COMMENTS: 45
HP's Printer Cartridges Are an E-Waste Disaster -- Does the Company Really Care?
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.
But as people become more conscious of their "carbon footprints" or their environmental impact, programs are cropping up to recycling common e-waste like cell phones and computers. However, when it comes to printer cartridges, there is a lot of work to be done. Especially when it comes to industry leader Hewlett-Packard, which is trying to wipe its carbon footprint clean.
HP dominates the printer cartridge market. According to Andy Lippman, an industry analyst at Lyra Research, HP produces more than half of the 500 million ink-jet and 75 million laser cartridges sold annually in North America alone. Considering that about half of the empties those ink-jet cartridges replace are simply thrown away, it's no wonder HP seeks to clean up the e-waste mess it perpetuates.
HP has an e-cycling (or electronic recycling) process that is convenient and astonishingly simple, given HP's global reach. Here's how it works: Most of its new cartridges come equipped with a postage-paid shipping label or green mailer envelope for customers to drop their empties in the mail, free of charge. Those empties have already added up to 143 million recycled cartridges worldwide. It's the kind of environmental stewardship that led Fortune Magazine to call HP a "green giant" this year.
But there are cracks in HP's e-cycling façade, wide enough for environmental watchdogs like Greenpeace to be concerned and for recycling alternatives to emerge.
This past July, HP met its goal for recycling one billion pounds of electronic products six months ahead of schedule. According to Jean Gingras, HP's environmental marketing manager for North America, recycled ink-jet and laser cartridges comprised more than 25 percent of that total -- some 260 million pounds. The company anticipates similar numbers for its next billion pounds of e-waste, which it intends to collect by 2010. "HP designs with the environment in mind," Gingras said. While these numbers seem laudable at first glance, Greenpeace is holding its applause.
In September, Greenpeace released the latest installment of its quarterly "Guide to Greener Electronics," in which HP ranked among the bottom of 15 companies on the quest to go green. The report contended that among HP's more heinous crimes against the planet is its failure to eliminate vinyl plastics (PVCs) and brominated flame retardants (BFRs) from its products. These hazardous materials are virtually impossible to recycle and wreak havoc on our environment. PVCs and BFRs that end up in incinerators, smelters or landfill fires release dioxins and other carcinogens into the air. The materials can also leach into the soil and wind up in our food chain.
Both PVCs and BFRs can be found in printers and printer cartridges. Iza Kruszewska, a Greenpeace International Toxics Campaigner, said that BFRs can be found in the green circuit boards on cartridges. While BFRs and PVCs can certainly be found in the cartridges of other companies as well, HP bears the burden of producing the largest number of cartridges currently available. To date, HP has no products available that are PVC-free or BFR-free, nor has HP issued a timetable for eliminating all uses of PVCs or BFRs from its products.
Gingras claimed that, over the past decade, HP has removed 95 percent of BFRs and PVCs from its products. She also insisted that no components of its recycled cartridges end up in landfills. But others, like Rick Hind, the legislative director of Greenpeace's Toxic Campaign, disagree. "Those materials have to go somewhere. There's no safe disposal of PVCs or BFRs, in the same way you can't dispose of radioactive material," he said.
While to some, removing 95 percent of BFRs and PVCs is impressive, the sheer volume of cartridges HP produces means that there are still too many products out there containing these hazardous materials. In North America alone, that remaining 5 percent of HP cartridges containing BFRs and PVCs is equal to 12.5 million ink-jet and another 3.75 million laser cartridges. This staggering number is why Greenpeace has demanded HP set a timetable for eliminating BFRs and PVCs.
Reduce, reuse, recycle
It is not just the chemicals in HP's products that are of concern -- but also their recycling.
Recycling printer cartridges consists of reducing the empty cartridges down to raw materials that are then used to manufacture new plastic or metal products. HP uses these materials to create auto body parts, clothes hangers, roof tiles, spools, and serving trays, along with a slew of other products. HP even sells a scanner made from 25 percent recycled ink-jet cartridge plastic and 75 percent recycled plastic bottles. Yet despite these innovative endeavors, HP has turned recycling into a business in highly dubious ways.
