4. It gains points for adopting the precautionary principle in its approach to managing chemical substances and for publishing its Standards for chemicals management.

Nintendo scores most points on chemicals; it has put games consoles on the market that have PVC-free internal wiring. It has banned phthalates and is monitoring use of antimony and beryllium. Although it is endeavouring to eliminate the use of PVC, it has not set a timeline for its phase-out.

It continues to score zero on all e-waste criteria.

It scores points on energy criteria, for the energy efficiency of its low power AC adaptor for the Nintendo DSi, which meets the requirements for external power supplies in the Energy Star programme. It also retains a point on energy for disclosing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from its own operations. However, it fails to score for its commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, due to a second year of increases, despite a commitment to cut CO2 emissions and other greenhouse gases by 2 percent over each previous year. Emissions in 2007 increased by 1.5 percent compared to 2006, following a rise of 6 percent in 2006".

As a side note, since I'm using a latest-generation 3.6 GHZ iMac to type this, I might as well include the score that Apple obtained. Read it, and compare it with the environmental part of the nice and brain-washing ads that they Mr Jobs releases.

Apple4.9
15th Edition, May 2010

Apple remains in 5th place, with a slightly reduced score of 4.9, down from 5.1 points in version 14. It loses a point for lack of transparency in its reporting on its use of renewable energy.

Apple does best on the toxic chemicals criteria, where it scores most of its points. All Apple products are now free of PVC vinyl plastic and brominated flame retardants (BFRs), with the exception of PVC-free power cords in countries where their safety certification process is still ongoing. For this Apple continues to score full marks (doubled). Apple scores points for its chemicals policy informed by the precautionary principle and for lobbying the EU institutions for a ban on PVC, chlorinated flame retardants and BFRs during the current revision of the EU’s RoHS Directive (Restriction of Hazardous Substances in electronics), but for full marks it needs to provide a public position on its support for immediate restrictions in RoHS 2.0 on organo- chlorine and bromine compounds. It also needs to clarify its stance regarding the position of the trade federation TechAmerica on further immediate restrictions and in particular PVC and BFRs. Apple scores only one point on information about its management of chemicals and its supply chain communications; this criterion evaluates disclosure of information flow in the supply chain. Apple also continues to score poorly for the minimal information it provides about its future toxic chemical phase-out plans.[For a company that spends so much on ads, they sure do not tell people about their lack of disclosure of information.]