Info 202 F12

Classification of computers by their environmental impact and upgradability is a good thing. Classification systems designed to encourage manufacturers to make environmentally preferable products do exist, however, the most popular environmental rating registry - Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool registry (EPEAT) - is in the pocket of the companies that it purports to objectively classify. 

Wired Opinion writer Kyle Wiens wrote an article, Greenwashing the Retina MacBook Pro, decrying EPEAT, Apple and the electronics industry as a whole for making the environmental classification system so weak. At the heart of the conflict, was Apple’s (1) announcement they were leaving the EPEAT registry after they released new laptops - the least upgradeable MacBooks thus far - then (2) public entities like the City of San Francisco responded by announcing that they would ban the purchase of Apple Laptops and, lastly (3) Apple apologizing and resubmitting the new laptop line to EPEAT resulting in EPEAT gold classification.

This astonishing EPEAT gold classification is the result of bias. The majority of the members of the EPEAT standards committee are from manufacturing (61%) and a vote to change the standard requires 75%, so the standards will likely remain biased. One standard, for example, is that a computer can be considered upgradable if it just has a USB port. The industry argues that the ambiguous language promotes innovation, however, it just makes the registry pointless.

The current system defeats the purpose of having a classification system - to provide structure for and increase the precision of interactions in an organizing system. The world will be better with structured and precise information about the marketplace and it's products. If what we have now does not work, what could we do?