For starters, HP refuses to remanufacture printer cartridges. Remanufacturing takes empty cartridges, cleans and refills them with high-quality toner and resells them at a fraction of the cost of buying a new cartridge. Above all, remanufacturing ensures that empty cartridges won't wind up in landfills. Gingras said that HP's concern over remanufactured cartridges lies in their reusability. She pointed to a study (commissioned by HP) in which the print quality is degraded using refurbished cartridges. "What we've seen is that there's more waste generated during reuse," Gingras said, "since there's a need to reprint pages with poor quality and use more ink and paper."
HP's stats are debatable considering remanufactured cartridges can last longer and contain up to 20 percent more ink than new cartridges. Either way, HP's decision not to remanufacture cartridges seems more like a business move than an environmental concern.
Andy Lippman of Lyra Research explained, "It doesn't make sense for [HP] to remanufacture cartridges because, logistically, it would be very expensive for them." Lippman referred to the "razor and blades" business model for selling ink-jet printers. Printers are sold at low or below cost (many are bundled for "free" in computer sales) because companies like HP make up their costs on cartridges. Since remanufactured cartridges can be upwards of 40 percent to 60 percent cheaper than the original manufacturer's, HP is merely watching out for its profit margins by designing cartridges for one-time usage.
HP has created a recycling Catch-22. It has made recycling easy, but by not offering remanufactured printer cartridges, customers have no choice but to buy new cartridges at full price. In March, Recharger Magazine, a trade publication, reported that Staples discontinued the sale of all HP-compatible store-brand printer cartridges. Other industry leaders like Dell, Canon and Lexmark allow companies like Staples to offer cheaper store-brand cartridges that are compatible with their printers.
HP also has some products, such as its 90 series of ink-jet cartridges, that will not work outside of the United States. This maneuver, assessed Rick Hind, "undermines the company's global takeback policy," since it limits the global market of empty cartridges and overseas recycling. In other words, while HP is recycling millions of printer cartridges, it has created a system that guarantees the production of millions more.
The alternatives
Greenpeace alleges that in general, HP has recently weakened its stance on individual producer responsibility. "Polluters should pay," Hind explained. "Companies should be financially and mechanically fully responsible for taking back all their waste globally." Unlike in the European Union, there is no federal legislation in the United States or China regarding individual producer responsibility, meaning that recycling is left up to the states, and HP is left largely off the hook.
There are alternatives to recycling with HP, some of which are financially rewarding for customers. Staples, for instance, gives customers $3 off their next printer cartridge purchase for each empty cartridge they bring in, regardless of brand. Then there are independent chains that have cropped up across the country in recent years, like the Cartridge Recycling Center, which offers even more cash for cartridges.
Tom Dougherty of Cartridge Recycling said his company will send a business or school collection boxes with prepaid postage, paying up to $4 per cartridge. The center in turn sells these empties back to companies that remanufacture, and they currently process 20,000 cartridges a month.
As Jean Gingras said, HP has no qualms with its recycling competitors, which is understandable given the monopoly they have created over their products. Gingras did say that customers ought to make sure materials are recycled properly and that nothing goes to landfills. Now the only question that remains is whether HP will do the same.
For more information about e-cycling alternatives, E-cycling Central provides links to local recycling companies in your area.
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: picklebarrela55 on Oct 29, 2007 12:50 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: All I know is..
Posted by: jellison45013
» Lighting a Candle -- Inkbags.com's product lasts 5x longer
Posted by: BenCaxton12
» $15 to $20! Is that all???? Try $45 to $65 for my printer ...
Posted by: SayBlade
Comments are closed-
Posted by: eloots on Oct 29, 2007 4:13 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My first inkjet printer was an HP. I always found it a waste that, when you bought new cartridges (mine had two, one B/W, the other for colour), every cartridge has a print head integrated in the cartridge. I think this is a enormous waste in itself. Other printer manufacturers (such as Canon and Epson) make printers that have a replaceable print head and ink cartridges. (which reduces them to basically simple ink tanks) Makes recycling/refilling much easier/cheaper.
Using the integrated print head approach allows a printer manufacturer such as HP to limit the choice of the consumer for alternatives.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: A fundamental problem with HP cartridges ...
Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
Comments are closed-
Posted by: d.nweindeb on Oct 29, 2007 4:32 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The Money’s in the Ink
Posted by: marxalot
» RE: The Money’s in the Ink
Posted by: AussieGeoff
Comments are closed-
Posted by: eksommer on Oct 29, 2007 5:18 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In addition, I have noticed that the ink does not last very long at all. My printing habits have not changed. So I am greatly disappointed in HP, and will shop around for another brand next time I need a printer.
