The Camera Industry & The Environment

You and I undoubtedly produce more pollution every year then any camera company. And that only considers those items we toss into our waste receptacles.


A few of us recycle a few things because we want to. But most don't even give it a second thought.


That big plastic dump in the middle of the ocean is caused by all of us and it doesn't look like anyone is in a big hurry to get rid of plastic.


We have become the culture of convenience and "blame the other guy."
 
Larry Cloetta said:
The camera industry is hardly even an industry at this point, barely even breathing. It and photographers have already suffered enough from regulations eliminating actual “exotic glass” formulations.
The world has legitimate environmental concerns, Fuji using titanium instead of magnesium for top plates cannot possibly be considered to be one of them. Wild eyed activists making a nuisance of themselves at camera manufacturer shareholder meetings, bringing “pressure” with ill considered ideas about how to make better cameras cannot possibly “make the world a better place”.

Resource depletion and pollution, and possibly CO2 generation, are real problems. They won’t be solved, or materially affected in any way by nibbling around the edges. Instead of wasting time hassling irrelevant industries, spend it hassling those concerns at the top of the bad actor list, which in this case means China. Like the protesters in Hong Kong, the Uighers, and the Falun Gong are doing. And how’s that working out? The rest of us, safe at home, fretting about Fuji top plates, are doing nothing but virtue signaling. It’s not helpful to the environment or anything else. Understanding that would be one of the first things necessary if we really wanted to “help”. That’s harder, yes, but going after low hanging and irrelevant fruit like the camera industry does nothing which will materially help “the world” in any measurable, material way.
Click to expand...


I quite agree with what you say about the camera industry being hardly relevant. So I'm sorry to single out your post. But I must disagree with the part underlined, that's a very comforting thing to tell ourselves, but as such very counterproductive. In fact "we" (the Western world) buy all those products that are made in China. And even with all this production for export, China isn't doing bad with emissions, per capita, at all compared to the West.

While I think that eventually politics need to get seriously involved, there is much we can do as individuals, and if you don't believe these changes are meaningful in their environmental impact, you should still understand that they would be an important signal to corporations and politics that the voters and consumers care. Things individuals can do don't revolve around photo equipment, but food, transportation and heating/AC are responsible for enormous parts of greenhouse gas emissions and most of us can do at least some initial changes with little cost to our comfort and account balance.
 
Li batteries are in everything from cars to cameras. It is mined mostly on south America. Procedure is strip mining, i.e. RUINS THE ENVIRONMENT.

It will be worse when we transition to green renewable. Sometimes the wind does not blow or sun does not shine. So now we need batteries.

I have spoken to a few scientists and they have nothing new for future except they are working on it.
 
retinax said:
I quite agree with what you say about the camera industry being hardly relevant. So I'm sorry to single out your post. But I must disagree with the part underlined, that's a very comforting thing to tell ourselves, but as such very counterproductive. In fact "we" (the Western world) buy all those products that are made in China. And even with all this production for export, China isn't doing bad with emissions, per capita, at all compared to the West.

While I think that eventually politics need to get seriously involved, there is much we can do as individuals, and if you don't believe these changes are meaningful in their environmental impact, you should still understand that they would be an important signal to corporations and politics that the voters and consumers care. Things individuals can do don't revolve around photo equipment, but food, transportation and heating/AC are responsible for enormous parts of greenhouse gas emissions and most of us can do at least some initial changes with little cost to our comfort and account balance.
Click to expand...

I’d basically agree with all of this, with one exception, this bit: “China isn't doing bad with emissions, per capita, at all compared to the West. That’s both undeniably true and completely misleading in this context. When the subject is pollution and gross industrial malfeasance, it’s total tonnage that matters to the environment, not per capita anything. “Per capita” is a dodge, and it’s why even legitimate statistics can be twisted to make a point that can’t honestly be made. China is still the world’s biggest polluter, by a huge margin, in every industry they touch, steady streams of Chinese propaganda notwithstanding. The information is out there if anyone is interested, but China is the worst enemy the world’s environment has ever had. Small example, China gets 70% of its electricity from coal fired plants, is the world’s largest burner of coal, and currently has 300 new coal fired plants in the works, each of which has a projected useful life of 50-60 years.
The industrialized West, on the other hand, is the cleanest and has been for some time, because The West is where the naval gazers live. Of course, as has been mentioned, the West’s contribution to the ugliness is not in what it produces, or how it produces it, but in what it buys, and how much it buys. Much of which is unnecessary. And what it buys comes from China. The West hardly produces anything any longer except sophomoric, world conquering ideas like Facebook.
Hectoring Fuji to stop using (plentiful) titanium won’t heal the world. Western nations boycotting Chinese goods until they cleaned up their act, which the Chinese have the (stolen) technology to to, might go some way to cleaning up the planet, and would be the most meaningful thing that “ the world” could do, but that’s been on the table for a long time and “the world” won’t do it.

