The environmental cost of technology

Computers, tablets, mobile devices and hybrid car batteries. They all contain rare earth metals. By extension, everyday life in the Western world relies on these rare earth metals. But why should this pose a concern for the environment? Well, there are substantial environmental costs associated with the use of rare earth metals. In the first place the metals have to be extracted by mining and then purified. Mining can be a dirty business creating topsoil loss and pollution of waterways, requiring road building infrastructures and causing degradation of natural environments. Often, miners have to work under dangerous conditions for minimal pay with scant regard to health and safety. Then there is the disposal of technological machines and gadgets. Today, people tend not to repair older electronic equipment. Instead they discard it and buy the newest model. How many people keep their current mobile phone more than a few years? Discarded electronics typically end up in landfill sites, where they create their own pollution problems as rare earth metals and toxins gradually seep out into surrounding soil. True, some electronics do go to recycling facilities. However, there are many unscrupulous operators in the third world where workers are paid a pittance and exposed to hazardous elements as they strip down these electronics for re-use. The whole process inevitably creates pollution and makes people sick. The solution? Repair or at least retain, rather than replace. Ethically sourced supplies should be made more readily available, and the industry should be subject to more intense oversight. Eco-friendly replacements for rare earth metals do exist but that would entail cost increases for consumers. A price worth paying? Companies that outsource or import labour to exploit people should be publicly shamed for what they do, whether that labour is in mines or recycling centres.

Worse than malaria or TB but never discussed

According to the Blacksmith Institute in partnership with Green Cross Switzerland, the health burden of pollution from industrial activities is as bad or worse than that of malaria or TB. Yet the problem goes largely ignored. Why? Because pollution is seen as the necessary price of economic growth. And economic growth is what keeps governments in office. The new report claims that waste from mining, lead smelters, industrial dumps, mercury, radionuclides, pesticides and other toxins affects the health of an estimated 125 million people worldwide. In one tragic example, doctors carrying out vaccinations in a Zamfaran village in Nigeria questioned the general absence of children attending their centre. They found the reason. Hundreds of children from the village had died from lead poisoning whilst thousands more were stricken with the effects of high levels of lead in their systems [read more].

Where have all the bees gone?

Albert Einstein once remarked that if the bee disappears from the surface of the earth, man would have no more than four years to live. No more bees, no more pollination and no more men [read more]

Otters back from the brink of extinction

Pesticide polluted rivers three decades ago almost wiped out England’s otter population. However, now that many of these pesticides have been banned the otter has made a remarkable comeback according to the Environment Agency. In fact, in many watercourses in the south-west and along the River Wye otter numbers are at maximum capacity.

Organic cotton clothes - the benefits

Did you know that conventionally grown cotton is the second most pesticide-laden crop in the world? It takes approximately 150g of chemicals to grow enough cotton to make just one t-shirt. Organic cotton, on the other hand, is grown in certified pesticide-free and herbicide-free soil, using organic farming methods, which produce healthier fabrics, preserve the quality of our water and prevent toxins from entering the human food chain in the form of cottonseed and other byproducts. “When some high-sounding institute states that a compound is harmless or a process free of risk, it is wise to know whence the institute or the scientists who work there obtain their financial support.” - Lancet, editorial on the "medical-industrial complex," 1973