Pulp & Paper

Editor's Note: The following is an open letter to consumer electronics producers.

Dear e-businesses:

Despite some of the things I've said in the past, and despite some of our differences, I'm writing to you as a warning about some potential problems on the horizon. Although your "paperless office" comments have irked me and my colleagues for a long time—and here I'm not really talking about you folks from Xerox, Hewlett-Packard, or any of the other printer makers who have been such a boon to copy paper producers—I feel as though you might need some advice from a mature market.

Welcome to the downside of consumerism.

The joy you've felt for quite some time in selling all your gadgets—cell phones, laptops, PDAs, flat screen monitors, TV remotes, etc.—may soon turn to tears. This isn't because your products aren't good or necessary or in less demand. But those characteristics are just the things that are harming you.

The problem? Just like paper products, what do you do with electronics when you're done with them?

Maybe it's karma

Remember the Mobro 4000? Sorry, it's not a "next-generation" Wang computer or an Atari-like game console. The Mobro 4000 was the name of the infamous garbage barge that captivated the country in the spring of 1987 as it traveled for eight months and 6,000 miles from Islip, N.Y., into the Gulf of Mexico, to the Bahamas, and back to Brooklyn before the trash finally found a home in an incinerator.

The fallout from this overblown media event created NIMBYism and a recycling craze and caused a massive backlash. But the backlash wasn't targeted at the public for being such a "throw-away" society. The criticism wasn't even aimed at consumer products companies who leverage rampant consumerism to market their products. The condemnation fell to producers of paper, plastic, aluminum, etc. At this point, I could be snide and say that the dream of the paperless society really took off and you guys took advantage of that, but I'm trying to be helpful here.

Last month, an Associated Press technology writer crafted a story called "e-Junk Recycling Still in Its Infancy." The article is informative in many ways. Take this little snippet:

"No current figures exist for how much e-junk is recycled, but people in the industry believe it's a sliver of the total. People simply don't know where to take their e-trash, so much of it sits in drawers. The toxic materials many electronics contain, such as lead and mercury, present more obstacles. A National Safety Council study done four years ago found that less than 10% of techno trash was recycled."

Some points to ponder

Anyone in the paper industry can tell you that just those two paragraphs alone could start an avalanche of bad publicity. First, there's already some really catchy terminology for the public and green groups to latch onto, such as "e-junk" and "techno trash." Second, it's not just a recycling issue. The mention of toxic materials (akin to lead-based inks used in some older paper) makes it an environmental issue, too.

But the article goes on from there. It quotes the executive director of the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, Ted Smith, as saying that "'the costs of recycling have not been included in the purchase of electronic equipment.' His group wants to mandate that manufacturers must take back used electronic products when consumers or businesses no longer want them."

Please consider that word "mandate." Call the lawyers and start paying the lobbyists. The government will soon be involved, trying to legislate markets just like they did with newsprint, printing and writing papers, etc.

Smith goes on to say, "Electronic manufacturers don't have the right incentives now to really focus on green design." The paper industry has heard statements like that before.

Now don't point the finger back at consumers and say that they don't have to upgrade their computers and cell phones every two years, especially when you're producing and marketing so much product that almost anyone can own the latest gadget. The paper industry knows all about overcapacity.

Unless you can be truly proactive at educating consumers, utilize recyclables in your current manufacturing processes without incurring additional costs, and market the product as not being inferior, I suggest just riding out this storm as best you can. After about 10 years, several hundred lawsuits, and a few "techno trash" garbage barges, the issue will settle down. At least it did for most companies in the paper industry.

Good luck.