# data[].attributes.headline
AUSTRALIA POST LAUNCHES E-WASTE POST BACK SERVICE

# data[].attributes.subject
AUSTRALIA POST LAUNCHES E-WASTE POST BACK SERVICE

# data[].attributes.body
E-waste recycler TechCollect has partnered with Australia Post to launch a nationwide TechExpress service for the disposal of unwanted electrical goods and devices. For a flat rate of $14.95, you can post up to 22kg of e-waste including: laptop and desktop computers, mice, power supplies, cables, keyboards, computer batteries, modems, mobile phones USBs and storage devices.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Australia Post has partnered with TechCollect to make it even easier for Australians to dispose of e-waste responsibly. Under the new scheme, old mobile phones and computers can be bagged up and posted from anywhere in the country.

Australians are some of the world's highest consumers of technology and e-waste is one of the fastest growing waste streams in the country. E-waste is growing three times faster than general waste with around 554,000 tonnes of electronic and electrical waste generated in Australia every year.

What's more, research suggests Australians hoard our e-waste instead of recycling it. The good news is that it is now easier than ever before to clear out that drawer of vintage Nokia 3310s, defunct USBs and old keyboards.

E-waste recycler TechCollect has partnered with Australia Post to launch a nationwide TechExpress service for the disposal of unwanted electrical goods and devices. For a flat rate of $14.95, you can post up to 22kg of e-waste including: laptop and desktop computers, mice, power supplies, cables, keyboards, computer batteries, modems, mobile phones USBs and storage devices.

To protect your privacy, don't forget to delete your data before you send your e-waste away. For detailed instructions on how to wipe your data, visit the this TechCollect webpage.

TechCollect already has over 276 e-waste drop-off locations around the country. MobileMuster also offers a free mobile phone and accessory recycling service through Australia Post. Plus, printer cartridges can be recycled through our Cartridges 4 Planet Ark program. (Head to Recycling Near You to find out more about these services and locate local drop-off points.)

However, the new TechExpress service will make it easy for people living in regional and rural areas to recycle e-waste.

"With majority of our post office network regionally-based, our partnership with TechCollect builds on research that shows three-quarters of regional and rural residents see their post office as making a broader social contribution beyond providing products and services," Australia Post's chief sustainability office Susan Mizrahi explained.

"The opportunity to recycle this rapidly growing waste stream is another way we can connect with and support our rural and regional customers, particularly those who cannot access the current metropolitan collection points."

So how does it work? Simply package your e-waste in a post bag or box, visit the TechCollect website to complete and print a shipping label, and finally, attach it to your parcel. The package can then be dropped off in any Australia Post box or post office.
Positive Environment News has been compiled using publicly available information. Planet Ark does not take responsibility for the accuracy of the original information and encourages readers to check the references before using this information for their own purposes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Australia Post launches e-waste post back service - Planet Ark Environmental Foundation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Australia Post has partnered with TechCollect to make it even easier for Australians to dispose of e-waste responsibly. Under the new scheme, old mobile phones and computers can be bagged up and posted from anywhere in the country. Australians are some of the world's highest consumers of technology and e-waste is one of the fastest growing waste streams in the country.

# data[].attributes.headline
APPLE EXPANDS GLOBAL RECYCLING PROGRAMME

# data[].attributes.subject
APPLE EXPANDS GLOBAL RECYCLING PROGRAMME

# data[].attributes.body
Natural resources are used up in the manufacturing and supply of new equipment. Many of these resources are finite which means they can run out. This will affect future production unless we learn to reclaim and reuse and/or find alternative materials to use in our equipment.

# data[].attributes.body
DIFFERENT COMPONENTS • Cathode ray tubes • Printed circuit board • Chips and other gold plated components • Plastics from printers, keyboards, monitors, etc. • Computer wires
The environmental impact of the processing of different electronic waste component E-Waste Component Process Used Potential Environmental Hazard Cathode ray tubes (used in TVs, computer monitors, ATM, video cameras, and more Breaking and removal of yoke, then dumping Lead, barium and other heavy metals leaching into the ground water and release of toxic phosphor Printed circuit board (image behind table - a thin plate on which chips and other electronic components are placed) De-soldering and removal of computer chips; open burning and acid baths to remove final metals after chips are removed. Air emissions as well as discharge into rivers of glass dust, tin, lead, brominated dioxin, beryllium cadmium, and mercury Chips and other gold plated components Chemical stripping using nitric and hydrochloric acid and burning of chips Hydrocarbons, heavy metals, brominated substances discharged directly into rivers acidifying fish and flora. Tin and lead contamination of surface and groundwater. Air emissions of brominated dioxins, heavy metals and hydrocarbons Plastics from printers, keyboards, monitors, etc. Shredding and low temp melting to be reused Emissions of brominated dioxins, heavy metals and hydrocarbons Computer wires Open burning and stripping to remove copper Hydrocarbon ashes released into air, water and soil.

# data[].attributes.body
Common hazardous materials found in e-waste are: heavy metals (such as mercury, lead, cadmium etc.) and chemicals (such as CFCs/ chlorofluorocarbon or various flame retardants).
It is extremely important to treat e-waste adequately in order to prevent the health and environmental risks that the hazardous substances contained in e-waste can pose.

Batteries. Batteries contain heavy metals, including nickel cadmium, alkaline, mercury, nickel-metal hydride and lead acid, which can pollute the environment if not properly discarded. The universal-waste regulations define a battery as “a device consisting of one or more electrically connected electrochemical cells that are designed to receive, store, and deliver electrical energy.” Also included in the definition are unbroken batteries from which the electrolyte has been removed. Many batteries classified as hazardous waste are subject to the universal waste regulations.

Lamps. Lamps often exhibit the toxicity characteristic for mercury or lead, making them a characteristic hazardous waste when discarded. A universal waste lamp is defined as the bulb or tube portion of an electric-lighting device. Common types of universal waste electric lamps include but are not limited to fluorescent, high-intensity-discharge, neon, mercury vapor, high-pressure sodium, and metal halide.

Cathode ray tubes (CRT). The glass in these video-display components of televisions and computer monitors typically contains enough lead to require managing it as hazardous waste under certain circumstances.

# data[].attributes.body
Stocks of virgin-mined materials utilized in linear economic flows continue to present enormous challenges. E-waste is one of the fastest growing waste streams, and threatens to grow into a global problem of unmanageable proportions. An effective form of management of resource recycling and environmental improvement is available, in the form of extraction and purification of precious metals taken from waste streams, in a process known as urban mining.
A large variety of valuable materials and plastics are contained in electric and electronic appliances. Up to 60 elements from the periodic table can be found in complex electronics, and many of them are technically recoverable, though there are economic limits set by the market. E-waste contains precious metals including gold, silver, copper, platinum, and palladium, but it also contains valuable bulky materials such as iron and aluminium, along with plastics that can be recycled. Overall, UNU estimates that the resource perspective for secondary raw materials of e-waste is worth 55 Billion € of raw materials.

# data[].attributes.headline
INCREASED DEMAND FOR TECHNOLOGY IS AFFECTING RAW MATERIAL SUPPLIES

# data[].attributes.subject
INCREASED DEMAND FOR TECHNOLOGY IS AFFECTING RAW MATERIAL SUPPLIES

# data[].attributes.body
As more people buy electronic equipment, manufacturers are beginning to face shortages of the raw materials needed to make their products, so reclaiming and reusing the materials from discarded products and waste—a process called urban mining—makes economic and environmental sense. A recent study in China found that mining copper, gold and aluminum from ore costs 13 times more than recovering the metals through the urban mining of e-waste.

# data[].attributes.body
Because prices are dropping, electronic devices are in demand around the world as a growing middle class goes digital. Globally, half of all households now have internet access, and 7.7 billion people have cell phones.

# data[].attributes.body
The life span of devices is getting shorter—many products will be thrown away once their batteries die, to be replaced with new devices.

# data[].attributes.headline
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATED INTO MANY ASPECTS OF OUR LIVES

# data[].attributes.subject
TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATED INTO MANY ASPECTS OF OUR LIVES

# data[].attributes.body
Technology is becoming more and more integrated into every aspect of our lives. Semiconductors and sensors are being added to products that never before had them, creating wearable monitors, smart homes, TVs that can stream programming from the internet, and much more.

# data[].attributes.body
Towards Sustainability Achieving Cleaner Production in Australia - This is a really good article that outlines several tools for cleaner production e.g. life cycle assessment, environmental labelling, adopting international environmental standards, being proactive in designing for the environment etc.

# data[].attributes.headline
IMPOSE BANS ON EXPORT OF WASTE - OUR WASTE - OUR RESPONSIBILITY

# data[].attributes.subject
IMPOSE BANS ON EXPORT OF WASTE - OUR WASTE - OUR RESPONSIBILITY

# data[].attributes.body
A new strategy to implement Australia’s waste export ban. The Council of Australian Governments (COAG) has released a Waste Response Strategy to implement its decision last year to ban the export of waste plastic, paper, glass and tyres, and build Australia’s capacity to generate high‑value recycled commodities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
14 April 2020
The Council of Australian Governments (COAG) has released a Waste Response Strategy to implement its decision last year to ban the export of waste plastic, paper, glass and tyres, and build Australia's capacity to generate high‑value recycled commodities.
The COAG's strategy is a significant step towards Australia's transition to a 'circular economy'. The waste export ban and strategy signal a once in a generation transformation of the recycling industry, which is expected to generate $1.5 billion in economic activity over the next 20 years. The waste export ban will commence on 1 July 2020 with a phased approach over a four-year timetable.

Background

Australians create around 67 million tonnes of waste each year, of which 4.4 million tonnes was exported in 2018-19. Around 32 per cent of the total waste export was waste plastic, paper, glass and tyres, with a total declared value of approximately $290 million.

The COAG's commitment to the waste export ban has been by driven community-level concerns about the impact of waste on our environment and a nation-wide interest in improving resource recovery. Action to address domestic waste processing capacity has also been accelerated by China's announcement of restrictions on importing recyclable materials under its National Sword Policy in 2018.

The COAG has agreed to establish a timetable to ban the export of waste plastic, paper, glass and tyres in August 2019. A phased approach to implementing the ban aims to create certainty for industry and is predicted to assist reduce further shocks to the waste and recycling sector.

The Commonwealth, State and Territory governments and the Australian Local Government Association agreed this response strategy at the COAG meeting on 13 March 2020. The Strategy is informed by consultation with peak bodies and over 100 individual businesses impacted by the ban (submissions can be found here) and a Decision Regulatory Impact Statement (found here). The Centre for International Economics also conducted a cost‑benefit analysis of the alternative options to implement the waste export ban, which informed the definitions of materials captured by the ban and supported the need for regulatory action.

The announcement of the ban was followed by the commissioning of an Inquiry into Australia's Waste Management and Recycling Industriesby the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources in October 2019, and the release of the National Waste Policy Action Plan in November 2019.

The following sections outline the materials affected by the ban, and the system-level opportunities for government and industry to drive greater domestic waste and recycling capacity.

Material definitions and timing

The definitions and timeframes for materials in scope of the export ban are summarised in the figure below.
Source: COAG Waste Response Strategy
Materials that fall outside the scope of the export ban include:

Plastics that are:

sorted into a single resin/polymer type and processed for further use (eg. flakes and pellets); or

processed with other materials into a product ready for final consumption (eg. manufactured to a specific size and specification and in a form ready for direct use as a fuel in a cement kiln).

Paper and cardboard that is either:

sorted to a single type, with low contamination levels;

processed into pulp; or

processed with other materials into a product ready for final consumption (eg. manufactured to a specific size and specification and in a form ready for direct use as a fuel in a cement kiln).

Glass which has been processed into fines or cullet with low contamination levels.

Crumb rubber, buffings, granules, and tyre shred (<80mm)

System-level challenges and opportunities

The COAG's strategy acknowledges that driving greater domestic waste and recycling capacity will require action by all levels of government and industry. In consultation, industry participants emphasised the need for system-level changes to build the long-term strength and capacity of Australia's waste management sector. The COAG's strategy identifies several opportunities for implementing interventions:

1. Investing in new technologies and infrastructure -via co-investment in commercially viable waste and recycling facilities, monitoring competition in the waste, recycling and manufacturing sectors, and factoring in the development of high priority recycling and re-manufacturing facilities in land use planning;

2. Driving product stewardship.

What's next?

The Commonwealth's commitments to support the delivery of the waste export ban are expected in the first half of 2020. It is expected that these commitments will include investing in industry innovation and improving waste data capture and tracking of materials.

Thus far, the Commonwealth has expressed an intention to amend the Commonwealth Procurement Rules to ensure Commonwealth agencies consider environmental sustainability and use recycled content as a factor when determining value for money. Additionally, Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced that the Commonwealth will co-invest in critical recycling infrastructure with state and territory governments and industry on a 1:1:1 basis.

Authors

Tags

The content of this publication is for reference purposes only. It is current at the date of publication. This content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Legal advice about your specific circumstances should always be obtained before taking any action based on this publication.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
War on waste: a new strategy to implement Australia's waste export ban

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
14 April 2020 The Council of Australian Governments (COAG) has released a Waste Response Strategy to implement its decision last year to ban the export of waste plastic, paper, glass and tyres, and build Australia's capacity to generate high‑value recycled commodities. The COAG's strategy is a significant step towards Australia's transition to a 'circular economy'.

