Monitoring monitors

Katy Brown and Mary Rayner take a hard look at flat screen monitors.

The choice between a conventional (CRT) or a flat panel monitor is probably the single most effective environmental choice you can make when buying a new desktop computer. Although flat screens do tend to be more expensive (you can expect to add around £100 to the price of a computer), over the long term these costs can be recouped through lower energy use, and on average they last for three years longer than CRT monitors.(1)

Environmentally, LCD monitors are the better choice for a number of reasons. One key advantage is energy use. Less energy is needed to make the flat screen, and LCD monitors typically consume 70% less energy than CRTs.

In addition, they contain less non-renewable material and fewer ozone-depleting chemicals, as well as producing less hazardous waste.(1) It is important to note that some higher quality CRT monitors are advertised as flat screens, but still come with the same environmental problems.

Labour Practices
The manufacture of flat panel monitors, like that of most computer parts, can involve poor working conditions for those that make them. We looked at the companies covered in this report to see whether they had codes of conduct addressing workers' rights at supplier companies. Most received our bottom rating (with no evidence of a code), with only three achieving a middle rating for internally-monitored codes.

In January last year Cafod produced a report 'Clean up your computer' covering the whole industry which gives some information on monitor manufacturers. At a factory visited in Taiwan, supplying monitors to major computer brands, assembly workers had to work three to five hours overtime per day, seven days a week during peak season.

Workers got a day off in the slack season but without pay. Wages were well below the legal minimum of $US54 per month. The basic wage was $US37, rising to $US39 after one year and $US42 after two years. Illegal amounts of overtime were necessary to earn the minimum wage. (2)

Workers testing monitors had to test 150 per hour - that's 24 seconds per monitor. Those who tested monitors sat in front of them for up to 11 hours a day looking at a flashing screen. They often suffered from eye problems including tired and swollen eyes. The factory gave them no education about eye problems that might arise from their work. In one monitor factory workers had to wear a red overcoat if they made a mistake. (2)

Radiation
The 'flickering' of CRT screens can cause eye strain for some people. LCDs do not flicker and often cause less eye strain. TFT - LCDs are also easier on the eyes because they don't emit low level electromagnetic radiation, a field which may be released in very small amounts by CRT screens and non-TFT LCDs.(5)

TCO labelling
TCO is a widely respected eco-label developed by a Swedish trade union. Approximately 50% of all computer screens manufactured in the world are TCO-labelled. This includes both FPD and CRT monitors.(6)

For a product to achieve TCO-labelling it must meet the following requirements:

• ISO 14001 certified manufacturer
• No heavy metals
• No lead
• No brominated or chlorinated flame-retardants
• No halogenated plastics (such as PVC)

Of the brands covered all had at least one TCO model. Some companies had more than others, for example Hewlett-Packard had only one whereas LG had over 100. Unfortunately it was not clear from the website which countries the models were available in. For a comprehensive list of TCO-labelled monitors visit www.tcodevelopment.com

Waste and the WEEE Directive
With computers containing so many toxic chemicals, their disposal is problematic. Huge quantities of electronic waste are illegally dumped on poorer countries which are unable to deal with it safely. (7)

The EU Directive on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE Directive) is designed to shift the responsibility for recycling onto producers and dictates that EU member states must adopt "appropriate measures in order to minimise the disposal of WEEE as unsorted municipal waste and to achieve a high level of separate collection of WEEE". (8)

The UK government originally promised to meet the WEEE Directive's deadline of August 2004 but progress has been slow. The Environment Agency has warned the Department of Trade and Industry that further delay in finalising the regulations may mean their deadline can't be met.(9)

References
1 www.pnl.gov/conserve-energy/tips/jan03.stm 07/01/05
2 Clean up your computer report, Cafod, 01/04
3 www.greenpeace.org viewed on 07/01/05
4 Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition website www.svtc.org viewed on 07/01/05
5 www.staples.com viewed on 07/01/05
6 TCO labelling website www.tcodevelopments.com viewed on 07/01/05
7 The Guardian, Poisonous detritus of the electronic revolution, John Vidal, Tuesday September 21, 2004
8 'The WEEE directive: new challenges for appliance recycling' The ENDS Report, Issue 341, 06/03
9 DTI warned of trouble ahead on WEEE', ENDS Report Issue 358, 11/04