In September 1999 the IPC fall meeting theme was "Get the Lead Out." In May of that year the message given by IPC's Board of Directors (paraphrased) was "we know there's no science behind Pb-free, but we'll go along with it anyway because the market is asking for it." The International Tin Research Institute presented an award to the IPC for its enthusiastic support of Pb-free electronics manufacturing.
Except for a few mavericks on the Leadfree Listserv, no one was so impolite as to point out the conflict of interest inherent in the fact that Pb-free solder contains more tin than conventional eutectic solder. Seminars on Pb-free electronics turned out to be an immense bonanza for IPC.
Evidence for a market demand for Pb-free electronics was fragmentary and conflicted. Panasonic had brought to market a mini-disc player. Its market share was less than five percent. When it then brought out a Pb-free version, its market share rose to fifteen percent. Based on this fact alone, propagandists trumpeted that Panasonic had tripled its market share by going lead-free. From the time manufacturers of consumer electronics first brought lead-free products to market to now, there has been scarcely any mention in product advertising about the absence of Pb. Had the driving force had actually been the market, this would be inexplicable. The SMART Group went to Japan to assess market demand there, and could find virtually no evidence.
Because of the collective decision in the late 1990's by the electronics manufacturing community to not oppose RoHS vigorously on the (lack of) merits while the legislation was still being developed, the notion promoted by its champions, Greenpeace and related environmental activist organizations, has prevailed: that RoHS is about protecting public health instead of about radical ideologues attacking private industry and capitalism. (Remember that no finding has ever been presented that Pb - or any other substance - in electronics has caused even a single case of poisoning.)
Large industry players had less of a stake in the outcome because the cost of compliance with RoHS, as with other government constraints, falls heaviest on small and medium-sized enterprises. (SME's are also not in as good a position to mount effective opposition.) There has never been much of a pushback against RoHS (or even much evidence that they are aware of it) from the CEO's of large manufacturers.
The activists, pleased by the lack of effective opposition, did not go home, appeased and satisfied that now they had accomplished their goal. The new, improved RoHS being proposed just makes life more difficult for manufacturers, and now it will be more difficult to oppose the changes on the merits. And not only the activists, but the unelected decision-making bureaucrats, have made it abundantly clear that they are totally unconcerned about the cost of compliance.
I would be interested in hearing from anyone grounds for expecting that opposition will prevail now. (As I was told repeatedly in 1999, "the train has left the station.") There will be no Tea Party movement in Europe, and I regret to say that I see no reason to expect that this ratcheting-up process (which I predicted in 1999) will stop - unless perhaps the EU goes bankrupt and is unable to pay the enforcement of its rules.
Gordon DavyPeoria, AZ