And I agree that having the printheads in the ink cartridge is a waste of materials.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: pammers on Oct 29, 2007 5:41 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: KeepsonTickn on Oct 29, 2007 5:49 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But then "Help us sell more new cartridges by using this envelope...", doesn't have the same ring as "Help save the environment...", does it?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: nc green on Oct 29, 2007 6:46 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
HP cartridges are freakin' $40 and more (buy two and pay only $35 each!).
Besides that, HP inkjet printers are the least reliable paper handlers on the market, in my never-humble opinion. Constant, neverending paper jams!
They're long-lived, or I would have gotten rid of this piece of trash that's been cluttering up my e-life for the last four years. Blah!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: dwilliamsamh on Oct 29, 2007 7:42 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The question for HP (and I would have appreciated an answer IN the article) is WHY don't they get rid of the offending chemicals and toxins in the cartridges completely? Why is 95% as far as they are willing to go? Is there some actual reason for the intransigence on this point? I think that is a serious question and deserved 100% of the column space taken up by what seemed to be the over arching criticism: That HP won't cut its own throat to re-manufacture and refill print cartridges, instead of recycling them into other products.
Look, in a perfect world nothing would cost anything it would all be free because we are all looking out for the wants and desires of our fellow man and everything would be cooler than the other side of the pillow baby. Get over it.
Corporations exist as vehicles of profit that is passed on to the investors. Given the choice between a company that makes a profit and makes every effort to recycle the mountain of disposable waste their product generates (like HP) VS, a corporation that not only doesn't provide FREE shipping for all its post consumer waste to recycling plants, but actually actively hurts the environment, I choose the former.
As a practical matter HP must continue to make a profit so that it can stay in business. Do you think if they go under or drop the printer business all together, their remaining competitors are more or LESS likely to pick up the degree of commitment to recycling that HP has shown? I think less.
Get real people. Profit is not evil. Some schemes to make a profit are, but profit isn't.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Here's where I always argue with other's on "The Left"
Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: Here's where I always argue with other's on "The Left"
Posted by: dwilliamsamh
Comments are closed-
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Oct 29, 2007 7:57 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: NOT THAT LONG AGO WE HAD A GOOD SYSTEM
Posted by: jellenc
» RE: NOT THAT LONG AGO WE HAD A GOOD SYSTEM
Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» RE: NOT THAT LONG AGO WE HAD A GOOD SYSTEM THANKS
Posted by: VZEQICVA
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Oct 29, 2007 8:34 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Polluters should pay," Hind explained. "Companies should be financially and mechanically fully responsible for taking back all their waste globally."
Yes! Make Big Evil (little) Grocery Stores that I shop at who make Big Evil Money responsible for paying my sewage bill, too! Or, *sh*, should I just leave *it* at the curb for my next Global Waste Take-Back Truck? In an otherwise decent and fairly informative article, the author makes the mistake of assuming that ___________ (waves off in the distance...) should really be the one footing the tab for the what he decides to buy and use. Gee, wouldn't it be great to live in a world where you write off the consequences of your choices? Can I get bus fare to that planet, and we'll just send our bills back to Earth?
First order of business once there: we'll base our economy on Interstellar Carbon Trading, and we'll even send HP a bill for all the Interstellar Carbon Creds we print and sell.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: alaskagrrl on Oct 29, 2007 9:14 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For the sake of the environment -- STOP RECYCLING ! (And tell your government why you shouldn't be forced to).
Think I'm crazy ? Think again....
In 1983 I was an electrician working on a garbage separating plant located in Fairbanks Alaska. The price of recyclables was so high we mechanically sorted EVERY CAN OF GARBAGE the city generated and even began 'eating away' at the existing landfill. Our only significant cost was the bunker crude (tar) used to dry the garbage before manipulation.
Then the 'recycling craze' hit. The price bottom fell out of recycled materials because legions of unpaid workers got involved. We had to stop and the landfill began growing again.
My point is -- if it worked in Fairbanks Alaska where every bit had to be shipped by truck, then train, then barge south -- it would work ANYWHERE !! IF ONLY THE PRICE STAYED HIGH. It's simple economics.