# data[].attributes.body
New regulatory measures? Acknowledging the risks and opportunities associated with e-waste, the Victorian Government is banning e-waste from Victoria’s landfill from 1 July 2019.  New regulatory measures, in the form of waste management policies, have been developed to ban e-waste from landfill and specify how e-waste must be managed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The amount of e-waste (electronic waste) we create is growing up to three times faster than general municipal waste in Australia. It covers a range of items we all use in our daily working and home lives, including televisions, computers, mobile phones, kitchen appliances and white goods.

These items contain both hazardous and valuable materials that can be recovered when they reach the end of their working life.

Acknowledging the risks and opportunities associated with e-waste, the Victorian Government is banning e-waste from Victoria's landfill from 1 July 2019. New regulatory measures, in the form of waste management policies, have been developed to ban e-waste from landfill and specify how e-waste must be managed. They are available on Environment Protection Authority Victoria's website.

Read the policy impact assessment (PDF, 6.5 MB) for these waste management policies and related feedback below.
Managing e-waste in Victoria: Response to Comments (PDF, 119.3 KB) Managing e-waste in Victoria: Response to Comments (DOCX, 165.5 KB)
Supporting the ban

To support the rollout of the ban of e-waste from landfills, the Victorian Government is investing $16.5 million to upgrade e-waste collection and storage facilities across the state and to deliver an education campaign to support the ban.

Find out more about Sustainability Victoria's program to upgrade council collection points here.

For more information about the e-waste education campaign, visit Sustainability Victoria's e-waste website.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The amount of e-waste (electronic waste) we create is growing up to three times faster than general municipal waste in Australia. It covers a range of items we all use in our daily working and home lives, including televisions, computers, mobile phones, kitchen appliances and white goods.

# data[].attributes.headline
SUPPORT COMPANIES AIMING FOR A CIRCULAR ECONOMY

# data[].attributes.subject
SUPPORT COMPANIES AIMING FOR A CIRCULAR ECONOMY

# data[].attributes.body
A circular economy is one that has a positive net effect on the environment. For businesses, the goal is to retain as much value as possible from resources and materials used - the opposite of a linear economy of take, make and dispose. It restores any damage done and ensures that as little waste as possible is generated through the production process and the life history of the product.

The idea is simple enough: use only the materials needed, manufacture without creating additional waste, and produce products that can be used again later.

So far, Australia has focused on innovation in recycling, such as banning electronic waste - or e-waste - from landfill. But achieving zero waste isn’t possible through recycling existing plastic alone. It requires thinking about a product’s whole life cycle before it is created, with its use and its end use in mind.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Humans consume enormous amounts of natural resources. In 2017, worldwide material consumption reached 92.1 billion tons - about 250% more than the amount we consumed in 1970. We know that 91% of plastic produced isn't recycled, and that it takes an average of 400 years to degrade. This is no longer a matter of wanting to produce less waste. Our planet simply can't sustain it.

In the past 60 years, humans have produced more than 8.3 billion tons of plastic, and almost all of it has ended up in landfill. Increasing human population and consumer demand is leading to a scarcity of natural resources and is forcing companies to rethink not only the way we dispose of waste, but how we create it to begin with. To meet the UN Sustainable Development Goal of responsible consumption and production (SDG 12), we have to "do more and better with less".

Enter: the circular economy.

A circular economy is one that has a positive net effect on the environment. For businesses, the goal is to retain as much value as possible from resources and materials used - the opposite of a linear economy of take, make and dispose. It restores any damage done and ensures that as little waste as possible is generated through the production process and the life history of the product.

The idea is simple enough: use only the materials needed, manufacture without creating additional waste, and produce products that can be used again later.

So far, Australia has focused on innovation in recycling, such as banning electronic waste - or e-waste - from landfill. But achieving zero waste isn't possible through recycling existing plastic alone. It requires thinking about a product's whole lifecycle before it is created, with its use and its end use in mind.

A true circular economy looks at the way materials are sourced, the environmental and ethical viability of manufacturing, and the multiple lives a product can have. Your plastic water bottle? It could be reincarnated as a work uniform. Your used coffee beans could become furniture. Australians dump about 6,000kg of clothing into landfill every 10 minutes; what if it could become something new?

It's a complex process. To create a product that can be used and reused, companies must start at the beginning, and work together.

Australia Post has been able to make a difference through partnerships, says its chief sustainability officer, Susan Mizrahi. "It's about looking at your assets and capabilities as a business, looking at your environmental impacts, and partnering creatively to come up with new solutions," Mizrahi says.

One such solution is a partnership with Nespresso. High demand for coffee pods was complicated by a lack of effective recycling. Australia Post worked with Nespresso to design a special satchel, so customers could easily return their used pods.

"It's specially designed so that it won't contaminate other products in the mail," Mizrahi says. "The satchel can mix with other mail and parcels, and it gets sent back to Nespresso. They are now able to collect the aluminium pods in bulk to be able to effectively recycle them."

Mizrahi says Australian businesses are coming up with new solutions that will help facilitate a circular economy; there's no one silver bullet. "But Australia Post has been operating across that spectrum, from innovative recycling initiatives through to collaborating in partnerships."

Australia Post also established the Revamp Network, cross-sector collaboration focused on accelerating circular economy business opportunities and outcomes. Its primary purpose is to evolve opportunities - in particular projects or research - that deliver both commercial value to Revamp stakeholders and environmental benefit by reducing waste to landfill.

That collaboration aligns perfectly with the SDG 17 to build partnerships between governments, private organisations and society. A circular economy contributes in all kinds of meaningful ways. It supports SDG 8 to promote decent work and economic growth: in 2014-15, activities in the waste and resource recovery sector contributed about $15.5 billion to the economy. Investing in infrastructure helps with sustainable development and productivity. It creates better living conditions, reduces waste in our oceans to support life below water, and is a significant positive push for climate action.

Individuals can be part of a circular economy, too. Take these big-picture ideas and bring them into your home or workplace:

· Plan ahead and buy only what you need. It's estimated that in Melbourne alone, 900,000 tonnes of edible food waste is generated every year, which is enough to feed 2 million people for a year.

· Make informed choices. We have access to so much information - find out where your products come from, how they're made, and who benefits from their manufacture.

· Reuse what you've already got. Instead of binning it, look for ways to extend its life cycle.

· Avoid single-use items. Cheap T-shirts sound good in theory, but in 2017 almost a quarter of us threw out clothes we had only worn once. And 90% of our 1 billion disposable coffee cups end up in landfill.

· Support companies aiming for a circular economy. By patronising businesses that strive for zero waste, we send a clear message: this is viable and critical, and together we can make it a reality.
Australia Post has set their sights on 2030 with a new corporate responsibility plan that charts commitments and aspirations to help achieve the Sustainable Development Goals

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
australia post: building a sustainable future

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Circular economies are making zero waste a reality

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Humans consume enormous amounts of natural resources. In 2017, worldwide material consumption reached 92.1 billion tons - about 250% more than the amount we consumed in 1970. We know that 91% of plastic produced isn't recycled, and that it takes an average of 400 years to degrade.

# data[].attributes.body
While a lot of e-waste ends up in landfill, a lot more gets stashed in cupboards, garages, spare rooms and shelves around Australia – meaning we have to keep mining our soil rather than recycling all the precious materials accessible above-the-ground in old technology. So, for every new piece of technology you welcome into your home, commit to recycling two unwanted pieces; we call it the “1-2 rule”, or “one-in, two out”.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What to do with your old computers and TVs.

We love our new technology - in fact Australian's are among the world's highest consumers, but what happens to the old when we swap it for new? TechCollect wants to ask you to think carefully about what you do next with the old computers, printers and TVs you replace or upgrade. E-waste is growing three times faster than any other type of waste in Australia and we don't want it to end up in landfill.

Here are Our Top 10 tips for recycling your e-waste*

1. One in-two out. While a lot of e-waste ends up in landfill, a lot more gets stashed in cupboards, garages, spare rooms and shelves around Australia - meaning we have to keep mining our soil rather than recycling all the precious materials accessible above-the-ground in old technology. So, for every new piece of technology you welcome into your home, commit to recycling two unwanted pieces; we call it the "1-2 rule", or "one-in, two out".

2. Stay data safe. Always wipe important or personal files from your computer before taking it to any e-waste recycling service

3. Packaging pollutes. Australians sent about 1.6 million tonnes of packaging to landfill in 2012, or 36 per cent of the approximately 4.4 million tonnes we generated**. So, don't forget to thoughtfully dispose of the cardboard box and any plastic packaging that came with your new purchase, or that you've kept from your old one.

4. Mark your calendar. Circle a month, even twice a year, in your family calendar that you'll round up and dispose of all your household e-waste every year. Check techcollect.com.au for your nearest collection site, and make it a tradition.

5. Contact your local council to see if they will accept your e-waste.

6. Reincarnated relics. Over 90% of the raw materials like metals (including precious metals), glass and plastic found in a computer can be recycled or re-used if handled by a top-notch recycling service like TechCollect (free of charge to you). So, your old faithful laptop could be reincarnated as jewellery, outdoor furniture, or in plastic fence posts in its next life if you take it to a TechCollect collection site (visit techcollect.com.au).

7. Take it to your work. Take your inspiration to recycle and reuse to work, that is, not your e-waste! If you're part of a small business, like just over 50% of workers in Australia*** then consider how you can influence e-waste recycling in your workplace - maybe pool resources and do one trip to your nearest TechCollect collection site with everyone's home and office e-waste together (it's free). TechCollect has special arrangements for medium to large businesses too, call 1300 229 837 for more information.

9. Tied up in knots. Those random power cables from your old TV, computer, printer or accessory can also be recycled by TechCollect, even if they're all knotted up in a drawer and you don't know which cable belongs to which device - bring it with you to your nearest TechCollect site, and thanks to recycling something beautiful could be made out of it!

10. Pay it forward. If your computer or TV is still in good working condition, give it to a family member or friend.
Encourage your friends and family to get involved and take responsibility for their e-waste. Lead by example and help out those that may need it, collect your grandparents' or parents' e-waste and make sure it is recycled responsibly.

* Sources: TechCollect, E-waste 2010, Sustainability Matters, Planet Green Recycling, Recycle at Work, Mobile Muster, Zero Waste WA, SITA.com.au.
** Australian Packaging Covenant Council 2013 Annual Report on 2012.
***3 ABS Cat. No. 8155.0.

Why recycle electronic waste?

E-waste is produced at up to three times that of normal household waste production. It can contain toxic materials such as lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium and brominated fire retardants that are hazardous, difficult to dispose of and potentially damaging to the environment.

For more information or to find your nearest TechCollect e-waste collection site, visit www.techcollect.com.au or call 1300 229 837.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We love our new technology - in fact Australian's are among the world's highest consumers, but what happens to the old when we swap it for new? TechCollect wants to ask you to think carefully about what you do next with the old computers, printers and TVs you replace or upgrade.

# data[].attributes.body
TerraCycle has created a zero waste solution for all of your electronic waste. Use this box to recycle any household electronic waste including cell phones and digital cameras.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Electronic waste including home phones, computer cables and accessories, keyboards, VCR/DVD players, hand-held computers, pagers, radios, cameras, video recorders, TVs, Desktop computers and monitors, printers and scanners, copiers, typewriters, fax machines, stereos, tuners and turntables, receivers and speakers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Electronic waste including home phones, computer cables and accessories, keyboards, VCR/DVD players, hand-held computers, pagers, radios, cameras, video recorders, TVs, Desktop computers and monitors, printers and scanners, copiers, typewriters, fax machines, stereos, tuners and turntables, receivers and speakers.

# data[].attributes.body
Frame older product versions as less stylish – appliance manufacturers have no shortage of ideas to keep opening customers’ wallets. Consumers need to educate themselves.

# data[].attributes.body
A voluntary standard is a standard established generally by a private-sector body and that is available for use by any person or organization, private or government.
Freely adopted industry standards allow us to use an electrical appliance from decades ago in a modern home. Industry standards in electronics would allow us to use last year’s charger in this year’s laptop. Is that really too much to ask of the electronics companies?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Just like good and bad cholesterol, there is good and bad planned obsolescence - the business practice of consciously limiting a product's lifespan. This may come as a surprise to many people, since planned obsolescence usually has a negative connotation. As with cholesterol, it's important that we understand what planned obsolescence is, how it can be good and bad, and what we can do to fight the bad kind.

The good types of planned obsolescence are "value engineering" and "functional obsolescence." Value engineering is a design process that seeks to use as little material as possible in a product while still delivering an acceptable lifespan. It also suggests that all the parts in a product should fail at about the same time, so that none are "overbuilt" relative to the rest. Functional obsolescence is when a genuinely superior product is introduced, making the old one comparatively less desirable.

The bad kind of planned obsolescence consists of the introduction of superfluous changes in a product that don't improve utility or performance. This might best be described as "pseudo-functional obsolescence."