All I was saying originally, and I know I seem like a troll, is that, in the whole overall scheme of things, how Fuji makes a few top plates is completely irrelevant, because as far as the environment is concerned it’s only the whole overall scheme of things that matters. And that’s not being addressed by “the world” because everybody is afraid of China, on the one hand, and everybody likes cheap doodads on the other. Living a hair shirt existence is more likely to make us feel better about our inherent righteousness than it is to save the whales. I know all the arguments, “what if everybody recycled their own urine to save water (not making that up), and so on, the world would be saved from imminent catastrophe”. True enough, but they won’t, and you’ll go to your grave as the guy who drank his own urine, rode a bicycle to work, and wore old clothes, while everyone else was at the pub with their mates having a laugh. Perhaps that’s the solution, cannot say it’s not, but I am unconvinced.
I use aluminum foil over and over until it falls apart, and saran wrap as well. I almost never buy an item of new clothing, (ask my wife), and I despise waste of any kind as a moral issue, but I don’t think any of that helps the Earth, personally, though am sympathetic to other viewpoints, having once held them myself.
Thanks for listening to my rant:)
 
Ko.Fe. said:
Leica is most environmentally friendly manufacturer I ever know. They support cameras made in fifties.
Click to expand...

Until you call them and they tell you they no longer support that model, but they will give you a discount on a new digital camera. It happened to me...twice.

I also use second hand cameras, not buying every new Fuji just because it is new Fuji.
Click to expand...

So, what do you think happens to those Fujis when a new one is bought? They go to the second hand market for people to buy. Let`s also remember that Fuji doesn`t sell as many cameras as Nikon, Canon, Sony, etc. so why single them out like they are doing something wrong?
 
Our biggest problem on this planet is our level of consumption and discussing a camera manufacturer and how they may be impacting the environment with their process is admirable but pointless. The company that produces that camera is a corporate giant that has it's business interests widely spread.

As for doing our bit ... my philosophy in life is to think globally but act locally because the moment you think your individual input is having little effect you have become part of the problem.
 
Larry Cloetta said:
I’d basically agree with all of this, with one exception, this bit: “China isn't doing bad with emissions, per capita, at all compared to the West. That’s both undeniably true and completely misleading in this context. When the subject is pollution and gross industrial malfeasance, it’s total tonnage that matters to the environment, not per capita anything. “Per capita” is a dodge, and it’s why even legitimate statistics can be twisted to make a point that can’t honestly be made. China is still the world’s biggest polluter, by a huge margin, in every industry they touch, steady streams of Chinese propaganda notwithstanding. The information is out there if anyone is interested, but China is the worst enemy the world’s environment has ever had. Small example, China gets 70% of its electricity from coal fired plants, is the world’s largest burner of coal, and currently has 300 new coal fired plants in the works, each of which has a projected useful life of 50-60 years.
The industrialized West, on the other hand, is the cleanest and has been for some time, because The West is where the naval gazers live. Of course, as has been mentioned, the West’s contribution to the ugliness is not in what it produces, or how it produces it, but in what it buys, and how much it buys. Much of which is unnecessary. And what it buys comes from China. The West hardly produces anything any longer except sophomoric, world conquering ideas like Facebook.
Hectoring Fuji to stop using (plentiful) titanium won’t heal the world. Western nations boycotting Chinese goods until they cleaned up their act, which the Chinese have the (stolen) technology to to, might go some way to cleaning up the planet, and would be the most meaningful thing that “ the world” could do, but that’s been on the table for a long time and “the world” won’t do it.