Recycling for free corrupts any chance of commercial recycling ever becoming a viable management tool. If it did, we wouldn't have to worry about e-waste. My gosh, there's actually elemental Gold in that e-waste !! It should be placed right in the garbage can where it belongs, to enhance it's value enough that someone goes after the rest.
Environmental writing pioneer Edward Abby (remember him?) metaphorically tossed soda cans out the window as he drove through the desert. Remember why ? It enriched the resource and thus caused others to eagerly pursue it.
Stop Recycling and Save the Planet.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The trouble isn't HP -- it's our mentality that trash is worth less than gold.
Posted by: Urgelt
» What About Cardboard? and Don't Print!
Posted by: frantaylor
» Landfill space?
Posted by: BlueTigress
Comments are closed-
Posted by: picklebarrela55 on Oct 29, 2007 10:19 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: What else can I do?
Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: What else can I do?
Posted by: frantaylor
Comments are closed-
Posted by: DaBear on Oct 29, 2007 11:20 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For the record, in the decade I was using an HP printer I never once saw a recycling envelope or slip in the ink cartridge box. Not once. I use Epson and recycle the tanks after my generic refills crap out.
Do I wish Epson would do better? Sure I do. Do I think HP is able to do better? Sure, but in a decade, they haven't, so why should I trust someone with a negative track record? The excuses one dude made about making profit... my arse, 20th century trog. No corporation has to put profit over the environment. Just because they're not doing it yet doesn't mean they can't.... it's a choice by the aristocracy that owns them. And the aristocracy is about the stoopidest bunch of pathetic excuses for human beings at this stage of human progress.
Finally I don't give a frack what Greenpeace thinks, most of the time. A bunch of half-wit zealots, that's about it. There are much more reliable eco-watchdogs out there with a whole lot more horse-sense than Greenpeace.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Ditched HP for good
Posted by: dwilliamsamh
Comments are closed-
Posted by: picklebarrela55 on Oct 29, 2007 12:01 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: zepher on Oct 29, 2007 12:24 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Ink refill
Posted by: jjdoggie
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gppbear on Oct 29, 2007 12:38 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Likely, the power required to run said machine...
Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: Likely, the power required to run said machine...
Posted by: gppbear
» RE: Ink and Page Recycler
Posted by: VZEQICVA
Comments are closed-
Posted by: frantaylor on Oct 29, 2007 6:30 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: wisewebwoman on Oct 29, 2007 6:57 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
However, in the past year, their arrogance in the monopolistic world they have created has turned me completely against them.
For one, their pre-Vista scanners are incompatible with Vista and I don't get any assistance from their help desk.
They have forced many suppliers into removing their own cartridge brands which has resulted in my costs increasing by 30%.
And the recycling mailing bags are now missing from our recently purchased cartridges.
I want to find a more environmentally sustainable product and will replace all our printers when we do so.
Trashing the planet is not part of our mission statement and we will ensure that we don't do business with companies like HP.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: meetmeineleusis on Oct 29, 2007 7:37 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Missing Piece on Oct 29, 2007 8:11 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Mr. Heathen on Oct 29, 2007 10:00 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have a '95 model car that runs fine, but will have to die because I can't get parts for it. I have a '98 computer with an HP printer. Neither can be updated or upgraded because the manufacturers stopped supporting them more than a year ago. The printer and scanner won't work with a new computer even though the new ones perform essentially identical functions. Just get me started on stereo and medical equipment!
When I visit my neighborhood thrift store, there are piles of identical, perfectly "serviceable" devices nobody can use. So, people spend their paychecks and savings buying things they shouldn't need to, thus leaving them unable to cover medical and retirement.
My retirement? When I get that old, I just hope I have enough strength to make to the freeway and throw myself in front of a GIANT BOXSTORE TRUCK.
I bought my "recycled" inkjet cartridges from a budget computer supply chainstore where I saved about 5 dollars on two. HP requires the recyclers to pay a royalty on their patented cartridges.
