Last month, I wrote a story on e-waste recycling and Greenpeace pressures on the electronics supply chain (see “Greenpeace ‘trash talks’ Philips”).  You, our EDN readers, clicked away on it and made it one of the most read articles across our Web site for March.

It was the latest in a series of articles I’ve written on Greenpeace and the group’s views of electronics OEMs (EOEM). The clicks it garnered are not new for such EDN coverage. I’d love to say the story’s traffic results were because of my sparkling wit, stellar reporting, and ability to convey news in a clear, concise, and complete manner, but I don’t flatter myself … well, at least not that much.

Greenpeace has in the past brought some important topics to the public eye, but its zealous, purely environmental agenda should not be forgotten. In the noted story, the organization encourages e-waste recycling responsibilities be put on EOEMs, like Philips – a very costly undertaking and one that wouldn’t necessarily be done best by an EOEM. In previous statements, Greenpeace has gone after Apple’s iPhone for inclusion of hazardous substances like toxic brominated compounds, indicating the presence of brominated flame retardants (BFR). But as the Bromine Science and Environmental Forum (BSEF) points out, BFRs are used for fire prevention in products, including electronics from Apple. The BFRs in the iPhone, according to BSEF, are approved for use under EU regulations and provide critical performance and safety functions. Therefore, BSEF claims that such targeting is irresponsible.

I recently had the opportunity to chat with Fern Abrams, IPC’s director of government relations and environmental policy and a tremendous industry resource whose brain I’ve been picking for years. While we were talking, my mind wondered back to the very first call I had with Fern. It was around the time EU ROHS was coming on the scene, and she was one of the first (and one of the few) in the industry to note that there were no 100%-accurate tests that proved removing the six hazardous substances listed in ROHS would do more good than harm, either from an environmental standpoint or from an end-product standpoint. Newark’s Gary Nevison more recently addressed this issue in our Critical Links blog (see “ROHS – More harm than good?”) and it’s an excellent point. Are we doing more harm than good? Look at the comments on Gary’s blog. Sadly, after a few years into ROHS, it looks like we’re doing more harm.

What’s to stop governments from adopting stricter regulations brought about by electronics companies or from groups like Greenpeace pressuring the industry to be evermore green? It’s not like the powers that be bother to do life-cycle assessments before implementing these directives.

Voice your comments and concerns below. And look for more on my discussion with Fern in an upcoming EDN feature and for a follow up blog from Gary tomorrow.