All I was saying originally, and I know I seem like a troll, is that, in the whole overall scheme of things, how Fuji makes a few top plates is completely irrelevant, because as far as the environment is concerned it’s only the whole overall scheme of things that matters. And that’s not being addressed by “the world” because everybody is afraid of China, on the one hand, and everybody likes cheap doodads on the other. Living a hair shirt existence is more likely to make us feel better about our inherent righteousness than it is to save the whales. I know all the arguments, “what if everybody recycled their own urine to save water (not making that up), and so on, the world would be saved from imminent catastrophe”. True enough, but they won’t, and you’ll go to your grave as the guy who drank his own urine, rode a bicycle to work, and wore old clothes, while everyone else was at the pub with their mates having a laugh. Perhaps that’s the solution, cannot say it’s not, but I am unconvinced.
I use aluminum foil over and over until it falls apart, and saran wrap as well. I almost never buy an item of new clothing, (ask my wife), and I despise waste of any kind as a moral issue, but I don’t think any of that helps the Earth, personally, though am sympathetic to other viewpoints, having once held them myself.
Thanks for listening to my rant:)
Click to expand...
I disagree because I have never heard an argument, let alone a convincing one, why nation states should be the bearer of a right to pollute or a duty to keep clean. Should China and Liechtenstein have the same rights to pollute? China and Belgium? China and the US? That's completely arbitrary. Bearer of such rights or duties can only be individual human beings IMHO. Of course nobody wants to assign such a right, but it's the underlying assumption if we point fingers, no?

That does not diminish the huge potential that China has to reduce pollution, and the huge challenge to do so.
Your argument that basically describes the tragedy of the commons is for me on a personal level solved by morals: Isn't it morally imperative to try not to contribute to something that one has realized is a problem? Of course on the collective level it can only be solved by institutions. Academic considerations? Maybe. Do I act accordingly? Not enough. But thinking about principles behind our opinions or intuitions does make for better arguments...
 
having seen the eastern DRC and CAR on a few occasions, i am happy this topic has come up. the fight over control of the mineral wealth there has been nothing short of an environmental and social catastrophe. millions have died in the past decade of fighting for regional control.

while this isn't entirely the camera industries fault, they have played a major role. oddly the two biggest manufacturers, Nikon and Canon, have been extremely reluctant to take account for their supply chain.
 
I wonder if the biggest thing We in the USA can do is to rethink what it means to be successful: What if we cared less about powerful automobiles and large houses filled with latest gadgetry and more about eating a really good nectarine picked at peak flavor?

And doesn't success also include good health? Much is determined by choices we make every day.

As for new cameras, I think a less-but-better approach works best for me. Though tempted by the latest iterations of Sony's A7 and RX100, I'm not displeased with my first-generation cameras, and they're still in fine condition too. By skipping a generation or three, I'm improving the odds that I'll be blown away when I do buy a newer camera :D For better or worse, very likely the changing marketplace has reduced the environmental impact caused by all camera makers not named Samsung, LG and Apple.
 
I recall very well showing up to college football and basketball games with a brick of film and a large quantity of AA batteries to feed my motor drives. The drives used 8 AA batteries each, and they were consumed rather quickly, particularly at football games outside in the cold. Now, I would show up with just a few lithium-ion batteries and no film. SD cards are reusable. The batteries are rechargeable. I have discarded relatively few Li-ion batteries in my lifetime. I have likely thrown out thousands of AA batteries. In that aspect, the environmental impact of my photographic activity is much less than it has been. Innovations by camera companies can be thanked for that.

Regarding lithium, it seems that there is some misconception about its sourcing and extraction. The most common source is salt brines. Lithium carbonate is most commonly extracted by solar evaporation from Li-rich brines. The chemistry often used to isolate it is reused, and a well-run plant has practically zero discharge. Could it be done better? Sure, but it doesn’t have nearly the same impact on the environment as the mining of lead, zinc, cadmium and nickel found in other types of traditional batteries. Some lithium is still produced as a by-product in the hard-rock mining of other minerals. This is an economically and environmentally sound thing to do, as the lithium is either going to go out the front door as a product or out the back door into the tailings.

Look around you. Everything that wasn’t grown had to be mined. The mining industry often gets unfairly treated. Yes, there is a history of environmental nightmares where it has gone unregulated, due to greed, accidents or simple ignorance. I have seen it firsthand in West Africa, Central America, the Arctic and the Continental US. But today, in developed nations, it is heavily regulated and constantly monitored for environmental compliance. In developing countries, particularly those run by overtly corrupt governments, there is still ample room to do better.