On the flipside, I just bought a new stylus for my thrift store stereo. F#$K MP3. I'm looking for a good whistle.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: apara on Oct 30, 2007 8:20 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: eCycleGroup on Nov 27, 2007 10:59 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most egregious of HP’s alleged misbehaviors is the company’s refusal to remanufacture printer cartridges. Here’s an expert from Pelta-Heller’s expose:
Andy Lippman of Lyra Research explained, “It doesn’t make sense for [HP] to remanufacture cartridges because, logistically, it would be very expensive for them.” Lippman referred to the “razor and blades” business model for selling ink-jet printers. Printers are sold at low or below cost (many are bundled for “free” in computer sales) because companies like HP make up their costs on cartridges. Since remanufactured cartridges can be upwards of 40 percent to 60 percent cheaper than the original manufacturer’s, HP is merely watching out for its profit margins by designing cartridges for one-time usage.
Pelta-Heller also sites the quarterly Guide to Greener Electronics, wherein Greenpeace points out that HP is yet to “eliminate vinyl plastics (PVCs) and brominated flame retardants (BFRs) from its products.” What Zeller neglects to mention, and eCycle Group wonders why, is that HP came in third overall amongst international peers in Greenpeace’s most recent Toxic Report and received top marks for Chemical Management, Individual Producer Responsibilty, and Amounts Recycled.
If accurate, eCycle Group is alarmed by HP’s behavior, particularly the allegation that they do not remanufacture cartridges. eCycle Group feels that it is the responsibility of producers to design products for reuse. Furthermore, producers should collect, refurbish, and resell end-of-life products. A carpet company called Interface, does just that. Interface sells, installs, and services carpet. When the carpet wears out, Interface collects and recycles it. This framework, called Cradle-to-Cradle, is growing more popular.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: picklebarrela55 on Oct 29, 2007 12:50 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: All I know is..
Posted by: jellison45013
» Lighting a Candle -- Inkbags.com's product lasts 5x longer
Posted by: BenCaxton12
» $15 to $20! Is that all???? Try $45 to $65 for my printer ...
Posted by: SayBlade
Comments are closed-
Posted by: eloots on Oct 29, 2007 4:13 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My first inkjet printer was an HP. I always found it a waste that, when you bought new cartridges (mine had two, one B/W, the other for colour), every cartridge has a print head integrated in the cartridge. I think this is a enormous waste in itself. Other printer manufacturers (such as Canon and Epson) make printers that have a replaceable print head and ink cartridges. (which reduces them to basically simple ink tanks) Makes recycling/refilling much easier/cheaper.
Using the integrated print head approach allows a printer manufacturer such as HP to limit the choice of the consumer for alternatives.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: A fundamental problem with HP cartridges ...
Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
Comments are closed-
Posted by: d.nweindeb on Oct 29, 2007 4:32 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The Money’s in the Ink
Posted by: marxalot
» RE: The Money’s in the Ink
Posted by: AussieGeoff
Comments are closed-
Posted by: eksommer on Oct 29, 2007 5:18 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In addition, I have noticed that the ink does not last very long at all. My printing habits have not changed. So I am greatly disappointed in HP, and will shop around for another brand next time I need a printer.
And I agree that having the printheads in the ink cartridge is a waste of materials.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: pammers on Oct 29, 2007 5:41 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: KeepsonTickn on Oct 29, 2007 5:49 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But then "Help us sell more new cartridges by using this envelope...", doesn't have the same ring as "Help save the environment...", does it?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: nc green on Oct 29, 2007 6:46 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
HP cartridges are freakin' $40 and more (buy two and pay only $35 each!).
Besides that, HP inkjet printers are the least reliable paper handlers on the market, in my never-humble opinion. Constant, neverending paper jams!
They're long-lived, or I would have gotten rid of this piece of trash that's been cluttering up my e-life for the last four years. Blah!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: dwilliamsamh on Oct 29, 2007 7:42 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The question for HP (and I would have appreciated an answer IN the article) is WHY don't they get rid of the offending chemicals and toxins in the cartridges completely? Why is 95% as far as they are willing to go? Is there some actual reason for the intransigence on this point? I think that is a serious question and deserved 100% of the column space taken up by what seemed to be the over arching criticism: That HP won't cut its own throat to re-manufacture and refill print cartridges, instead of recycling them into other products.
Look, in a perfect world nothing would cost anything it would all be free because we are all looking out for the wants and desires of our fellow man and everything would be cooler than the other side of the pillow baby. Get over it.
Corporations exist as vehicles of profit that is passed on to the investors. Given the choice between a company that makes a profit and makes every effort to recycle the mountain of disposable waste their product generates (like HP) VS, a corporation that not only doesn't provide FREE shipping for all its post consumer waste to recycling plants, but actually actively hurts the environment, I choose the former.
