Life Cycle is a series of posts that follows the secret lives of your stuff.

Take a good look at this photo, in which a Chinese child dismantles wires and other toxic "e-waste" for money. It's one serious result of our giddy hunger for gadgets--iphones, computers, electronics whose missions range from email to porn.

Recently, the world computer population surpassed 1 billion. It's a legion of artificial intelligence that will never die, at least not while humans are around to see it.

The computer species appears to have a high mortality rate (whether due to the rapid progress of technology or an industry conspiracy to ensure that products must be replaced regularly). They "crash" and "die" in droves, their human counterparts literally kicking them to the curb. But there is no heaven, no place in the clouds, for the cold, hard shell once warmed by electrical currents. Once it has left your desk, your computer doesn't disappear. In a sense, it lives on.

Each year, ten million computers land in the toxic graves that are landfills. Nestled among other CPUs and laptops and monitors, their lifeblood oozes out, leaking hazardous materials such as lead into our earth and water sources. Like many products we discard, defunct computers are dead to us but remain a force with which the earth must reckon.

Despite the eco-warning, we're not trying to take away anyone's computer. To paraphrase a line that recently amused us in the 1946 film noir gem The Postman Always Rings Twice, "Stealing a man's wife, that's nothing. But stealing his computer, that's larceny." (We're substituting "computer" for "car," perhaps an apt update on the ultimate symbol of modern freedom and access.)

But be aware, it takes even more energy and resources, pound for pound, to produce a Dell than a Dodge. A 2004 study at United Nations University found that desktop computers require 10 times their weight in fossil fuels and chemicals to manufacture, versus two or three times for cars. This energy-intensive process depletes resources and makes a significant contribution to climate change.

A computer's energy usage has just begun once it leaves the factory, though. In your hands, a standard desktop PC sucks up to 300 watts when in use, nearly half the amount used by your refrigerator It's worth noting that if your computer carries the "Energy Star" sticker and was made before July 2007, the label is somewhat bogus--until that date, the rating only factored energy use while in "standby" mode.

Computers have had their share of positive environmental impacts, such as reducing our paper trail and rendering CD production archaic. But their birth, life and living-deadliness have downsides that you can minimize:

Never toss a computer in the dumpster. It's illegal in most states, and deplorable in all states. Most cities have annual collection days for electronic waste. If your machine is salvageable, find a local company or organization that repairs or beefs up computers for re-use.

Reduce your tech sidekick's impact by programming it to shut down when not in use for, say, 20 minutes (it's hogwash that doing so degrades the machine).

When buying computers, look for greener machines. Dell is one manufacturer attempting offset carbon emissions by investing in read more »
Propose An Amendment   Take To Committee  Lobby   Veto
Add to:      

Recently, the world computer population surpassed 1 billion. It's a legion of artificial intelligence that will never die, at least not while humans are around to see it.

The computer species appears to have a high mortality rate (whether due to the rapid progress of technology or an industry conspiracy to ensure that products must be replaced regularly). They "crash" and "die" in droves, their human counterparts literally kicking them to the curb. But there is no heaven, no place in the clouds, for the cold, hard shell once warmed by electrical currents. Once it has left your desk, your computer doesn't disappear. In a sense, it lives on.

Each year, ten million computers land in the toxic graves that are landfills. Nestled among other CPUs and laptops and monitors, their lifeblood oozes out, leaking hazardous materials such as lead into our earth and water sources. Like many products we discard, defunct computers are dead to us but remain a force with which the earth must reckon.

Despite the eco-warning, we're not trying to take away anyone's computer. To paraphrase a line that recently amused us in the 1946 film noir gem The Postman Always Rings Twice, "Stealing a man's wife, that's nothing. But stealing his computer, that's larceny." (We're substituting "computer" for "car," perhaps an apt update on the ultimate symbol of modern freedom and access.)

But be aware, it takes even more energy and resources, pound for pound, to produce a Dell than a Dodge. A 2004 study at United Nations University found that desktop computers require 10 times their weight in fossil fuels and chemicals to manufacture, versus two or three times for cars. This energy-intensive process depletes resources and makes a significant contribution to climate change.

A computer's energy usage has just begun once it leaves the factory, though. In your hands, a standard desktop PC sucks up to 300 watts when in use, nearly half the amount used by your refrigerator It's worth noting that if your computer carries the "Energy Star" sticker and was made before July 2007, the label is somewhat bogus--until that date, the rating only factored energy use while in "standby" mode.

Computers have had their share of positive environmental impacts, such as reducing our paper trail and rendering CD production archaic. But their birth, life and living-deadliness have downsides that you can minimize:

Never toss a computer in the dumpster. It's illegal in most states, and deplorable in all states. Most cities have annual collection days for electronic waste. If your machine is salvageable, find a local company or organization that repairs or beefs up computers for re-use.

Reduce your tech sidekick's impact by programming it to shut down when not in use for, say, 20 minutes (it's hogwash that doing so degrades the machine).

When buying computers, look for greener machines. Dell is one manufacturer attempting offset carbon emissions by investing in            |   Bookmarks  

The soaring price of oil will leave the Iraqi government with a cumulative budget surplus of as much as $79 billion by year's end an American federal oversight agency has concluded in an analysis released on Tuesday.

The unspent windfall, which covers surpluses from oil sales from 2005 through 2008, appears likely to put an uncomfortable new focus on the approximately $48 billion in American taxpayer money devoted to rebuilding Iraq since the American-led invasion.

