What are you reading this particular article on? Most people would reply "a monitor of course" and they would be right.

But what is your monitor made up of? What is your computer made up of? While the majority of computer users simply look upon their machines as jumbles of plastics and metals, computers contain a number of toxic materials including Chromium, Zinc, Lead and Tin.

When a computer is in use, there appears to be very little to fear from these toxic materials (though I have yet to see any studies concerning this). When a computer winds up in the landfill, however, there is a very good chance that these materials will leak into the soil and contaminate groundwater.

Measures have been taken in Europe to make computer manufacturers take responsibility for the products after they have outlived their useful lives.

While Europe has taken steps to produce accountability and protect people from the toxic waste computers create, the same cannot be said for North America.

One agency in particular that has attempted to block the European initiative concerning stronger environmental measures for computer manufacturers is the American Electronics Association (AEA).

The AEA claims that the bill created by the European Commission violate trade rules set out by the World Trade Organization. The logic here, I assume, is that more stringent regulations on manufacturers harm US manufacturers by jacking up prices. They specifically state that the prohibition of certain materials will affect the "functionality, safety and reliability of electronic and electronic products" and "will impede the development of new technologies and products".

I find it surpassing that an industry that rhapsodizes about "innovation" sees this piece of legislation as an obstacle rather than an opportunity. Why not take the opportunity to demonstrate that the "innovators" of the computer industry can do more than just make a dancing paperclip.

The question remains--should computer manufacturers be allowed to produce toxic products and then surrender responsibility of their disposal to local municipalities and taxpayers? Neither municipalities, nor the taxpayers that pay for the disposal of these machines are part of the decision-making process that the manufacturer uses. Without this participation, how can taxpayers be expected to pay for the disposal of chemicals they most likely would have no wish to use in the first place?

While several of the larger computer manufacturers like HP and IBM have recycling programs for their machines, a vast number of North Americans do not purchase name brand machines, opting for less expensive machines built at a local shop. These companies cannot afford to recycle their machines. Many, I suspect, do not care what happens to the machine after the initial sale. Should these smaller operators also be held responsible for the computers they sell. Because they are local businesses selling to a local clientele, it's likely that they would be able to make a contribution (monetary or otherwise) to the safe disposal of the machines they sell.

So the next time you boot up your machine for the last time, think about where it's going and how best to get rid of it.

Stephen Van Esch is a writer and instructional designer living near Toronto, Canada. He is the owner and CEO of the Text Pound (http://www.textpound.com).

Photo by Nik Inhofe