As a practical matter HP must continue to make a profit so that it can stay in business. Do you think if they go under or drop the printer business all together, their remaining competitors are more or LESS likely to pick up the degree of commitment to recycling that HP has shown? I think less.
Get real people. Profit is not evil. Some schemes to make a profit are, but profit isn't.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Here's where I always argue with other's on "The Left"
Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: Here's where I always argue with other's on "The Left"
Posted by: dwilliamsamh
Comments are closed-
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Oct 29, 2007 7:57 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: NOT THAT LONG AGO WE HAD A GOOD SYSTEM
Posted by: jellenc
» RE: NOT THAT LONG AGO WE HAD A GOOD SYSTEM
Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» RE: NOT THAT LONG AGO WE HAD A GOOD SYSTEM THANKS
Posted by: VZEQICVA
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Oct 29, 2007 8:34 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Polluters should pay," Hind explained. "Companies should be financially and mechanically fully responsible for taking back all their waste globally."
Yes! Make Big Evil (little) Grocery Stores that I shop at who make Big Evil Money responsible for paying my sewage bill, too! Or, *sh*, should I just leave *it* at the curb for my next Global Waste Take-Back Truck? In an otherwise decent and fairly informative article, the author makes the mistake of assuming that ___________ (waves off in the distance...) should really be the one footing the tab for the what he decides to buy and use. Gee, wouldn't it be great to live in a world where you write off the consequences of your choices? Can I get bus fare to that planet, and we'll just send our bills back to Earth?
First order of business once there: we'll base our economy on Interstellar Carbon Trading, and we'll even send HP a bill for all the Interstellar Carbon Creds we print and sell.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: alaskagrrl on Oct 29, 2007 9:14 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For the sake of the environment -- STOP RECYCLING ! (And tell your government why you shouldn't be forced to).
Think I'm crazy ? Think again....
In 1983 I was an electrician working on a garbage separating plant located in Fairbanks Alaska. The price of recyclables was so high we mechanically sorted EVERY CAN OF GARBAGE the city generated and even began 'eating away' at the existing landfill. Our only significant cost was the bunker crude (tar) used to dry the garbage before manipulation.
Then the 'recycling craze' hit. The price bottom fell out of recycled materials because legions of unpaid workers got involved. We had to stop and the landfill began growing again.
My point is -- if it worked in Fairbanks Alaska where every bit had to be shipped by truck, then train, then barge south -- it would work ANYWHERE !! IF ONLY THE PRICE STAYED HIGH. It's simple economics.
Recycling for free corrupts any chance of commercial recycling ever becoming a viable management tool. If it did, we wouldn't have to worry about e-waste. My gosh, there's actually elemental Gold in that e-waste !! It should be placed right in the garbage can where it belongs, to enhance it's value enough that someone goes after the rest.
Environmental writing pioneer Edward Abby (remember him?) metaphorically tossed soda cans out the window as he drove through the desert. Remember why ? It enriched the resource and thus caused others to eagerly pursue it.
Stop Recycling and Save the Planet.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The trouble isn't HP -- it's our mentality that trash is worth less than gold.
Posted by: Urgelt
» What About Cardboard? and Don't Print!
Posted by: frantaylor
» Landfill space?
Posted by: BlueTigress
Comments are closed-
Posted by: picklebarrela55 on Oct 29, 2007 10:19 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: What else can I do?
Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: What else can I do?
Posted by: frantaylor
Comments are closed-
Posted by: DaBear on Oct 29, 2007 11:20 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For the record, in the decade I was using an HP printer I never once saw a recycling envelope or slip in the ink cartridge box. Not once. I use Epson and recycle the tanks after my generic refills crap out.
Do I wish Epson would do better? Sure I do. Do I think HP is able to do better? Sure, but in a decade, they haven't, so why should I trust someone with a negative track record? The excuses one dude made about making profit... my arse, 20th century trog. No corporation has to put profit over the environment. Just because they're not doing it yet doesn't mean they can't.... it's a choice by the aristocracy that owns them. And the aristocracy is about the stoopidest bunch of pathetic excuses for human beings at this stage of human progress.