For example, the tantalum for the capacitors in your electronic devices is produced in several locations. It is likely cheaper to buy tantalum from unregulated mines worked by slaves and run by warlords than it is to get it from a legitimately regulated mining operation in Canada. Marching into the Congolese embassy demanding social and environmental justice won’t achieve anything, however. I would love to see an electronics company demonstrate a genuine commitment to buying only from environmentally responsible sources. Even if it were that simple, the net effect would be that the cost of their raw materials may increase, driving up the price of their product. Would that be offset by an increase in sales from environmentally conscious consumers? I don’t know. I’d like to think it would, but it’s a gamble. It worked to some degree with “conflict” diamonds. An inspiring example can be found with Taylor guitars, and their sustainable forestry initiative in Cameroon where they source ebony. My last guitar purchase was a Taylor. My next one will be also.

I work in the mining industry, operating an analytical laboratory for a mining company. Besides doing daily testing and monitoring of our products, I am also engaged in research to find better ways of doing what we do. When we find a better method, we implement it. In many cases, improving efficiency is both economically and environmentally beneficial. My colleagues in other companies share the same impetus to do better.

I am not a hand-wringing, pearl-clutching environmentalist. I do believe in a responsible stewardship of resources, and a realistic approach to conservationism. I don’t buy into the gloomy future vision so often pushed on us. I see continuing improvement and a hopeful future.
 
Schuter said:
I recall very well showing up to college football and basketball games with a brick of film and a large quantity of AA batteries to feed my motor drives. The drives used 8 AA batteries each, and they were consumed rather quickly, particularly at football games outside in the cold. Now, I would show up with just a few lithium-ion batteries and no film. SD cards are reusable. The batteries are rechargeable. I have discarded relatively few Li-ion batteries in my lifetime. I have likely thrown out thousands of AA batteries. In that aspect, the environmental impact of my photographic activity is much less than it has been. Innovations by camera companies can be thanked for that.

Regarding lithium, it seems that there is some misconception about its sourcing and extraction. The most common source is salt brines. Lithium carbonate is most commonly extracted by solar evaporation from Li-rich brines. The chemistry often used to isolate it is reused, and a well-run plant has practically zero discharge. Could it be done better? Sure, but it doesn’t have nearly the same impact on the environment as the mining of lead, zinc, cadmium and nickel found in other types of traditional batteries. Some lithium is still produced as a by-product in the hard-rock mining of other minerals. This is an economically and environmentally sound thing to do, as the lithium is either going to go out the front door as a product or out the back door into the tailings.

Look around you. Everything that wasn’t grown had to be mined. The mining industry often gets unfairly treated. Yes, there is a history of environmental nightmares where it has gone unregulated, due to greed, accidents or simple ignorance. I have seen it firsthand in West Africa, Central America, the Arctic and the Continental US. But today, in developed nations, it is heavily regulated and constantly monitored for environmental compliance. In developing countries, particularly those run by overtly corrupt governments, there is still ample room to do better.

For example, the tantalum for the capacitors in your electronic devices is produced in several locations. It is likely cheaper to buy tantalum from unregulated mines worked by slaves and run by warlords than it is to get it from a legitimately regulated mining operation in Canada. Marching into the Congolese embassy demanding social and environmental justice won’t achieve anything, however. I would love to see an electronics company demonstrate a genuine commitment to buying only from environmentally responsible sources. Even if it were that simple, the net effect would be that the cost of their raw materials may increase, driving up the price of their product. Would that be offset by an increase in sales from environmentally conscious consumers? I don’t know. I’d like to think it would, but it’s a gamble. It worked to some degree with “conflict” diamonds. An inspiring example can be found with Taylor guitars, and their sustainable forestry initiative in Cameroon where they source ebony. My last guitar purchase was a Taylor. My next one will be also.

I work in the mining industry, operating an analytical laboratory for a mining company. Besides doing daily testing and monitoring of our products, I am also engaged in research to find better ways of doing what we do. When we find a better method, we implement it. In many cases, improving efficiency is both economically and environmentally beneficial. My colleagues in other companies share the same impetus to do better.

I am not a hand-wringing, pearl-clutching environmentalist. I do believe in a responsible stewardship of resources, and a realistic approach to conservationism. I don’t buy into the gloomy future vision so often pushed on us. I see continuing improvement and a hopeful future.
Click to expand...


Thanks for taking the time and effort to post this.
 
China's pollution allows for the west to be greener. Huge swaths of many industries that formerly used to operate in the west have relocated to China. All that pollution moved with them. As did their power needs. China's pollution is in many ways the result of this.
 
And another thing...China is becoming far less tolerant of pollution than they used to be. That and the continual increase in wages there means that they are no longer the lowest cost place to do business in. A lot of industries, the dirtiest ones that basically only thrive when there is no pollution controls have moved to other countries like Vietnam, Cambodia, and The Philippines.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom