What's better, a battery that can be recharged over and over and then recycled, or a battery that is made without harmful chemicals that you just throw into the trash?
According to Fuji, you should go with the second choice, specifically the
EnviroMAX batteries it will be showing at the 2009
CES.
Although it's notable that the company's batteries are made without cadmium or lithium, some of the battery's self-reported green credentials are questionable. The company touts that its batteries are "landfill safe," and they seem to be encouraging consumers to toss their batteries in the trash instead of recycling them.
The company's website for the batteries is also full of general green claims without offering much backing information. They say the batteries are "derived from the basic elements of the Earth" but don't say what they are. They say the batteries are made in "some of the world's most eco-friendly battery plants" but don't explain what about the plants' operations make them eco-friendly. The batteries are "labeled and packaged with recycled paper and P.E.T. plastic" but they don't say what percentage of its materials are recycled, and whether or not it's post-consumer content.
Some news outlets reporting on the CES have apparently been told the batteries are biodegradable, though there is no mention of biodegradability on the company's website, and no further explanation of how long they would take to break down, what they break down into and if they would break down in landfills.
Fuji even says "no other batteries are so respectful of our environment as Fuji EnviroMAX." What about rechargeable batteries that can last hundreds of times longer than non-rechargeables, thereby consuming fewer resources (and also saving consumers money)? What about using fewer batteries and recycling them as opposed to filling up landfill space with them? Sometimes the greener option is the one that doesn't say it's green.
I've asked Fuji to expand on some of their claims, and will update when they respond.