Finally I don't give a frack what Greenpeace thinks, most of the time. A bunch of half-wit zealots, that's about it. There are much more reliable eco-watchdogs out there with a whole lot more horse-sense than Greenpeace.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Ditched HP for good
Posted by: dwilliamsamh
Comments are closed-
Posted by: picklebarrela55 on Oct 29, 2007 12:01 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: zepher on Oct 29, 2007 12:24 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Ink refill
Posted by: jjdoggie
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gppbear on Oct 29, 2007 12:38 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Likely, the power required to run said machine...
Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: Likely, the power required to run said machine...
Posted by: gppbear
» RE: Ink and Page Recycler
Posted by: VZEQICVA
Comments are closed-
Posted by: frantaylor on Oct 29, 2007 6:30 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: wisewebwoman on Oct 29, 2007 6:57 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
However, in the past year, their arrogance in the monopolistic world they have created has turned me completely against them.
For one, their pre-Vista scanners are incompatible with Vista and I don't get any assistance from their help desk.
They have forced many suppliers into removing their own cartridge brands which has resulted in my costs increasing by 30%.
And the recycling mailing bags are now missing from our recently purchased cartridges.
I want to find a more environmentally sustainable product and will replace all our printers when we do so.
Trashing the planet is not part of our mission statement and we will ensure that we don't do business with companies like HP.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: meetmeineleusis on Oct 29, 2007 7:37 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Missing Piece on Oct 29, 2007 8:11 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Mr. Heathen on Oct 29, 2007 10:00 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have a '95 model car that runs fine, but will have to die because I can't get parts for it. I have a '98 computer with an HP printer. Neither can be updated or upgraded because the manufacturers stopped supporting them more than a year ago. The printer and scanner won't work with a new computer even though the new ones perform essentially identical functions. Just get me started on stereo and medical equipment!
When I visit my neighborhood thrift store, there are piles of identical, perfectly "serviceable" devices nobody can use. So, people spend their paychecks and savings buying things they shouldn't need to, thus leaving them unable to cover medical and retirement.
My retirement? When I get that old, I just hope I have enough strength to make to the freeway and throw myself in front of a GIANT BOXSTORE TRUCK.
I bought my "recycled" inkjet cartridges from a budget computer supply chainstore where I saved about 5 dollars on two. HP requires the recyclers to pay a royalty on their patented cartridges.
On the flipside, I just bought a new stylus for my thrift store stereo. F#$K MP3. I'm looking for a good whistle.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: apara on Oct 30, 2007 8:20 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: eCycleGroup on Nov 27, 2007 10:59 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most egregious of HP’s alleged misbehaviors is the company’s refusal to remanufacture printer cartridges. Here’s an expert from Pelta-Heller’s expose:
Andy Lippman of Lyra Research explained, “It doesn’t make sense for [HP] to remanufacture cartridges because, logistically, it would be very expensive for them.” Lippman referred to the “razor and blades” business model for selling ink-jet printers. Printers are sold at low or below cost (many are bundled for “free” in computer sales) because companies like HP make up their costs on cartridges. Since remanufactured cartridges can be upwards of 40 percent to 60 percent cheaper than the original manufacturer’s, HP is merely watching out for its profit margins by designing cartridges for one-time usage.
Pelta-Heller also sites the quarterly Guide to Greener Electronics, wherein Greenpeace points out that HP is yet to “eliminate vinyl plastics (PVCs) and brominated flame retardants (BFRs) from its products.” What Zeller neglects to mention, and eCycle Group wonders why, is that HP came in third overall amongst international peers in Greenpeace’s most recent Toxic Report and received top marks for Chemical Management, Individual Producer Responsibilty, and Amounts Recycled.
If accurate, eCycle Group is alarmed by HP’s behavior, particularly the allegation that they do not remanufacture cartridges. eCycle Group feels that it is the responsibility of producers to design products for reuse. Furthermore, producers should collect, refurbish, and resell end-of-life products. A carpet company called Interface, does just that. Interface sells, installs, and services carpet. When the carpet wears out, Interface collects and recycles it. This framework, called Cradle-to-Cradle, is growing more popular.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Vancouver's Games Will Be the Gayest Olympics Ever
Trial Begins for Activist Who Fought to Protect Federal Lands from Drilling -- Join the Protest
Starbucks' Cop-Out to Gun Nuts: Customers Served Coffee While Strapped