Over all, the report from the Government Accountability Office estimates, Iraqi oil revenue from 2005 through the end of this year will amount to at least $156 billion. And in an odd financial twist, large amounts of the surplus money is sitting in an American bank in New York -- nearly $10 billion at the end of 2007, with more expected this year, when the accountability office estimates a skyrocketing surplus.

The report was requested by two senior senators, Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, and John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, and on Tuesday they were quick to express strong dissatisfaction over the contrast between American spending on reconstruction and the weak record of spending by Iraq itself, in spite of the colossal surpluses.

The senators pointed out in a statement that in 2007, for example, Iraq actually spent only 28 percent of its $12 billion dollar reconstruction budget according to the accountability office - and even that number could overstate the success rate in most of Iraq, since $2 billion of the spending took place in relatively peaceful confines of the northern Kurdish region.

We finally got him. Your children can now play freely in the streets again. We have nabbed, yes, Osama bin Laden's limo driver. Move over Hermann Goring and make room for Ahmad Hamdan.

As we all let out a sigh of collective relief, let us recap how we came to this glorious occasion:

Up until November 2001, Hamdan was chauffeuring bin Laden and a trunk full of surface-to-air missiles, thus providing material support to terrorists. He was a member of the world's number one terrorist' inner posse of bodyguards--a Yemeni version of Suge Knight.

After being detained and hauled off to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, he wasted away in a detention facility until he finally was charged in 2003 on charges of conspiracy and providing material support for terrorism. Five years later (and the scrapping of habeas corpus, thanks to the 2006 Military Commissions Act) and countless mentions in the press--including the Ali-versus-Frazier-like 2006 case Hamdan-versus-Rumsfeld before the Supremes--he was found innocent of conspiracy (the more serious offense) and guilty of providing material support.

Lest you think this was a kangaroo court, the jury (all of them U.S. military officers) deliberated for eight hours over three days to reach their verdict. Thus, justice was served. The end.

Let's be honest: this case was a joke in the annals of justice and a blotch on America's campaign to prevent future 9/11's. It was held behind closed doors and secret evidence was admitted. The charge of material support for terrorism has no historical basis in international law or the laws of war, nor did the military commissions have proper jurisdiction to even try Hamdan on these charges. The tight handling of evidence and the lack of appeals made it nearly impossible for detainees to build a credible defense or counter the charges levied against them. Even the term "unlawful enemy combatant" has no legal basis in the laws of war.

Our military is always trumpeting how great its courts martial system is--if so, then why try these guys in what most legal rights groups call a kangaroo court? Nobody believes Hamdan received a fair trial. And if Nuremberg is the gold standard for war crimes trials (it was repeatedly invoked during the proceedings), then why wasn't Hitler's driver, Erich Kempka, prosecuted as a war criminal?

I believe Hamdan was not as clueless as his defense would have you believe. There's no way you can ferry around Osama bin Laden and not know what the chap is up to. But my feeling, though, is there are bigger fish to fry. This is a distraction and it paints us as weak and incompetent in the eyes of the world. Let's try those detainees in Guantanamo Bay, but let's do it right.

NEW YORK — Elvis Presley's favorite performance costume, the peacock jumpsuit, has sold for $300,000, making it the most expensive piece of Elvis memorabilia sold at auction.

The online sale by auctioneer Gotta Have It! ended at 3 a.m. Thursday. The pre-sale estimate was $275,000 to $325,000.

The white outfit with a plunging V-neck and high collar features a blue-and-gold peacock design hand-embroidered on the front and back and along the pant legs.

The previous record for an Elvis collectible is $295,000 for one of his classic cars. The most ever paid previously for one of his stage costumes, a bejeweled cape, was $105,250. Both were sold at a 1999 auction at Graceland in Memphis, Tennessee, run by Guernsey's.

___

On the Net:

http://www.gottahaveit.com

The potential for national humiliation stemming from foreign protest is one of China's great fears ahead of the 2008 Olympic Games. The Chinese have unsuccessfully attempted to define the Olympics as apolitical, but like it or not, the Olympics present too prominent a staging ground for activists to declare a temporary cease-fire. In fact, the protests have already begun -- over Tibet, family planning and animal rights -- and others are sure to follow.

Unlike many of the issues seeking political spotlight at the Games, greenhouse gases do not recognize national borders. The pollution China emits affects the temperature in Los Angeles just as much as it does Beijing, and emissions from the U.S. similarly affect the rest of the world. As the world's leading emitters of greenhouse gases, the U.S. and China must work together to meet this global challenge.

We are right to call attention to China's pollution problems and their growing carbon footprint, but China is also correct in pointing out that we in the U.S. emit more than our fair share. Although China is now the largest greenhouse gas emitter by volume, it remains far down the list of per-capita polluters. On that front, America is still number one. As two nations that are, and will remain, heavily dependent on abundant coal, the U.S. and China need to start thinking about collaborative solutions to the climate change problem.

"Why should I care what China does with its air? Why should China care what we do with ours?" Asia Society's "Clearing the Air" multimedia project answers these questions by demonstrating that we are facing a common enemy. To address the problem of climate change, we should use these Olympics as an opportunity to connect with China and begin creating collaborative solutions.

Andrew Smeall is an Assistant in the Center on U.S.-China Relations at the Asia Society. His work focuses on environmental and media issues.