Page 4256 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 22 September 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I would like to note, though, that 75 per cent of ICT energy use has already happened before the computer is first switched on by the user. The manufacture of computers uses a lot of energy and a lot of materials, which brings me to the last point in the first section of the motion—that ICT is a significant generator of waste. In Australia, each year we generate around 1,400 tonnes of e-waste, and only about four per cent of that is recycled unfortunately. The manufacture of a single PC requires about 1.7 tonnes of materials, which is appalling when you think of the size of the PC versus the size of the materials that go into making it. It includes the consumption of more than 10 times its own weight in fossil fuels.
One of the problems with computer and other electronic waste is that computers are made from a wide range of different materials. When they eventually come to be disposed of, they are basically useless unless considerable effort is put into dismantling them and taking the different parts out so that they can be reused. Some of the parts are inherently valuable—for example, the significant amounts of gold and platinum in computers—but most of the things that go into computers are non-renewable. If they can be extracted and reused, they become secondary raw materials and they become useful again.
There are also some seriously nasty things in e-waste—lead, cadmium, mercury and arsenic. If this is not disposed of properly, if it is just put into landfill, it could easily leach into the watertable. Brominated flame retardant is used in computer equipment, and that is a nasty. It is an occupational and environmental health risk. Printer inks also often contain toxic materials such as cadmium.
Given that the major physical impacts of computer use and ICT use are in the manufacture, it is very important that we buy products that last, and there are two things to that: firstly, that they are well-made in the first place. The ICT industry has very much moved ahead in the last few years, and most computers are capable of lasting a long time. But the other thing is to ensure that they actually will be used as long as they last.
This is an area where the ACT has actually moved in the last few years—it has moved from leasing to purchasing computers. I understand from estimates questions that it has decided to add an extra year to the life of its computers. I think that is probably the most environmentally responsible thing that the ACT government has done from an ICT point of view in the past while.
Moving right along to my second point—and I am going to run out of time—unfortunately, the government does not know its ICT use. I asked questions about that in estimates earlier this year, and the answer from Mr Kegel was:
We certainly have not done any scoping as to the power implication of that …
I was talking about computers.
There are so many variables in that that we have not looked at.
Then he went on to say:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video