Value engineering

Cell phones don't last for 20 years. If they wanted to, cell phone manufacturers could make phones much more durable than they currently are. Is this bad planned obsolescence? No. This is value engineering.

The useful life of a cell phone is limited to only a few years due to the rapid rate of technological improvement in the field. This means that it's wasteful to build a cell phone with a physical lifespan much longer than its useful life. It makes sense that cell phones are built out of inexpensive plastic parts; this ensures a more affordable product. If a cell phone were not value engineered - if it were made out of titanium, for example - it would last longer than anyone would want it to, would cost more, and would use up more resources.

Designing certain products to be less durable than they could be actually conserves resources and delivers a more affordable product to the consumer.

Functional obsolescence

Functional obsolescence occurs when an innovation is introduced into the marketplace, making an older product obsolete. A classic example is the automobile replacing the horse and buggy, or the transition from simple cell phones to more functional smartphones. Functional obsolescence creates waste, but the trade-off is that consumers get a superior product. In many cases functional obsolescence takes place because the new product requires less time and work, meaning an increase in the resource of human time.

"Pseudo-functional obsolescence"

Psuedo-functional obsolescence is planned obsolescence which appears to introduce innovative changes into a product, but in reality does not. In fact, pseudo-functional obsolescence often forcibly outmodes an otherwise-useful product.

One of the best examples of this is the existence of hundreds of different sizes and shapes of AC adapters, battery chargers, and batteries for electronic equipment. Many people assume that these differences exist for engineering reasons. Actually, most of the changes have no discernible purpose except to make the old models incompatible with the new ones.

If you're not convinced, here's another example. In my home, we own three laptops. The oldest one is from the 1990s and the newest is from 2011. The power adapters for all three of them provide identical voltage and wattage. However, each one has a different plug, meaning that none is interchangeable. If the 1990s laptop dies, its old adapter becomes worthless. Conversely, if the adapter should die, one of the others can't be used - a new adapter needs to be purchased. This is the case even though the three adapters have the exact same electrical specifications. And the same is true of the laptops' rechargeable batteries.

There is no innovation here, and no engineering reason why each plug should be different. What's left is pseudo-functional obsolescence that costs consumers money and wastes resources.

Without resorting to another government bureaucracy, what can we do to combat pseudo-functional obsolescence?

Consumer education

Consumer education is a relatively easy way to resist pseudo-functional obsolescence. The first goal of consumer education is simply to make consumers aware that pseudo-functional obsolescence actually exists. Many of us know very little about how our products really work, and so it can be hard for the average consumer to tell the difference between true innovation and pseudo-functional obsolescence.

Providing this information is not always easy. Sometimes, identifying pseudo-functional obsolescence requires very specific knowledge of a product. But sometimes it's easier, as in the case of the laptop chargers mentioned above. The electrical specs are what really determine compatibility. If the specs are the same but the plugs are different, it's fairly easy to identify this as pseudo-functional obsolescence.

Once consumers are aware of pseudo-functional obsolescence, they can buy better products from better companies. But in addition to making smarter choices in the marketplace, consumers can also address their complaints directly to companies. If all of our complaints actually reached the businesses responsible, this would undoubtedly have a positive impact on their business practices.

Promote voluntary industry standards

Voluntary industry standards are often so widely accepted that we hardly think of them as specifically chosen standards - instead it seems like it's simply the way things are. For example, the 110 volt household current system in the United States is a standard first promoted by Thomas Edison. Later on, the size and shape of the home electric plug was standardized by the National Electrical Manufacturers Association and the American National Standards Institute. If we step back and think about it, it really is incredible that a 70-year-old electric appliance still operates in a modern home's electric system.

Yet it is not hard to imagine things turning out differently. In the beginning there were competing electrical systems, and without standardization things might have remained this way. Different homes could have been built with different systems, meaning that if you moved to a new home, you would have to replace every electric item you owned. There could have been several different sizes and shapes of electric plugs too. Old plug sizes might have eventually been retired and replaced with "improved" models, so if you needed to replace a socket in your home it wouldn't match all the rest.

This sounds rather ridiculous, but only because the industry standards in home electricity have served us so well. Industry standards in the electronics industry for items like chargers and batteries could go a long way towards saving resources and improving product usability for consumers.

Freely adopted industry standards allow us to use an electrical appliance from decades ago in a modern home. Industry standards in electronics would allow us to use last year's charger in this year's laptop. Is that really too much to ask of the electronics companies?

The free market is powerful and beneficial, but an efficient market requires knowledge. Once consumers become informed about planned obsolescence - the good and the bad - they can better use the market to buy more efficient products. This will benefit consumers, responsible businesses, and the environment.
Addison Del Mastro is a participant in the 2012 PERC/Liberty Fund Undergraduate Colloquium on Free Market Environmentalism.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Planned Obsolescence: The Good and the Bad

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
by Addison Del MastroJust like good and bad cholesterol, there is good and bad planned obsolescence - the business practice of consciously limiting a product's lifespan. This may come as a surprise to many people, since planned obsolescence usually has a negative connotation.

# data[].attributes.body
Consumers can also address their complaints directly to companies. If all of our complaints actually reached the businesses responsible, this would undoubtedly have a positive impact on their business practices.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Just like good and bad cholesterol, there is good and bad planned obsolescence - the business practice of consciously limiting a product's lifespan. This may come as a surprise to many people, since planned obsolescence usually has a negative connotation. As with cholesterol, it's important that we understand what planned obsolescence is, how it can be good and bad, and what we can do to fight the bad kind.

The good types of planned obsolescence are "value engineering" and "functional obsolescence." Value engineering is a design process that seeks to use as little material as possible in a product while still delivering an acceptable lifespan. It also suggests that all the parts in a product should fail at about the same time, so that none are "overbuilt" relative to the rest. Functional obsolescence is when a genuinely superior product is introduced, making the old one comparatively less desirable.

The bad kind of planned obsolescence consists of the introduction of superfluous changes in a product that don't improve utility or performance. This might best be described as "pseudo-functional obsolescence."

Value engineering

Cell phones don't last for 20 years. If they wanted to, cell phone manufacturers could make phones much more durable than they currently are. Is this bad planned obsolescence? No. This is value engineering.

The useful life of a cell phone is limited to only a few years due to the rapid rate of technological improvement in the field. This means that it's wasteful to build a cell phone with a physical lifespan much longer than its useful life. It makes sense that cell phones are built out of inexpensive plastic parts; this ensures a more affordable product. If a cell phone were not value engineered - if it were made out of titanium, for example - it would last longer than anyone would want it to, would cost more, and would use up more resources.

Designing certain products to be less durable than they could be actually conserves resources and delivers a more affordable product to the consumer.

Functional obsolescence

Functional obsolescence occurs when an innovation is introduced into the marketplace, making an older product obsolete. A classic example is the automobile replacing the horse and buggy, or the transition from simple cell phones to more functional smartphones. Functional obsolescence creates waste, but the trade-off is that consumers get a superior product. In many cases functional obsolescence takes place because the new product requires less time and work, meaning an increase in the resource of human time.

"Pseudo-functional obsolescence"

Psuedo-functional obsolescence is planned obsolescence which appears to introduce innovative changes into a product, but in reality does not. In fact, pseudo-functional obsolescence often forcibly outmodes an otherwise-useful product.

One of the best examples of this is the existence of hundreds of different sizes and shapes of AC adapters, battery chargers, and batteries for electronic equipment. Many people assume that these differences exist for engineering reasons. Actually, most of the changes have no discernible purpose except to make the old models incompatible with the new ones.

If you're not convinced, here's another example. In my home, we own three laptops. The oldest one is from the 1990s and the newest is from 2011. The power adapters for all three of them provide identical voltage and wattage. However, each one has a different plug, meaning that none is interchangeable. If the 1990s laptop dies, its old adapter becomes worthless. Conversely, if the adapter should die, one of the others can't be used - a new adapter needs to be purchased. This is the case even though the three adapters have the exact same electrical specifications. And the same is true of the laptops' rechargeable batteries.

There is no innovation here, and no engineering reason why each plug should be different. What's left is pseudo-functional obsolescence that costs consumers money and wastes resources.

Without resorting to another government bureaucracy, what can we do to combat pseudo-functional obsolescence?

Consumer education

Consumer education is a relatively easy way to resist pseudo-functional obsolescence. The first goal of consumer education is simply to make consumers aware that pseudo-functional obsolescence actually exists. Many of us know very little about how our products really work, and so it can be hard for the average consumer to tell the difference between true innovation and pseudo-functional obsolescence.

Providing this information is not always easy. Sometimes, identifying pseudo-functional obsolescence requires very specific knowledge of a product. But sometimes it's easier, as in the case of the laptop chargers mentioned above. The electrical specs are what really determine compatibility. If the specs are the same but the plugs are different, it's fairly easy to identify this as pseudo-functional obsolescence.

Once consumers are aware of pseudo-functional obsolescence, they can buy better products from better companies. But in addition to making smarter choices in the marketplace, consumers can also address their complaints directly to companies. If all of our complaints actually reached the businesses responsible, this would undoubtedly have a positive impact on their business practices.

Promote voluntary industry standards

Voluntary industry standards are often so widely accepted that we hardly think of them as specifically chosen standards - instead it seems like it's simply the way things are. For example, the 110 volt household current system in the United States is a standard first promoted by Thomas Edison. Later on, the size and shape of the home electric plug was standardized by the National Electrical Manufacturers Association and the American National Standards Institute. If we step back and think about it, it really is incredible that a 70-year-old electric appliance still operates in a modern home's electric system.

Yet it is not hard to imagine things turning out differently. In the beginning there were competing electrical systems, and without standardization things might have remained this way. Different homes could have been built with different systems, meaning that if you moved to a new home, you would have to replace every electric item you owned. There could have been several different sizes and shapes of electric plugs too. Old plug sizes might have eventually been retired and replaced with "improved" models, so if you needed to replace a socket in your home it wouldn't match all the rest.

This sounds rather ridiculous, but only because the industry standards in home electricity have served us so well. Industry standards in the electronics industry for items like chargers and batteries could go a long way towards saving resources and improving product usability for consumers.

Freely adopted industry standards allow us to use an electrical appliance from decades ago in a modern home. Industry standards in electronics would allow us to use last year's charger in this year's laptop. Is that really too much to ask of the electronics companies?

The free market is powerful and beneficial, but an efficient market requires knowledge. Once consumers become informed about planned obsolescence - the good and the bad - they can better use the market to buy more efficient products. This will benefit consumers, responsible businesses, and the environment.
Addison Del Mastro is a participant in the 2012 PERC/Liberty Fund Undergraduate Colloquium on Free Market Environmentalism.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Planned Obsolescence: The Good and the Bad

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
by Addison Del MastroJust like good and bad cholesterol, there is good and bad planned obsolescence - the business practice of consciously limiting a product's lifespan. This may come as a surprise to many people, since planned obsolescence usually has a negative connotation.

# data[].attributes.headline
BECOME BETTER INFORMED - BUY BETTER PRODUCTS FROM BETTER COMPANIES

# data[].attributes.subject
BECOME BETTER INFORMED - BUY BETTER PRODUCTS FROM BETTER COMPANIES

# data[].attributes.body
Consumer education is a relatively easy way to resist pseudo-functional obsolescence. The first goal of consumer education is simply to make consumers aware that pseudo-functional obsolescence actually exists. Many of us know very little about how our products really work, and so it can be hard for the average consumer to tell the difference between true innovation and pseudo-functional obsolescence.
Once consumers are aware of pseudo-functional obsolescence, they can buy better products from better companies. But in addition to making smarter choices in the marketplace, consumers can also address their complaints directly to companies. If all of our complaints actually reached the businesses responsible, this would undoubtedly have a positive impact on their business practices.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Just like good and bad cholesterol, there is good and bad planned obsolescence - the business practice of consciously limiting a product's lifespan. This may come as a surprise to many people, since planned obsolescence usually has a negative connotation. As with cholesterol, it's important that we understand what planned obsolescence is, how it can be good and bad, and what we can do to fight the bad kind.

The good types of planned obsolescence are "value engineering" and "functional obsolescence." Value engineering is a design process that seeks to use as little material as possible in a product while still delivering an acceptable lifespan. It also suggests that all the parts in a product should fail at about the same time, so that none are "overbuilt" relative to the rest. Functional obsolescence is when a genuinely superior product is introduced, making the old one comparatively less desirable.

The bad kind of planned obsolescence consists of the introduction of superfluous changes in a product that don't improve utility or performance. This might best be described as "pseudo-functional obsolescence."

Value engineering

Cell phones don't last for 20 years. If they wanted to, cell phone manufacturers could make phones much more durable than they currently are. Is this bad planned obsolescence? No. This is value engineering.

The useful life of a cell phone is limited to only a few years due to the rapid rate of technological improvement in the field. This means that it's wasteful to build a cell phone with a physical lifespan much longer than its useful life. It makes sense that cell phones are built out of inexpensive plastic parts; this ensures a more affordable product. If a cell phone were not value engineered - if it were made out of titanium, for example - it would last longer than anyone would want it to, would cost more, and would use up more resources.

