Kind of an eye-roll moment there. I'm all for sustainability but they're just doing this to tick a box for tax purposes or whatever, while probably upcharging for the material. Modern monitors use very little plastic. The bulk of the weight is the frame and the panel itself, maybe the electronics if it's "smart" and the display is small. So at a measly 35% being recycled, that must be what... 20 grams of plastic at best? What's the point? *slow clap*

schmidtbag:

Kind of an eye-roll moment there. I'm all for sustainability but they're just doing this to tick a box for tax purposes or whatever, while probably upcharging for the material. Modern monitors use very little plastic. The bulk of the weight is the frame and the panel itself, maybe the electronics if it's "smart" and the display is small. So at a measly 35% being recycled, that must be what... 20 grams of plastic at best? What's the point? *slow clap*

A movement in the right direction doesnt have to be momentuos in order to be meaningful.

AuerX:

A movement in the right direction doesnt have to be momentuos in order to be meaningful.

Absolutely true, but I have to add, if actually these partially recycled screens are not "sustainable" as given in Hilbert's title either. Since at least 65% then is not recycled plastics... And I can't wait for the future, where they treat these recycled plastic using screens like normal ones, because that's where we actually are supposed to go in the long run. So that every screen is "sustainable" or at least using recycled resources. And plastic is actually one of the easiest to recycle and reuse...

AuerX:

A movement in the right direction doesnt have to be momentuos in order to be meaningful.

A movement is only in the right direction when it's actually taken seriously or isn't completely undermined by something else. Car companies that pledge to stop making combustion engines sooner than 2035 is a movement in the right direction, even if they hardly make any non-ICEs today. Companies that design alternatives to concrete (or use less energy-intensive processes for concrete) are a movement in the right direction, even if it makes up a small fraction of their sales. Companies that replace styrofoam packaging with something decomposable or realistically recyclable are heading in the right direction, even if the actual product is built with planned obsolescence in mind. But this? It's nothing more than just saying "hey look, we're green too!" when it's the most half-assed attempt. Is it better than nothing? Yes, but it's pretty close to nothing. It's no different than cruise ships that use paper straws when a single voyage probably uses more crude oil than it would take to make all the plastic straws for all cruise lines for the better part of a century. They could just simply stop using straws. It's no different than a politician lowering taxes for a specific group of people while throwing another whole demographic under the bus. More often than not, some level of corruption or personal gain is going on. It's no different than a charity that not only profits from other peoples' misfortunes, but makes it harder for their cause to fend for themselves. A good charity is non-profit and tries to get their cause to be self-sufficient. "but hey, it's something!" is the wrong attitude. Either commit or don't bother.

It is part of the eco-friendly "Vero" series

"Vero" is tax in Finnish. God knows there are enough high taxes in Finland as it is. Computer screens don't need another extra one.

schmidtbag:

A movement is only in the right direction when it's actually taken seriously or isn't completely undermined by something else. Car companies that pledge to stop making combustion engines sooner than 2035 is a movement in the right direction, even if they hardly make any non-ICEs today. Companies that design alternatives to concrete (or use less energy-intensive processes for concrete) are a movement in the right direction, even if it makes up a small fraction of their sales. Companies that replace styrofoam packaging with something decomposable or realistically recyclable are heading in the right direction, even if the actual product is built with planned obsolescence in mind. But this? It's nothing more than just saying "hey look, we're green too!" when it's the most half-assed attempt. Is it better than nothing? Yes, but it's pretty close to nothing. It's no different than cruise ships that use paper straws when a single voyage probably uses more crude oil than it would take to make all the plastic straws for all cruise lines for the better part of a century. They could just simply stop using straws. It's no different than a politician lowering taxes for a specific group of people while throwing another whole demographic under the bus. More often than not, some level of corruption or personal gain is going on. It's no different than a charity that not only profits from other peoples' misfortunes, but makes it harder for their cause to fend for themselves. A good charity is non-profit and tries to get their cause to be self-sufficient. "but hey, it's something!" is the wrong attitude. Either commit or don't bother.

I'm not going to participate in your nightmare, sorry.

AuerX:

I'm not going to participate in your nightmare, sorry.

It's not that scary... all I'm trying to say is Acer isn't achieving anything.