EVERY YEAR, WE BUY zillions of music players, digital
cameras and cellphones— and then send them to the nearest
trash bin. “New every two” isn’t just a cellphone company’s offer to sell you a new, discounted phone every 24 months; it also describes the average person’s consumption habits for
cameras, phones and other gadgets. Unfortunately, no matter how
well intentioned the consumer, it’s hard to fulfill that pledge to recycle, at least when it comes to electronic gadgetry. The phrase “sustainable electronics manufacturing” is almost an oxymoron, like “humble actor.”
That’s because the electronics industry itself is built upon frequent renewal. The iPhone, iPod or iPad you buy today will be obsolete within a year. Every pocket camera model on sale today will no longer be sold six months from now. And Android phones? They seem to come out every Friday afternoon.
Does technology really advance that quickly? Or is it planned obsolescence? It doesn’t matter. In the end, we’re as much to blame as the industry. The manufacturers are simply catering to some fundamental human drives. It’s style; it’s status; it’s the confidence of knowing that we’re not missing out on anything. Owning outdated technology makes us feel outdated ourselves.
‘Sustainable electronics’doesn’t have to be an oxymoron.
Are there solutions? In hopes of harnessing much brighter brain power, I asked my 1.3 million followers on Twitter for suggestions.
The response was surprisingly lively and voluminous.
Unfortunately, most people weren’t hopeful. “It’s not the gadgets — it’s the people,” wrote @calcrash. “We have an entire A.D.D. generation that demands new toys and features.” A sizable number of people suggested that the industry should stop cranking out so many models so often. As @jatkin02 wrote, “Gadget does one thing, does it well, does it forever by design, with as few fail points as possible.” Several respondents pointed out that a Rolex watch is so finely crafted that it’s handed down through generations.
Unfortunately, electronics aren’t watches. They’re expected
to explode in functions each year, to leapfrog what has come before. Your son might be proud to receive your 30-year-old Rolex
— but a four-year-old cellphone would just embarrass him.
Another enthusiastic group proposed designing gadgets to
be more modular — popping a newer, faster chip into your old
cellphone, for instance.
This proposal, too, is unrealistic. What’s in it for the manufacturers? It’s much more profitable for them to sell you a whole new gadget. Besides, there’s more to a gadget than its processor. The current iPhone has not just a different chip than the previous model but also a different screen, battery, interior electronics and connectors. Everything is integrated.
A third, equally doomed suggestion: rely on software upgrades,
not new hardware, to add new features each year. Many
manufacturers already do that, but new software can take you only so far. You can’t add videorecording features to
a phone that doesn’t have a camera.
Fortunately, my Twitter focus group did come up with suggestions that would take us to a greener gadget world — without denying the public its “new every two” or depriving the manufacturers of their profits. For example: “Include prepaid recycling envelopes with new gadgets, like HP does with ink cartridges, to encourage recycling instead of trashing,” wrote @megazone. Most computer companies already offer free but little-known recycling programs for old gadgets, so this suggestion could work.
Standardize connectors and accessories. In Europe, for example,
every cellphone uses the same kind of power cord — micro USB —, so people no longer accumulate boxes of orphaned, incompatible adapters. In time, manufacturers could stop including these standard cables in every box, saving money and redundancy.
“Make recycling mandatory or charge a fee,” @eclisham suggested.
And @timqpeterson proposed a bribe to slow down the upgrade cycle — a “rebate option for keeping the same phone for more than a specific amount of time.”
Persuade the industry to use more recyclable materials, like
biodegradable plastics. Some companies, including Apple, have
developed amazingly minimalist packaging, which sends as little material as possible to the landfill.
Good suggestions. But what would make manufacturers adopt them? Since the current disposability model is supremely profitable, what incentive do they have to change?
Well, governments could get involved. After all, the European
Union manufacturers standardized their cellphone power cords
only after it was mandated. Companies adopting sustainable
materials like corn or soy oil for their plastics could earn tax
breaks. New laws could require recycling or encourage longer
gadget use.
For those not so keen on government mandates, there is consumer
pressure. Whether it’s hormone-free milk or organic cotton
clothing, if an issue arises, change happens.
Perhaps sustainability could become a marketing tool, not a
hidden cost.
By DAVID POGUE