Designing certain products to be less durable than they could be actually conserves resources and delivers a more affordable product to the consumer.

Functional obsolescence

Functional obsolescence occurs when an innovation is introduced into the marketplace, making an older product obsolete. A classic example is the automobile replacing the horse and buggy, or the transition from simple cell phones to more functional smartphones. Functional obsolescence creates waste, but the trade-off is that consumers get a superior product. In many cases functional obsolescence takes place because the new product requires less time and work, meaning an increase in the resource of human time.

"Pseudo-functional obsolescence"

Psuedo-functional obsolescence is planned obsolescence which appears to introduce innovative changes into a product, but in reality does not. In fact, pseudo-functional obsolescence often forcibly outmodes an otherwise-useful product.

One of the best examples of this is the existence of hundreds of different sizes and shapes of AC adapters, battery chargers, and batteries for electronic equipment. Many people assume that these differences exist for engineering reasons. Actually, most of the changes have no discernible purpose except to make the old models incompatible with the new ones.

If you're not convinced, here's another example. In my home, we own three laptops. The oldest one is from the 1990s and the newest is from 2011. The power adapters for all three of them provide identical voltage and wattage. However, each one has a different plug, meaning that none is interchangeable. If the 1990s laptop dies, its old adapter becomes worthless. Conversely, if the adapter should die, one of the others can't be used - a new adapter needs to be purchased. This is the case even though the three adapters have the exact same electrical specifications. And the same is true of the laptops' rechargeable batteries.

There is no innovation here, and no engineering reason why each plug should be different. What's left is pseudo-functional obsolescence that costs consumers money and wastes resources.

Without resorting to another government bureaucracy, what can we do to combat pseudo-functional obsolescence?

Consumer education

Consumer education is a relatively easy way to resist pseudo-functional obsolescence. The first goal of consumer education is simply to make consumers aware that pseudo-functional obsolescence actually exists. Many of us know very little about how our products really work, and so it can be hard for the average consumer to tell the difference between true innovation and pseudo-functional obsolescence.

Providing this information is not always easy. Sometimes, identifying pseudo-functional obsolescence requires very specific knowledge of a product. But sometimes it's easier, as in the case of the laptop chargers mentioned above. The electrical specs are what really determine compatibility. If the specs are the same but the plugs are different, it's fairly easy to identify this as pseudo-functional obsolescence.

Once consumers are aware of pseudo-functional obsolescence, they can buy better products from better companies. But in addition to making smarter choices in the marketplace, consumers can also address their complaints directly to companies. If all of our complaints actually reached the businesses responsible, this would undoubtedly have a positive impact on their business practices.

Promote voluntary industry standards

Voluntary industry standards are often so widely accepted that we hardly think of them as specifically chosen standards - instead it seems like it's simply the way things are. For example, the 110 volt household current system in the United States is a standard first promoted by Thomas Edison. Later on, the size and shape of the home electric plug was standardized by the National Electrical Manufacturers Association and the American National Standards Institute. If we step back and think about it, it really is incredible that a 70-year-old electric appliance still operates in a modern home's electric system.

Yet it is not hard to imagine things turning out differently. In the beginning there were competing electrical systems, and without standardization things might have remained this way. Different homes could have been built with different systems, meaning that if you moved to a new home, you would have to replace every electric item you owned. There could have been several different sizes and shapes of electric plugs too. Old plug sizes might have eventually been retired and replaced with "improved" models, so if you needed to replace a socket in your home it wouldn't match all the rest.

This sounds rather ridiculous, but only because the industry standards in home electricity have served us so well. Industry standards in the electronics industry for items like chargers and batteries could go a long way towards saving resources and improving product usability for consumers.

Freely adopted industry standards allow us to use an electrical appliance from decades ago in a modern home. Industry standards in electronics would allow us to use last year's charger in this year's laptop. Is that really too much to ask of the electronics companies?

The free market is powerful and beneficial, but an efficient market requires knowledge. Once consumers become informed about planned obsolescence - the good and the bad - they can better use the market to buy more efficient products. This will benefit consumers, responsible businesses, and the environment.
Addison Del Mastro is a participant in the 2012 PERC/Liberty Fund Undergraduate Colloquium on Free Market Environmentalism.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Planned Obsolescence: The Good and the Bad

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
by Addison Del MastroJust like good and bad cholesterol, there is good and bad planned obsolescence - the business practice of consciously limiting a product's lifespan. This may come as a surprise to many people, since planned obsolescence usually has a negative connotation.

# data[].attributes.body
Psuedo-functional obsolescence is planned obsolescence which appears to introduce innovative changes into a product, but in reality does not. In fact, pseudo-functional obsolescence often forcibly out modes an otherwise-useful product.

One of the best examples of this is the existence of hundreds of different sizes and shapes of AC adapters, battery chargers, and batteries for electronic equipment. Many people assume that these differences exist for engineering reasons. Actually, most of the changes have no discernible purpose except to make the old models incompatible with the new ones.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Just like good and bad cholesterol, there is good and bad planned obsolescence - the business practice of consciously limiting a product's lifespan. This may come as a surprise to many people, since planned obsolescence usually has a negative connotation. As with cholesterol, it's important that we understand what planned obsolescence is, how it can be good and bad, and what we can do to fight the bad kind.

The good types of planned obsolescence are "value engineering" and "functional obsolescence." Value engineering is a design process that seeks to use as little material as possible in a product while still delivering an acceptable lifespan. It also suggests that all the parts in a product should fail at about the same time, so that none are "overbuilt" relative to the rest. Functional obsolescence is when a genuinely superior product is introduced, making the old one comparatively less desirable.

The bad kind of planned obsolescence consists of the introduction of superfluous changes in a product that don't improve utility or performance. This might best be described as "pseudo-functional obsolescence."

Value engineering

Cell phones don't last for 20 years. If they wanted to, cell phone manufacturers could make phones much more durable than they currently are. Is this bad planned obsolescence? No. This is value engineering.

The useful life of a cell phone is limited to only a few years due to the rapid rate of technological improvement in the field. This means that it's wasteful to build a cell phone with a physical lifespan much longer than its useful life. It makes sense that cell phones are built out of inexpensive plastic parts; this ensures a more affordable product. If a cell phone were not value engineered - if it were made out of titanium, for example - it would last longer than anyone would want it to, would cost more, and would use up more resources.

Designing certain products to be less durable than they could be actually conserves resources and delivers a more affordable product to the consumer.

Functional obsolescence

Functional obsolescence occurs when an innovation is introduced into the marketplace, making an older product obsolete. A classic example is the automobile replacing the horse and buggy, or the transition from simple cell phones to more functional smartphones. Functional obsolescence creates waste, but the trade-off is that consumers get a superior product. In many cases functional obsolescence takes place because the new product requires less time and work, meaning an increase in the resource of human time.

"Pseudo-functional obsolescence"

Psuedo-functional obsolescence is planned obsolescence which appears to introduce innovative changes into a product, but in reality does not. In fact, pseudo-functional obsolescence often forcibly outmodes an otherwise-useful product.

One of the best examples of this is the existence of hundreds of different sizes and shapes of AC adapters, battery chargers, and batteries for electronic equipment. Many people assume that these differences exist for engineering reasons. Actually, most of the changes have no discernible purpose except to make the old models incompatible with the new ones.

If you're not convinced, here's another example. In my home, we own three laptops. The oldest one is from the 1990s and the newest is from 2011. The power adapters for all three of them provide identical voltage and wattage. However, each one has a different plug, meaning that none is interchangeable. If the 1990s laptop dies, its old adapter becomes worthless. Conversely, if the adapter should die, one of the others can't be used - a new adapter needs to be purchased. This is the case even though the three adapters have the exact same electrical specifications. And the same is true of the laptops' rechargeable batteries.

There is no innovation here, and no engineering reason why each plug should be different. What's left is pseudo-functional obsolescence that costs consumers money and wastes resources.

Without resorting to another government bureaucracy, what can we do to combat pseudo-functional obsolescence?

Consumer education

Consumer education is a relatively easy way to resist pseudo-functional obsolescence. The first goal of consumer education is simply to make consumers aware that pseudo-functional obsolescence actually exists. Many of us know very little about how our products really work, and so it can be hard for the average consumer to tell the difference between true innovation and pseudo-functional obsolescence.

Providing this information is not always easy. Sometimes, identifying pseudo-functional obsolescence requires very specific knowledge of a product. But sometimes it's easier, as in the case of the laptop chargers mentioned above. The electrical specs are what really determine compatibility. If the specs are the same but the plugs are different, it's fairly easy to identify this as pseudo-functional obsolescence.

Once consumers are aware of pseudo-functional obsolescence, they can buy better products from better companies. But in addition to making smarter choices in the marketplace, consumers can also address their complaints directly to companies. If all of our complaints actually reached the businesses responsible, this would undoubtedly have a positive impact on their business practices.

Promote voluntary industry standards

Voluntary industry standards are often so widely accepted that we hardly think of them as specifically chosen standards - instead it seems like it's simply the way things are. For example, the 110 volt household current system in the United States is a standard first promoted by Thomas Edison. Later on, the size and shape of the home electric plug was standardized by the National Electrical Manufacturers Association and the American National Standards Institute. If we step back and think about it, it really is incredible that a 70-year-old electric appliance still operates in a modern home's electric system.

Yet it is not hard to imagine things turning out differently. In the beginning there were competing electrical systems, and without standardization things might have remained this way. Different homes could have been built with different systems, meaning that if you moved to a new home, you would have to replace every electric item you owned. There could have been several different sizes and shapes of electric plugs too. Old plug sizes might have eventually been retired and replaced with "improved" models, so if you needed to replace a socket in your home it wouldn't match all the rest.

This sounds rather ridiculous, but only because the industry standards in home electricity have served us so well. Industry standards in the electronics industry for items like chargers and batteries could go a long way towards saving resources and improving product usability for consumers.

Freely adopted industry standards allow us to use an electrical appliance from decades ago in a modern home. Industry standards in electronics would allow us to use last year's charger in this year's laptop. Is that really too much to ask of the electronics companies?

The free market is powerful and beneficial, but an efficient market requires knowledge. Once consumers become informed about planned obsolescence - the good and the bad - they can better use the market to buy more efficient products. This will benefit consumers, responsible businesses, and the environment.
Addison Del Mastro is a participant in the 2012 PERC/Liberty Fund Undergraduate Colloquium on Free Market Environmentalism.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Planned Obsolescence: The Good and the Bad

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
by Addison Del MastroJust like good and bad cholesterol, there is good and bad planned obsolescence - the business practice of consciously limiting a product's lifespan. This may come as a surprise to many people, since planned obsolescence usually has a negative connotation.

# data[].attributes.body
Functional obsolescence occurs when an innovation is introduced into the marketplace, making an older product obsolete. A classic example is the automobile replacing the horse and buggy, or the transition from simple cell phones to more functional smartphones. Functional obsolescence creates waste, but the trade-off is that consumers get a superior product. In many cases functional obsolescence takes place because the new product requires less time and work, meaning an increase in the resource of human time.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Just like good and bad cholesterol, there is good and bad planned obsolescence - the business practice of consciously limiting a product's lifespan. This may come as a surprise to many people, since planned obsolescence usually has a negative connotation. As with cholesterol, it's important that we understand what planned obsolescence is, how it can be good and bad, and what we can do to fight the bad kind.

The good types of planned obsolescence are "value engineering" and "functional obsolescence." Value engineering is a design process that seeks to use as little material as possible in a product while still delivering an acceptable lifespan. It also suggests that all the parts in a product should fail at about the same time, so that none are "overbuilt" relative to the rest. Functional obsolescence is when a genuinely superior product is introduced, making the old one comparatively less desirable.

The bad kind of planned obsolescence consists of the introduction of superfluous changes in a product that don't improve utility or performance. This might best be described as "pseudo-functional obsolescence."

Value engineering

Cell phones don't last for 20 years. If they wanted to, cell phone manufacturers could make phones much more durable than they currently are. Is this bad planned obsolescence? No. This is value engineering.

The useful life of a cell phone is limited to only a few years due to the rapid rate of technological improvement in the field. This means that it's wasteful to build a cell phone with a physical lifespan much longer than its useful life. It makes sense that cell phones are built out of inexpensive plastic parts; this ensures a more affordable product. If a cell phone were not value engineered - if it were made out of titanium, for example - it would last longer than anyone would want it to, would cost more, and would use up more resources.

Designing certain products to be less durable than they could be actually conserves resources and delivers a more affordable product to the consumer.

Functional obsolescence

Functional obsolescence occurs when an innovation is introduced into the marketplace, making an older product obsolete. A classic example is the automobile replacing the horse and buggy, or the transition from simple cell phones to more functional smartphones. Functional obsolescence creates waste, but the trade-off is that consumers get a superior product. In many cases functional obsolescence takes place because the new product requires less time and work, meaning an increase in the resource of human time.

"Pseudo-functional obsolescence"

Psuedo-functional obsolescence is planned obsolescence which appears to introduce innovative changes into a product, but in reality does not. In fact, pseudo-functional obsolescence often forcibly outmodes an otherwise-useful product.

One of the best examples of this is the existence of hundreds of different sizes and shapes of AC adapters, battery chargers, and batteries for electronic equipment. Many people assume that these differences exist for engineering reasons. Actually, most of the changes have no discernible purpose except to make the old models incompatible with the new ones.

If you're not convinced, here's another example. In my home, we own three laptops. The oldest one is from the 1990s and the newest is from 2011. The power adapters for all three of them provide identical voltage and wattage. However, each one has a different plug, meaning that none is interchangeable. If the 1990s laptop dies, its old adapter becomes worthless. Conversely, if the adapter should die, one of the others can't be used - a new adapter needs to be purchased. This is the case even though the three adapters have the exact same electrical specifications. And the same is true of the laptops' rechargeable batteries.

There is no innovation here, and no engineering reason why each plug should be different. What's left is pseudo-functional obsolescence that costs consumers money and wastes resources.

Without resorting to another government bureaucracy, what can we do to combat pseudo-functional obsolescence?

Consumer education

Consumer education is a relatively easy way to resist pseudo-functional obsolescence. The first goal of consumer education is simply to make consumers aware that pseudo-functional obsolescence actually exists. Many of us know very little about how our products really work, and so it can be hard for the average consumer to tell the difference between true innovation and pseudo-functional obsolescence.

Providing this information is not always easy. Sometimes, identifying pseudo-functional obsolescence requires very specific knowledge of a product. But sometimes it's easier, as in the case of the laptop chargers mentioned above. The electrical specs are what really determine compatibility. If the specs are the same but the plugs are different, it's fairly easy to identify this as pseudo-functional obsolescence.

Once consumers are aware of pseudo-functional obsolescence, they can buy better products from better companies. But in addition to making smarter choices in the marketplace, consumers can also address their complaints directly to companies. If all of our complaints actually reached the businesses responsible, this would undoubtedly have a positive impact on their business practices.

Promote voluntary industry standards

Voluntary industry standards are often so widely accepted that we hardly think of them as specifically chosen standards - instead it seems like it's simply the way things are. For example, the 110 volt household current system in the United States is a standard first promoted by Thomas Edison. Later on, the size and shape of the home electric plug was standardized by the National Electrical Manufacturers Association and the American National Standards Institute. If we step back and think about it, it really is incredible that a 70-year-old electric appliance still operates in a modern home's electric system.

Yet it is not hard to imagine things turning out differently. In the beginning there were competing electrical systems, and without standardization things might have remained this way. Different homes could have been built with different systems, meaning that if you moved to a new home, you would have to replace every electric item you owned. There could have been several different sizes and shapes of electric plugs too. Old plug sizes might have eventually been retired and replaced with "improved" models, so if you needed to replace a socket in your home it wouldn't match all the rest.

This sounds rather ridiculous, but only because the industry standards in home electricity have served us so well. Industry standards in the electronics industry for items like chargers and batteries could go a long way towards saving resources and improving product usability for consumers.

Freely adopted industry standards allow us to use an electrical appliance from decades ago in a modern home. Industry standards in electronics would allow us to use last year's charger in this year's laptop. Is that really too much to ask of the electronics companies?

The free market is powerful and beneficial, but an efficient market requires knowledge. Once consumers become informed about planned obsolescence - the good and the bad - they can better use the market to buy more efficient products. This will benefit consumers, responsible businesses, and the environment.
Addison Del Mastro is a participant in the 2012 PERC/Liberty Fund Undergraduate Colloquium on Free Market Environmentalism.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Planned Obsolescence: The Good and the Bad

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
by Addison Del MastroJust like good and bad cholesterol, there is good and bad planned obsolescence - the business practice of consciously limiting a product's lifespan. This may come as a surprise to many people, since planned obsolescence usually has a negative connotation.

# data[].attributes.body
Value engineering is a design process that seeks to use as little material as possible in a product while still delivering an acceptable lifespan. It also suggests that all the parts in a product should fail at about the same time, so that none are “overbuilt” relative to the rest.
Cell phones don’t last for 20 years. If they wanted to, cell phone manufacturers could make phones much more durable than they currently are. Is this bad planned obsolescence? No. This is value engineering.
The useful life of a cell phone is limited to only a few years due to the rapid rate of technological improvement in the field. This means that it’s wasteful to build a cell phone with a physical lifespan much longer than its useful life. It makes sense that cell phones are built out of inexpensive plastic parts; this ensures a more affordable product. If a cell phone were not value engineered – if it were made out of titanium, for example – it would last longer than anyone would want it to, would cost more, and would use up more resources.
Designing certain products to be less durable than they could be actually conserves resources and delivers a more affordable product to the consumer.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Just like good and bad cholesterol, there is good and bad planned obsolescence - the business practice of consciously limiting a product's lifespan. This may come as a surprise to many people, since planned obsolescence usually has a negative connotation. As with cholesterol, it's important that we understand what planned obsolescence is, how it can be good and bad, and what we can do to fight the bad kind.

The good types of planned obsolescence are "value engineering" and "functional obsolescence." Value engineering is a design process that seeks to use as little material as possible in a product while still delivering an acceptable lifespan. It also suggests that all the parts in a product should fail at about the same time, so that none are "overbuilt" relative to the rest. Functional obsolescence is when a genuinely superior product is introduced, making the old one comparatively less desirable.

The bad kind of planned obsolescence consists of the introduction of superfluous changes in a product that don't improve utility or performance. This might best be described as "pseudo-functional obsolescence."

Value engineering

Cell phones don't last for 20 years. If they wanted to, cell phone manufacturers could make phones much more durable than they currently are. Is this bad planned obsolescence? No. This is value engineering.

The useful life of a cell phone is limited to only a few years due to the rapid rate of technological improvement in the field. This means that it's wasteful to build a cell phone with a physical lifespan much longer than its useful life. It makes sense that cell phones are built out of inexpensive plastic parts; this ensures a more affordable product. If a cell phone were not value engineered - if it were made out of titanium, for example - it would last longer than anyone would want it to, would cost more, and would use up more resources.

Designing certain products to be less durable than they could be actually conserves resources and delivers a more affordable product to the consumer.

Functional obsolescence

Functional obsolescence occurs when an innovation is introduced into the marketplace, making an older product obsolete. A classic example is the automobile replacing the horse and buggy, or the transition from simple cell phones to more functional smartphones. Functional obsolescence creates waste, but the trade-off is that consumers get a superior product. In many cases functional obsolescence takes place because the new product requires less time and work, meaning an increase in the resource of human time.

"Pseudo-functional obsolescence"

Psuedo-functional obsolescence is planned obsolescence which appears to introduce innovative changes into a product, but in reality does not. In fact, pseudo-functional obsolescence often forcibly outmodes an otherwise-useful product.

One of the best examples of this is the existence of hundreds of different sizes and shapes of AC adapters, battery chargers, and batteries for electronic equipment. Many people assume that these differences exist for engineering reasons. Actually, most of the changes have no discernible purpose except to make the old models incompatible with the new ones.

If you're not convinced, here's another example. In my home, we own three laptops. The oldest one is from the 1990s and the newest is from 2011. The power adapters for all three of them provide identical voltage and wattage. However, each one has a different plug, meaning that none is interchangeable. If the 1990s laptop dies, its old adapter becomes worthless. Conversely, if the adapter should die, one of the others can't be used - a new adapter needs to be purchased. This is the case even though the three adapters have the exact same electrical specifications. And the same is true of the laptops' rechargeable batteries.

There is no innovation here, and no engineering reason why each plug should be different. What's left is pseudo-functional obsolescence that costs consumers money and wastes resources.

Without resorting to another government bureaucracy, what can we do to combat pseudo-functional obsolescence?

Consumer education

Consumer education is a relatively easy way to resist pseudo-functional obsolescence. The first goal of consumer education is simply to make consumers aware that pseudo-functional obsolescence actually exists. Many of us know very little about how our products really work, and so it can be hard for the average consumer to tell the difference between true innovation and pseudo-functional obsolescence.

Providing this information is not always easy. Sometimes, identifying pseudo-functional obsolescence requires very specific knowledge of a product. But sometimes it's easier, as in the case of the laptop chargers mentioned above. The electrical specs are what really determine compatibility. If the specs are the same but the plugs are different, it's fairly easy to identify this as pseudo-functional obsolescence.

Once consumers are aware of pseudo-functional obsolescence, they can buy better products from better companies. But in addition to making smarter choices in the marketplace, consumers can also address their complaints directly to companies. If all of our complaints actually reached the businesses responsible, this would undoubtedly have a positive impact on their business practices.

Promote voluntary industry standards

Voluntary industry standards are often so widely accepted that we hardly think of them as specifically chosen standards - instead it seems like it's simply the way things are. For example, the 110 volt household current system in the United States is a standard first promoted by Thomas Edison. Later on, the size and shape of the home electric plug was standardized by the National Electrical Manufacturers Association and the American National Standards Institute. If we step back and think about it, it really is incredible that a 70-year-old electric appliance still operates in a modern home's electric system.

Yet it is not hard to imagine things turning out differently. In the beginning there were competing electrical systems, and without standardization things might have remained this way. Different homes could have been built with different systems, meaning that if you moved to a new home, you would have to replace every electric item you owned. There could have been several different sizes and shapes of electric plugs too. Old plug sizes might have eventually been retired and replaced with "improved" models, so if you needed to replace a socket in your home it wouldn't match all the rest.

This sounds rather ridiculous, but only because the industry standards in home electricity have served us so well. Industry standards in the electronics industry for items like chargers and batteries could go a long way towards saving resources and improving product usability for consumers.

Freely adopted industry standards allow us to use an electrical appliance from decades ago in a modern home. Industry standards in electronics would allow us to use last year's charger in this year's laptop. Is that really too much to ask of the electronics companies?

The free market is powerful and beneficial, but an efficient market requires knowledge. Once consumers become informed about planned obsolescence - the good and the bad - they can better use the market to buy more efficient products. This will benefit consumers, responsible businesses, and the environment.
Addison Del Mastro is a participant in the 2012 PERC/Liberty Fund Undergraduate Colloquium on Free Market Environmentalism.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Planned Obsolescence: The Good and the Bad

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
by Addison Del MastroJust like good and bad cholesterol, there is good and bad planned obsolescence - the business practice of consciously limiting a product's lifespan. This may come as a surprise to many people, since planned obsolescence usually has a negative connotation.

# data[].attributes.headline
COPYRIGHT LAWS UPDATED TO REFLECT OUR CONTEMPORARY WORLD AND ITS ISSUES 

# data[].attributes.subject
COPYRIGHT LAWS UPDATED TO REFLECT OUR CONTEMPORARY WORLD AND ITS ISSUES 

# data[].attributes.headline
ECONOMIC COSTS OF FORMAL VS INFORMAL RECYCLING

# data[].attributes.subject
ECONOMIC COSTS OF FORMAL VS INFORMAL RECYCLING

# data[].attributes.body
Recycling e-waste is practiced both formally and informally.

Proper or formal e-waste recycling usually involves disassembling the electronics, separating and categorizing the contents by material and cleaning them.

Items are then shredded mechanically for further sorting with advanced separation technologies. Companies must adhere to health and safety rules and use pollution-control technologies that reduce the health and environmental hazards of handling e-waste. All this makes formal recycling expensive. As a result, many companies and countries illegally export their e-waste to developing countries where recycling is cheap.

# data[].attributes.body
At informal recycling workshops, men, women and children recover valuable materials by burning devices to melt away non-valuable materials, using mercury and acids to recover gold, and dismantling devices by hand to reclaim other materials of value.
Usually they do not wear protective equipment and lack any awareness that they are handling dangerous materials. Research has found that inhaling toxic chemicals and direct contact with hazardous e-waste materials (even in some formal e-waste recycling settings) result in increases in spontaneous abortions, stillbirths, premature births, reduced birth weights, mutations, congenital malformations, abnormal thyroid function, increased lead levels in blood, decreased lung function, and neuro-behavioral disturbances. Moreover, e-waste toxins contaminate the air, soil and groundwater.

# data[].attributes.headline
ECONOMIC RETURNS TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

# data[].attributes.subject
ECONOMIC RETURNS TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

# data[].attributes.body
Many people in developing countries earn a living by dismantling, refurbishing, repairing and reselling used electronic devices. Guiyu, China is often considered the e-waste capital of the world, with 75 percent of households involved in the recycling business. Informal recycling is also practiced in India, Nigeria, Ghana and the Philippines.

# data[].attributes.body
The government could develop a more robust e-waste recycling infrastructure through setting targets and establishing financing schemes for collection systems and recycling plants.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The federal government is preparing to unveil "ambitious" new targets that will require all states and territories to spend a portion of their procurement budgets on recycled materials for public projects.

New waste reduction minister, Trevor Evans, who is the first person to hold the portfolio at a federal level, said he would seek agreement from state and territory environment ministers for the new target at their next meeting, expected before the end of the year.

