In response to the WEEE and RoHS Directives from the European Union, the electronics industry in the United States is developing lead-free products, even though studies have shown that lead-free alternatives often present their own degree of environmental risk. In parallel, this industry must be responsive to U.S. Federal and State-specific mandates, which include a wide range of policies with disparate goals. Although most of these focus on waste management (e.g., recycling) rather than on toxics, an important exception exists in the State of California where cathode ray tubes (CRTs) and consumer electronic devices (CEDs) are now both categorized as universal waste. Universal waste contains hazardous substances but because the products are distributed widely in the population, less monitoring is required than for products classified as "hazardous waste". Because lead is not the only basis for classifying a product as universal waste, lead-free electronics, as currently designed, will still be classified as universal waste. This disparity between the California universal waste law and the EU RoHS Directive exemplifies the need for a more comprehensive approach to the development and design of green electronics. Another example is the undesirable consequence of recycling mandates: exportation across international, or state, borders. Thus, we argue that the current approach to "green" electronics, with these disparities in policies, will not lead to sustainable electronics. A more comprehensive, long-term perspective must be taken. In order to do this, however, several gaps in existing knowledge must be addressed. For instance, the toxic effects of alternative materials throughout the life cycle, especially in the end-of-life stages, need to be better quantified; economically viable methods to collect, transport, and recycle obsolete electronics must be developed; and the reliability and manufacturability of new product designs must always be ensured.