Silicon Hell
ferlatte writes: "There's a great piece on the effects of the tech industry in Silicon Valley on the environment and their workers. Pretty scary stuff, and sort of unsettling to think about how many toxic substances went into that shiny new laptop. The story is available at http://www.sfbg.com/News/34/30/siliconhell.html." Maybe the industry needs to set up "PolluteE", a "watchdog" agency to make sure companies post their pollution policies prominently on their Web sites...Update: 05/04 11:08 by michael : A good link from the comments: the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition.
I get the feeling this is more likely yellow journalism than a thoughtful analysis of the pros and cons...
My impression is that this article could be reduced to:
"An industrial accident at FooCorp. injured x workers and exposed many more to hazardous materials. Does this remind us of the old 'ends vs. means' question and the dangers of exploiting advanced technology? Yes. Do I, as yet another journalist re-hashing this question have an answer? No."
What frustrates me is that stories like this run not to raise awareness so much as to sell copy. It's FUD, pure and simple.
I guess the only difference here is that the "computer industry" allegedly claims to be "cleaner" and "safer" than other industries.
Sure, I guess. I mean, I've never really heard any of those claims, while I am aware of the hazmats and pollution attendant on high-tech manufacturing. So I'm unaware of any hypocrisy here--this feels more like FUD to me.
Every industry has demonstrated clear hazards to life and limb for those involved in it, and while people have often questioned the "goodness" of those industries, it's interesting to note that we continued to [mine coal|manufacture plastics|hunt whales|&c.] until the economic factors dictated otherwise--safety, both personal and environmental, has always been a secondary consideration.
This threat from the "computer is either a) a non-issue, relatively speaking, or b) suitable for serious discussion outside of random slow-news-day pseudo-editorials.
But then, I'm a cynical bastard with little or no moral conscience, so what do I know?
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
... but I think the industry does make a real effort to keep it under control.
Not to pick on you, but... Press releases are carefully-crafted documents to show a company in the most positive light possible. Do not ever, ever take them as fact, without doing other research. Press releases are essentially advertising.
Maybe Applied Materials is doing something good, maybe not. A press release alone can't tell you.
Does everyone here know what "greenwashing" is? It's the PR practice of trying to make a company look pro-environment, and there's a LOT of money being spent on it. Greenwashing became widespread in the 90's, with the increase of public awareness of environmental issues. Many millions of dollars are spent each year on advertising that fosters pro-environmental images of companies, more money than is actually spent on pro-environmental activities by those same companies. Advertising conferences conduct sessions on greenwashing, and hire speakers who are experts at it. Corporations hire professional greenwashing consultants.
Be aware that greenwashing is all around you, and avoid being fooled by it. Watch for it yourself, the next time you see one of those disgusting "People Do" commercials for Chevron, which is one of the single most environmentally destructive corporations on the planet.
Some companies are pro-environment, some aren't. As with everything else, decide which is which only with care and research. Be leery of information that comes (even indirectly) from the company or person you're investigating.