The move is aimed at kickstarting a domestic commercial market for Australian waste, responding to a growing crisis in the sector after China stopped importing plastic recyclables, and after other south-east Asian countries, including Indonesia, rejected shipments of Australian waste.
Australia urged to invest in recycling manufacturing after Indonesia sends rubbish back
Evans told Guardian Australia that the "ambitious" procurement target would be backed up with financial support from the commonwealth to help support the burgeoning recycling manufacturing sector.

"I would like to see all of the states and the commonwealth agree that by X date, X percentage of their significant procurement programs will be made of recycled materials," Evans said.

While he declined to nominate the target, he said it needed to be sufficient to kickstart the manufacturing sector and would likely deal with stockpiles of recyclables that have accumulated because there have been no willing buyers of the waste.

The push comes as the federal government prepares to embark on a $100bn infrastructure program over the next decade, with about $42bn of that slated for the next four years.

"We need a critical mass of demand in order to help business and innovators come up with the supply solution," he said.

"There are some significant stockpiling problems around Australia, where I think if we can create markets for demand, that would be our best possible chance of realising the value of those stockpiles.

"I am very ambitious when it comes to the targets I would like to see government adopt [and] I think there are some very big opportunities that will drive some big steps forward."

Evans said that once a target was set, it would be left to state governments to determine which projects were best suited to use recyclables, suggesting roads, public transport and water infrastructure could all be contenders.

New procurement targets have been backed by environmental and industry groups, who say a domestic recycling market would prevent recyclable material kept in Australia sitting in stockpiles or going to landfill. Currently about 90% of waste that does not go to landfill stays in Australia and 10% is exported.

The Coalition went to the election promising a $167m Australian recycling investment package, which it said would increase recycling rates, tackle plastic waste and litter and halve food waste by 2030.

Most of this funding - about $100m - is earmarked for recycling manufacturing.

Evans said the government wanted to see progress made on the reduction of single-use plastic, but that the issue was "complex" and would require cooperation from states and industry.

"There won't be a silver-bullet solution," he said.

"Everybody has a role to play, and in some of these complex areas it is going to be critical to ensure that industry is a big part of the solution."
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Minister flags 'ambitious' recycling targets to kickstart waste market

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The federal government is preparing to unveil "ambitious" new targets that will require all states and territories to spend a portion of their procurement budgets on recycled materials for public projects.

# data[].attributes.headline
ESTABLISH FINANCING SCHEMES FOR COLLECTION SCHEMES AND RECYCLING PLANTS

# data[].attributes.subject
ESTABLISH FINANCING SCHEMES FOR COLLECTION SCHEMES AND RECYCLING PLANTS

# data[].attributes.body
It could also offer a tax break or rebate to companies that process their used devices, and help prevent the export of e-waste to developing countries.

# data[].attributes.headline
DESIGN GOODS THAT CAN BE REUSED OR RE-MANUFACTURED

# data[].attributes.subject
DESIGN GOODS THAT CAN BE REUSED OR RE-MANUFACTURED

# data[].attributes.body
Today, it’s not a priority to design goods that can be reused or re-manufactured, though for a few years, companies experimented with modular phones that enabled consumers to upgrade parts of their phones instead of having to entirely replace them. Google, LG and Motorola all released modular models, but they ultimately failed because they were clumsier and more costly, and because consumers expected their devices to come with every feature as standard. Perhaps as consumers become more aware of the e-waste problem, companies will be able to design a modular phone with more market appeal.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Plenty to love

These are the best Xiaomi phones you can buy in 2020

Xiaomi has carved out a niche for itself over the last five years for offering phones that redefine value for money. From $100 entry-level phones to true flagships with innovative features, these are the best Xiaomi phones you can buy in 2020.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Moto Z3 Play is the best modular phone you can buy in 2019

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Plenty to love Xiaomi has carved out a niche for itself over the last five years for offering phones that redefine value for money. From $100 entry-level phones to true flagships with innovative features, these are the best Xiaomi phones you can buy in 2020.

# data[].attributes.headline
DESIGN NEW & MORE SUSTAINABLE TECHNOLOGIES

# data[].attributes.subject
DESIGN NEW & MORE SUSTAINABLE TECHNOLOGIES

# data[].attributes.body
Chemical engineers develop a biodegradable electronic circuit.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the not-so-distant future, the internet may connect to everything from your toaster to your T-shirt. But as we realize the Internet of Things, the number of sensors and other devices will only proliferate, bringing with them some serious environmental complications. Namely, what do you do with all the spent electronics?

For the past seven years, chemical engineering professor Zhenan Bao's lab has been developing a solution, unveiled this past May: the world's first fully biodegradable circuit.

According to Ting Lei, a postdoctoral scholar in the lab and lead author of the paper announcing completion of the project, one of the longstanding problems had been the creation of a decomposable semiconductor. To address this, the group started with the basics. Molecular basics.

"I searched through the literature to find chemical bonds that can be decomposed under certain situations," says Lei. That led him to some natural-based dyes that could be readily broken down by acids. This chemistry would form the basis of the team's new semiconducting polymer. "Actually," says Lei of the discovery, "we are standing on a giant, right?"

Having previously developed a cellulose-based substrate - the nonconductive base of a circuit - the team then added its semiconductor and iron electrodes to create a simple logic circuit, the building block of computers. Although it's resistant to heat, water and mild basic solutions, the fully functioning circuit dissolved when placed in a slightly acidic solution, with a pH about 100 times weaker than that of common vinegar or lemon juice - in other words, acidity levels that occur in nature. In such a solution, the circuit's electrodes degraded in about an hour, with the rest of the device disintegrating within a month.

Even before its disappearance, the team's circuit was tiny: thinner than a human hair, and about 40 times lighter in weight than a piece of office paper of the same surface area. Although they aren't quite to the point of demonstrating applications, Lei imagines using these tiny devices to conduct environmental studies. "What we typically do is use a satellite or something to gather information," he says. Now they might be able to blanket an area to be studied with low-cost biodegradable sensors that could measure "biological signals, or what's the level of certain chemicals. We don't need to gather them back."

And because the device breaks down into elements and natural compounds, that gives it another important property: biocompatibility. Lei said the lab also envisions a future with more body-sensing electronics, whether they're implanted or worn on the skin. Although there are already a number of biocompatible devices doctors can implant in people today, "typically you need a secondary surgery," Lei explains, to remove them at some point.

But with the team's advances in naturally degrading electronics, these parts could be broken down and reabsorbed by the body itself.

To that end, they're working on decomposable antennas and a few other parts to measure and transmit information from within a person's body. "The basic components have been demonstrated," Lei says. "The next step is to integrate all the stuff together into a functional system." *

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the not-so-distant future, the internet may connect to everything from your toaster to your T-shirt. But as we realize the Internet of Things, the number of sensors and other devices will only proliferate, bringing with them some serious environmental complications. Namely, what do you do with all the spent electronics?

# data[].attributes.body
China’s largest internet company, Baidu, and the United Nations Development Programme developed a smartphone app called Baidu Recycle. Chinese users can indicate the item they want to recycle, enter its size, the date it’s to be picked up along with their name and address, then submit a photo of it. Within 24 hours, an accredited recycler comes to pick it up. In two months, 11,000 devices were recycled.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
With understanding of the challenge e-waste poses, UNDP China worked with internet company Baidu and developed a smartphone application called "Baidu Recycle". The app helps users price and recycle their electronic products by introducing nearby legitiamte e-waste pick-up services, helping streamline the recycling process and cut down 'informal recycling stations'.

The app is the first product from the UNDP-Baidu Big Data Joint Laboratory, which serves as an engine to identify valuable data, formulate and implement new methods and frameworks for using big data to support development goals.

UNDP has also developed the the app in English so that we can share our knowledge and expertise to the rest of the world.

China now has a fantastic working solution, with clear results, that can tackle one of the biggest developmental challenges of our century.

Now is the time to work together and show the rest of the world what we can do!
The app is now available for download from both iOS and Android.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With understanding of the challenge e-waste poses, UNDP China worked with internet company Baidu and developed a smartphone application called "Baidu Recycle ". The app helps users price and recycle their electronic products by introducing nearby legitiamte e-waste pick-up services, helping streamline the recycling process and cut down 'informal recycling stations'.

# data[].attributes.headline
FIND WAYS TO INTEGRATE INFORMAL AND FORMAL RECYCLING SYSTEMS 

# data[].attributes.subject
FIND WAYS TO INTEGRATE INFORMAL AND FORMAL RECYCLING SYSTEMS 

# data[].attributes.body
To reduce health and environmental hazards while maintaining the informal recycling system that supports so many people, India and China are looking at ways to integrate the informal and formal recycling systems. One strategy would give informal recyclers financial incentives to divert e-waste to formal collection or recycling centers. For example, they could be paid more to deliver cathode ray tube screens to a formal collection center than they would get for dismantling it by hand themselves.

# data[].attributes.headline
PROVIDE INCENTIVES FOR SUSTAINABLE BUSINESSES

# data[].attributes.subject
PROVIDE INCENTIVES FOR SUSTAINABLE BUSINESSES

# data[].attributes.body
Government could also offer a tax break or rebate to companies that process their used devices, and help prevent the export of e-waste to developing countries.

# data[].attributes.body
There are a variety of certificates that identify responsible recyclers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
National Television and Computer Recycling Scheme

E-waste recycling services are provided across metropolitan, regional and remote Australia as part of the Australian Government's National Television and Computer Recycling Scheme. This industry-funded scheme makes it easier for people to have their televisions, computers, printers, computer parts and accessories recycled for free.

Where can I recycle my TVs and computers?

The NTCRS provides around 98 per cent of Australia's population with reasonable access to collection services for televisions and computer parts. Location and opening times for recycling and collection services are determined by the organisations who manage them, with flexibility provided to suit local circumstances. Services may include a permanent collection site at a local waste transfer station or retail outlet, or one-off recycling events. These may be operated through local council or resource management centres. Services are free for households and small businesses, while charges may apply for larger businesses. Not all drop-off points in Australia are part of the scheme, and fees may be payable at some locations. Contact the providers below or your local council for details.

Planet Ark maintains a database of television and computer drop-off points. Search for recycling near you:

Four organisations have been approved to deliver recycling services under the scheme. For more information, including details of the collection services and drop-off points they provide, visit their websites:

What TV and computer products are covered?

The following items can be recycled under the National Television and Computer Recycling Scheme.

Product

Product type

Televisions

Colour televisions

Black and white televisions

Computers

Laptops, notebooks, palmtops and tablets

Personal computers

Central processing units for personal computers

Monitors and projectors, including cathode-ray tube and flat screen monitors

Printers

Multi-function printers with print, copy and fax transmission

Single-function printers

Computer parts and peripherals

Keyboards

Joysticks and game pads

Mouses and trackballs

Scanners

Compact disc drives, including burners

Digital video disc drives, including burners

Hard drives

Memory cards, including network, sound, video, IDE, SCSI and similar

Motherboards

Electrical transformers and static converters

Web cameras

Check recycling drop-off point providers to confirm what's accepted in each location. Drop-off points may also accept other e-waste such as mobile phones, batteries and electronics.

Where can I recycle mobile phones?

The following government-accredited organisation delivers mobile phone and accessory recycling. Visit their website to find out about their collection services and drop-off points.

Where can I recycle other products?

You can search the Planet Ark database to find out where to recycle other products such as printer cartridges, batteries, light globes, paint, whitegoods and plastic.

Further information

Contact us

For more information on e-waste and the National Television and Computer Recycling Scheme, contact ewaste@environment.gov.au or call 1800 332 783.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
E-waste recycling services are provided across metropolitan, regional and remote Australia as part of the Australian Government's National Television and Computer Recycling Scheme. This industry-funded scheme makes it easier for people to have their televisions, computers, printers, computer parts and accessories recycled for free.

# data[].attributes.headline
IF IT CAN'T BE FIXED THEN RECYCLE OR REUSE RESPONSIBLY

# data[].attributes.subject
IF IT CAN'T BE FIXED THEN RECYCLE OR REUSE RESPONSIBLY

# data[].attributes.body
Is this the highest certificate?

# data[].attributes.body
The Repair Cafe movement started in 2007 in the Netherlands and has spread to over 1,500 locations worldwide. Ours is the first Repair Cafe in WA supported by the International Repair Cafe Foundation and it joins 17 other repair cafes in Australia.

Last year alone, the international effort diverted over 250,000kg waste from landfill. Many of us in Western Australia want to contribute to this important movement and bring back a culture of repairing.

# data[].attributes.headline
RESIST BUYING NEW DEVICES UNTIL YOU REALLY NEED THEM

# data[].attributes.subject
RESIST BUYING NEW DEVICES UNTIL YOU REALLY NEED THEM

# data[].attributes.body
"We can’t all go and live in the woods, of course. But if we resist debt, resist gadgets, and reconnect with nature, the world might just change." Check out this article about Daniel Vitalis who lives without technology and aims to "rewild his life".

# data[].attributes.body
Did you know there are EcoATMs  in USA? For example their website say "Recycling your old phones, MP3 players and tablets doesn’t have to be a hassle. We want to make ecoATM the most convenient way for you to leave a positive impact on the planet while also putting a little cash in your pocket."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
28 Million Devices Given a Chance at Second Life

Thanks to your help, ecoATM has collected over 28 million devices over the past two decades that have been given new life or properly recycled.For Earth Month - and every month - our mission is to limit the amount of toxic electronic waste that enters our natural environment. Together, we can all work towards a healthier planet for future generations to come.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sell Your Cell Phone & Tablets for Cash Today

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Thanks to your help, ecoATM has collected over 28 million devices over the past two decades that have been given new life or properly recycled.For Earth Month - and every month - our mission is to limit the amount of toxic electronic waste that enters our natural environment.

# data[].attributes.body
Imagine a system where the provider or manufacturer retained ownership of the device through the contract so customers would pay a lower monthly fee and be expected to return the device for an upgrade. The value could be recaptured in the form of parts for re-manufacture or materials for recycling, and customers would still get their upgrades.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Can We Do About the Growing E-waste Problem?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 2016, the world discarded 49 million tons of electronic waste, yet only 20 percent of it was recycled. Where does e-waste go? And how are we going to deal the growing amounts of it?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.embed_code
What Can We Do About the Growing E-waste Problem?

# data[].attributes.body
It is important to be able to repair and reuse the devices we have. But even if you know how to and want to repair your electronic device, you might be stymied because your product’s software is subject to copyright. The copyright often forbids consumers by law to tinker with or reverse-engineer the device or use an unauthorized repairer.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
30% lost

Even when recycled, a significant amount of electronic material cannot be recovered.

We're throwing away

literally tons of electronics because people don't know how to fix them.

At the same time...

millions of people who need a cell phone go without.

There aren't enough recyclers

in the world, especially in developing countries, to handle all the electronics we're throwing away.

If we fix things instead,

we'd create skilled jobs and give poor communities around the world access to low-cost technology.

What do we do with piles and piles of discarded electronics?

E-waste is global.

Some e-waste is shipped overseas, where it is burned for scrap by kids in junkyards. We visited a scrapyard in Accra, Ghana and met some really good kids in a bad situation. They didn't know how toxic their job really is.

Even so, encouraging a global market for used electronics does more good than harm:

1. Repaired electronics give people access to low-cost electronics and help them access the awesome benefits of technology

2. Used electronics create repair jobs in developing countries that often have few opportunities for skilled labor

3. Reuse in developing countries is usually more effective than domestic recycling-there's not much of a market for old cathode ray tube monitors in the US, for example, but they are reused in other countries.

Global consumption of electronics is increasing. Every year we create more e-waste than before. At least 50% of Africa's e-waste comes from within the continent. China discards 750 million electronic devices a year.

We create too much e-waste and reuse way too little.

It's time to fix the e-waste problem.

We need more e-waste repair and refurbishment, worldwide. We need to take a page from the book of expert repairers in developing countries. We need to stop throwing away computers that could be fixed with a 25-cent part.

What's stopping us? Bad repair manuals are a big factor. Every gadget is different. The harder it is to figure out the problem, the more likely someone is to give up and decide to replace the machine instead.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Even when recycled, a significant amount of electronic material cannot be recovered. literally tons of electronics because people don't know how to fix them. millions of people who need a cell phone go without. in the world, especially in developing countries, to handle all the electronics we're throwing away.

# data[].attributes.body
In order to reduce e-waste, manufacturers need to design electronics that are safer, and more durable, repairable and recyclable. Most importantly, this means using less toxic materials.
For example, Google’s Project Ara, for instance, is developing a smartphone-like device with six slots for swapping out technologically outdated components, versus traditionally binning the entirety of an aging smartphone.  The project has since been closed.

# data[].attributes.body
A circular economy keeps the materials we use in the economy for as long as possible rather than losing them to landfill – but it’s more than just recycling.

# data[].attributes.headline
ENVIRONMENT - NEGATIVE ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS

# data[].attributes.subject
ENVIRONMENT - NEGATIVE ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS

# data[].attributes.body
The increase in consumption of electronics has two major adverse ecological effects. First, it significantly increases mining and procurement for the materials needed for production of gadgets. And second, discarded devices produce large quantities of electronic waste.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Computers, phones, and other digital devices increasingly are made to be thrown away-which is bad for both consumers and the environment. An Object Lesson.

Michael Conroy / AP

Apple has already sold millions of the new iPhone 7, which started shipping this month. For many who bought one, the device replaces a perfectly good, recent model. True, after a couple years an iPhone might start showing signs of wear: The home button sticks, or the glass might be cracked. Some of these defects can be repaired, although few choose repair over upgrade. Others are caused by planned obsolescence. For example, Apple's latest operating system, iOS 10, makes extensive use of haptic features that require an iPhone 6s-a device released just last year.

And so people replace things: smartphones, tablets, phablets, laptops, LEDs, LCDs, DVD players, portable music players. Whether from breakdown, slow-down, or just the availability of a newer model, people discard electronics at the slightest inconvenience. It's not just laziness or a lust for the future, either; the economics of gadgets encourages disposal. In some cases, for example, buying a new printer is cheaper than buying a set of new ink cartridges.

The increase in consumption of electronics has two major adverse ecological effects. First, it significantly increases mining and procurement for the materials needed for production of gadgets. And second, discarded devices produce large quantities of electronic waste. That waste could be reduced through reuse, repair, or resale. Whether it ever will be is an open question.

More in this series

* * *

Electronics have always produced waste, but the quantity and speed of discard has increased rapidly in recent years. There was a time when households would keep televisions for more than a decade. But thanks to changes in technology and consumer demand, there is hardly any device now that persists for more than a couple of years in the hands of the original owner. As per the report of ENDS Europe agency, built-in obsolescence increased the proportions of all units sold to replace defective appliances from 3.5 percent in 2004 to 8.3 percent in 2012. The share of large household appliances that had to be replaced within the first five years grew from 7 percent of total replacements in 2004 to 13 percent in 2013. According to a 2014 Gallup poll, 89 percent of young adults (18 to 29) own smartphones; 41 percent of the older generation owned VCRs at the same age.

The widespread use of semi-conductors and entrance of new players from Brazil, China, and India has made the manufacturing of portable devices relatively inexpensive, and the difficulty, inconvenience, or high cost of repair has made new purchases more economical. Manufacturers have also used software updates to privilege newer models of smartphones and computers, invisibly pressuring consumers to buy new devices just to maintain parity of experience. And companies have also increasingly ended support for older models or the operating systems that run on them. WhatsApp and Facebook, for example, recently announced that they will stop providing support for their apps on certain older models of Blackberry.

Following the lead set by razor blades, printer manufacturers have realized that they can make more money selling ink and toner than the printer hardware itself. According to a Financial Times report, a gallon of ink for the typical printer costs the consumer around $8,000. But the prices of printers are so low that once their initial ink supply is spent, the consumer is tempted to buy a whole new machine.

This idea of pushing consumers to buy new items quickly by artificially reducing the lifespan of products is hardly new. In 1924, Phoebus, a cartel between Osram, Phillips, Tungsram, and General Electric, insured that light bulbs did not exceed an expected life span of 1,000 hours. This cartel was dissolved in 1939, when Eastern European manufacturers started producing low-cost bulbs.

But today, planned obsolescence has broader and more serious consequences. Electronic waste is a global ecological issue. It raises concern about air pollution, water pollution, soil pollution, information security, and even human exploitation. Air can be polluted when scavengers burn electronic waste to get the copper. If not disposed of properly, toxins from electronic waste can enter the soil and water supplies. And unlike light bulbs, which were engineered to break, much e-waste contains operational devices, which might contain intact data ready to be exploited after discard. The shortened lifespans of electronic devices, encouraged or designed by manufacturers, have pushed consumers to interpret working electronics as insufficient or unusable.

Countries like the United States regulate where and how e-waste gets recycled, but many goods still fill landfills instead. Of the $206 billion spent on consumer electronics in the U.S. in 2012, only 29 percent of the resulting e-waste generated was recycled. The rest were simply trashed. Who even remembers what they did with their first (or third, or fifth) iPhone?

* * *

Who is to blame? Consumers certainly have a role to play in the increase of e-waste-they're buying the goods, after all. But manufacturers have given people fewer and fewer viable ways to keep older electronics functioning effectively. In the process, profits from device sales are way up, along with the satisfaction of these companies' shareholders. It's an impasse, one group pointing to the other as the ultimate source of electronic dross.

For this reason, reducing e-waste cannot fall on the shoulders of consumers or manufacturers alone. One possible alternative is to require producers of electronics to offer buy-back or return systems for old equipment. Export limits could be placed on manufacturers, too, where the quantity of goods that can be exported should be directly proportional to the amount of e-waste the company has recycled or re-used. Then there needs to be an effective way to insure that these returned devices get repurposed. Governments could give some form of tax break or rebate for companies that effectively process old equipment. And companies could reuse recovered parts from discarded goods in newer systems. Partially recycled devices could be sold in markets where buying capacity is limited. Or, they could be marketed as "reclaimed," offering a social benefit even in wealthy markets.

Another option is recommitting to repairing smartphones and computers. Done properly, electronics repair might help reduce unemployment. Companies and NGOs could set up simple training centers where people could learn the skills, and manufacturers could provide better access to repair options and facilities. Government involvement in such programs would be extremely important, as the creation of such centers would need to contribute to broader socio-economic goals. Donors to NGOs might have a role to play in advocating for such change.

Resale is another option. Companies like Ebay and Olx offer the means, but obsolescence still hampers second-hand use. If older devices are not supported by manufacturers and developers, these gadgets end up back in landfills. Emerging economies such as Pakistan and Nigeria, where purchasing power is low, offer promising markets for the reuse of such devices. Pakistan has a thriving second- and third-hand market for older phones already; even older Nokia phones are common, complete with the monochrome snake game.

The conditions at e-waste processing facilities are dire. Devices have to be laboriously manually sorted and then disassembled. Furthermore, used electronic devices contain hazardous materials like mercury, lead, silver, and flame-retardants. They also contain small amounts of valuable raw materials, such as gold, copper, titanium, and platinum; one ton of electronic waste might yield 200 grams of gold. This sometimes makes the business of e-waste recycling unviable. Manufacturers have a role to play here, too: for example, by assisting in the creation of e-waste recycling centers in developing countries rather than using them as dumping sites.

* * *

According to a United Nations Environment Program report titled " Waste Crimes," up to 50 million tons of electronic waste-mainly computers and smartphones-are expected to be dumped in 2017. That's up 20 percent from 2015, when about 41 million tons of electronic waste was discarded, mostly into third world countries serving as global landfills.

Everyone has a role to play in reducing electronic waste. Consumers can resist, or at least delay, acquiring new devices until they really need them. They can repair devices when possible rather than abandoning them. And after a new purchase, they can resell or recycle their old devices. But consumer intervention only goes so far. Governments need to regulate electronic waste, and the companies that make the consumer electronics they sell over and over again to the same people, at great profit.
This article appears courtesy of Object Lessons.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
united nations environment program report

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
shortened lifespans of electronic devices

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Computers, phones, and other digital devices increasingly are made to be thrown away-which is bad for both consumers and the environment. An Object Lesson. Apple has already sold millions of the new iPhone 7, which started shipping this month. For many who bought one, the device replaces a perfectly good, recent model.

# data[].attributes.body
Ask yourself what will happen when 5G technology becomes commonplace! As 5G ramps up, the coming tidal wave of 3G and 4G cell phones meant for disposal is going to drastically increase, marking one of the largest technological changes contemporary consumers have ever seen.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As 5G ramps up in the U.S., the coming tidal wave of 3G and 4G cell phones meant for disposal is going to drastically increase, marking one of the largest technological changes the U.S. has ever seen.
By Arun Karottu and Alex Cummings

The U.S. led the world into the 4G network era in 2011. The result was nearly $100 billion added to the U.S. annual GDP by 2016. The wireless industry was projected to contribute $350 billion in 2016 but instead realized a whopping $445 billion by the end of the year. The number of wireless-related jobs in the U.S. increased by 84 percent between 2011 and 2014. U.S. 4G leadership brought in around $125 billion in revenue to American companies.1 This revenue could easily have gone somewhere else had the U.S. not led the 4G revolution. Now that 5G wireless technology is around the corner, it is no wonder that countries around the globe are competing furiously to become the new leaders in the upcoming wireless revolution.

What is the Expected Impact of 5G?
By some estimates, 5G wireless networks could deliver data at nearly 10 gigabits per second, compared to current 4G networks, which peak at about 100 megabits per second.2 This means 5G will be 100 times faster than 4G. 5G is also expected to have a much lower latency. This means technology could work in fundamentally different ways. Imagine a VR (virtual reality) headset that today needs to be connected to a PC via a USB cable because of the complex computations that need to be performed to make the technology work. In a 5G network, this headset could become untethered with the same computations happening in the cloud. Data could move between the headset and the powerful servers running the computations in the cloud at low latency, possibly enabling new ways in which to use these technologies. It is widely expected that if the U.S. is able to win the 5G race, the impact on the economy will be comparable to that of 4G in the yesteryears.

The Infrastructure Change Required to Enable 5G
While some 5G-enabled devices are already on the market, most current cell phones will not be able to access the 5G network. You will still be able to use these devices on their old networks. But new 5G-enabled phones will be needed to access the 5G network.

5G network infrastructure will also work differently. The 5G network uses smaller cell towers with a shorter range. These cells will need to dispersed across cities and towns in greater density to allow consistent coverage. These small cells will be placed inconspicuously on top of buildings, light poles, etc. As you can imagine, telecom companies will need to install millions of these new towers across cities and towns. Sparsely populated rural areas might not get 5G coverage at all.3

The Ever-Growing Tidal Wave of E-waste
The underlying change in wireless infrastructure will result in more phones, tablets and other cellular devices being discarded than ever before. The upgrades to cell phone towers and other related gear will also add to the tremendous growth of cellular e-waste in the U.S. This has big environmental ramifications.

Under 20 states in the U.S. have landfill disposal bans on electronic items including mobility products such as cell phones and tablets. These bans make it illegal to dispose of cell phones, tablets and other electronics in landfills due to their toxicity. This creates an ever-growing safety concern regarding e-waste contamination in landfills, which can leak into drinking water.

With only about 15 percent of the overall electronics responsibly recycled in the U.S., this creates a major problem for landfills. Proper education to both businesses and consumers is essential to get from 15 percent to 100 percent of properly recycled electronics. Let's also consider that since 2007, Apple4 has sold more than 2.2 billion units around the world. According to Fastcompany.com, the average lifespan of an iPhone is now just two years.5 The study also found that the carbon impact of Information & Communication Industry (ICT) items including cell phones, computers, servers, etc., will go from 1 percent of the overall carbon footprint in 2007 to 14 percent by 2040. The reason being is that cell phones are extremely complicated and use rare materials for components.

The cost to mine material for cell phones versus the cost to harvest components from outdated devices is significant. In fact, they determined that it costs 13 times more to mine material than to simply harvest the same components from retired hardware.6

As more and more people become tech-savvy and want the latest and greatest technology, the 3G/4G phones will make themselves obsolete in the U.S. at rapid pace due to American's insatiable appetite for having the best technology. Not to be overlooked, businesses will also want their employees to have the fastest mobile network in the world to increase productivity time.

Finding the Right ITAD and Electronics Recycling Solutions Provider
What does the 5G revolution mean for your enterprise organization? Lots of mobility turnover will be taking place over the course of the next year as many corporation's update to the latest 5G technology. When looking for a new ITAD provider, consider the following solutions to ensure proper data destruction and recycling of retired cell phones and tablets:
* Remarketing
* Redeployment
* Asset Registration and Serialization
* White-Glove Services
* Data Erasure and Physical Destruction
* Component Harvesting and Electronics Recycling

Finding an ITAD provider that can conduct all the solutions above will ensure brand protection and maximize revenue on your retired mobility products. As for remarketing and resale of retired 3G/4G phones, there are dozens of underdeveloped countries around the world that will still be on the 3G/4G networks. Having a dedicated ITAD provider with B2B and B2C sales channels to these countries will increase revenue on the resale of your mobility products. Your ITAD provider should constantly be monitoring global hardware technology markets and negotiating upwards for increased revenue.

Where Can Tested Working Cell Phones Be Remarketed?
DeviceAtlas7 conducted a worldwide study on the most popular smartphones in 2019 and found that the iPhone 7 is the most widely used cell phone on the market today. In the U.S., they found that iPhones hold the top eight spots ranging from the iPhone 6s to the iPhone XS MAX, in ninth is the Samsung Galaxy S8 and 10th is the Samsung Galaxy S9. In all, iPhones take 10 of the top 12 spots in the most used cell phone category. The iPhone 7 is the most used mobile phone of all in the US with 7.85 percent market share. The Samsung Galaxy S8 has 2.98 percent market share in the ninth position.

With America's insatiable appetite for the latest and greatest technology, millions of 3G/4G mobile phones will be turned in as American's upgrade to the new 5G technology. Those 3G/4G complete testing working cell phones can be lightly refurbished and remarketed/resold to rural parts of the U.S. and international countries without 5G access as they are still widely used around the world. With iPhone 7's still the most used mobile phone on the market today, the need for quality components is still high around the globe to further the lifecycle of those phones.

The 5G revolution may appear to be the death of the 3G/4G phones but in actuality, it's the beginning of global redistribution for these mobile phones and their components, that will greatly help bridge the technology gap around the world. In all, if ITAD and electronics recycling companies position themselves correctly, they can ride the 5G tidal wave and truly make a difference with global remarketing and component harvesting for years to come. | WA
Alex Cummings is a Marketing Specialist, who creates, implements and executes the global marketing and public relations strategy for SMR Worldwide (formerly Smart Metals Recycling) headquartered in Statesville, NC with four additional locations in the U.S. Alex executes SMR's mission on their website, social media, market research, press releases, e-mail campaigns, partnerships, blogs, sales presentations, along with graphic design and content management. He spent the last 15 years in various client services and marketing roles with companies, such as World Racing Group, World of Outlaws, Roush Yates Engines and SRI Performance before finding his purpose in the ITAD and Electronics Recycling Industry. Arun Karottu is the co-founder and CTO of SMR Worldwide. Arun co-founded the company as a dorm-room startup while he was a student at Duke University in 2014. He leads the development of the company's proprietary SmartERP software system. This one-of-a-kind software has helped SMR streamline its operations and provide its customers with real-time data, insights, and transparency into the electronics disposition process like never before. This technology has enabled SMR's meteoric rise to one of the leading ITAD and electronics recycling companies in the U.S. SMR Worldwide's mission is "Transforming yesterday's technology into the supply chain of tomorrow" as they become the world's most disruptive vision for last-mile IT asset management. SMR partners with the world's leading manufacturers, highest volume IT distributors and most privacy-obsessed enterprises. Their focus is to deliver the best turnkey ITAD programs from end-to-end while protecting clients' brand and reputation while minimizing environmental impacts. In the summer of 2019, SMR was placed on the Inc. 5000 list at #1563 in just its 5th year of operation. They are creating new solutions all the time, adding not only new service locations, but also new service capabilities. For more information, call (704) 873-8878, e-mail at info@smr-worldwide.com or visit www.smr-worldwide.com.
Notes
1. https://api.ctia.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Recon-Analytics_How-Americas-4G-Leadership-Propelled-US-Economy_2018.pdf
2. https://howtogeek.com/340002/what-is-5g-and-how-fast-will-it-be/
3. www.celltowerleaseexperts.com/cell-tower-lease-news/5g-cell-towers-are-they-safe-who-decides-where-they-go/
4. www.lifewire.com/how-many-iphones-have-been-sold-1999500
5. www.fastcompany.com/90165365/smartphones-are-wrecking-the-planet-faster-than-anyone-expected
6. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/04/180404093956.htm
7. https://deviceatlas.com/blog/most-popular-smartphones

You may also like:
The Internet of Trash: IoT Has a Looming E-Waste Problem How to Recycle Your Old Phone, Laptop and Other Electronics without Harming the Environment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The 5G Revolution and What it Means for E-Waste - Waste Advantage Magazine

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As 5G ramps up in the U.S., the coming tidal wave of 3G and 4G cell phones meant for disposal is going to drastically increase, marking one of the largest technological changes the U.S. has ever seen. By Arun Karottu and Alex Cummings The U.S. led the world into the 4G network era in 2011.

# data[].attributes.headline
GOVERNMENT - STIMULATE DESIGNERS, DISCUSSION AND AWARENESS

# data[].attributes.subject
GOVERNMENT - STIMULATE DESIGNERS, DISCUSSION AND AWARENESS

# data[].attributes.body
The E-WASTE DESIGN CHALLENGE 2020 includes aims of accelerating electronics sustainability and environmental stewardship in Australia and New Zealand

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The E-Waste Challenge

Creative Victoria and the NGV are proud to announce the shortlist of the 2020 Victorian Design Challenge - the E-Waste Challenge, which this year is focused on reducing, recovering and eliminating e-waste. The level of innovative and creative design solutions submitted across all three categories demonstrated a depth of practical understanding and willingness to research, test and experiment with ideas to develop practical, inventive and implementable solutions to this complex problem.

On Wed 18 March 2020, as part of Melbourne Design Week, shortlisted teams will pitch their design solutions to the Jury and a live audience on stage in the Great Hall to win a share of over $25,000 in prizes and be crowned E-Waste Challenge champions.

Congratulations to the Victorian Design Challenge 2020 shortlist:

Professional Category

Derek Oskar Raj Zari
CECIL
Relectrify
Sam Barrett
Vert Design
Bryan Chung

Tertiary Student

Henry Blain, RMIT University
Circo, RMIT University
MangoMen, Monash University
Phoebe Richardson, RMIT University

Primary/ Secondary Student

Finlay Van Lieshout
Mill Park Library Makers Club

The Victorian Design Challenge runs as a two-stage design competition with Round One being an open call for design submissions. A judging panel chaired by Craig Reucassel, host of the ABC's War on Waste, will shortlist up to five submissions from the professional category (national) and up to three submissions from each student category (Victoria only) to go through to Round Two - a live 'pitch' presentation at the NGV during Melbourne Design Week 12-22 March 2020.

The winning designs from each category will be selected by the judging panel after the live pitch. Winners will receive support tailored for each category to prototype and further their idea including a $20,000 prize for the winning professional design idea and $5,000 for the wining tertiary student design idea.

The Challenge has been developed in association with the Ewaste Watch Institute - a not-for-profit organisation focused on accelerating electronics sustainability and environmental stewardship in Australia and New Zealand.

Any changes to the details of the competition will be supplied to directly to registered participants.

Craig Reucassel, Presenter, War on Waste (chair)
Bas van Abel, Founder, Fairphone, the Netherlands
Rose Read, Director and Co-founder, Ewaste Watch Institute
Richard Hoare, Design and Innovation Director, Breville Group Ltd
Ewan McEoin, The Hugh Williamson Senior Curator, Contemporary Design and Architecture, NGV

Winners of the national professional category will receive:

$20,000 cash to support the development and delivery of their project;

Exclusive Growth Accelerator workshop and 6 hours of mentorship over 12 months from EY's Climate Change and Sustainability Services team to guide further development of the project toward implementation;

Winner's certificate for their project as the E-Waste Challenge Professional winner;

NGV prize pack for listed team members.

Winner of the tertiary student category will receive:

$5000 cash to support the development and delivery of the project;

Winner's certificate for their project as the E-Waste Challenge Tertiary winner;

Exclusive Growth Accelerator workshop and 6 x 1-hour mentorship session from EY's Climate Change and Sustainability Services team to guide further development of the project toward implementation;

NGV prize pack for listed team members.

Winner of the school student category will receive:

One day tailored education package at the NGV, including learning resources, curatorial talk, exhibition tour, lunch, transport and teacher costs; and

Winner's certificate for their project as the E-Waste Challenge School winner;

NGV prize pack for listed team members and supervising teacher(s).

Partners and Supporters

The NGV Department of Contemporary Design and Architecture is generously supported by The Hugh D. T. Williamson Foundation.

Melbourne Design Week and the Victorian Design Program are initiatives of the Victorian Government

The Victorian Design Challenge Competition process is developed and delivered by CityLab.

Image: Formafantasma, 2017, Taxonomy, 01_05_58'' from Ore Streams. National Gallery of Victoria, Melbourne

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The E-Waste Challenge Creative Victoria and the NGV are proud to announce the shortlist of the 2020 Victorian Design Challenge - the E-Waste Challenge, which this year is focused on reducing, recovering and eliminating e-waste.

# data[].attributes.body
We must transform all the elements of the take-make-waste system: how we manage resources, how we make and use products, and what we do with the materials afterwards. Design out waste and pollution.
adopt the circular economy system which aims to keep the value in products for as long as possible and eliminate waste. In this regard, countries should come up with legislation to promote circular economy models in which the e-waste is treated as resource rather than waste. They should promote the reusing, repairing, redistributing, refurbishing, remanufacturing prior to recycling of materials. In addition, an efficient management system is required to divert the formal take-back system and avoid e-waste entering other channels, such dustbins or substandard recycling. Valuable materials are easily lost due to imperfect separation and treatment processes. These solutions should be coupled with an optimized design of the electric and electronic equipment to enable the disassembly and reuse of components, or the recovery of valuable and precious materials.
Circular economy models should allow the increase in value of EEE when wasted, while reducing the environmental pressures that are linked to resource extraction, emissions, and waste. Closing the loop of materials implies the reduction in the need for new raw materials, waste disposal, and energy, while creating economic growth, new “green” jobs, and business opportunities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The transition to a circular economy is underway across industries, sectors and communities, however the pace of policy reform, design outcomes and practical action in Australia varies considerably.
A key question is whether the initiatives - existing or proposed - can deliver against the fundamental principles of what constitutes a circular economy, or are they yesterday's recycling projects rebranded to appear more 'circular'.

Muscled-up resourced recovery programs in isolation of focused activity at the top of the waste hierarchy will be impotent in the absence of much more attention to how products are conceived, designed and consumed.

While better product design is cited in circular economy policy-speak, it is treated superficially with the aim of including the 'right' language. There is little evidence in Australia and New Zealand, that the required investment, incentives, training, policies and regulations are being used to activate circular design and therefore greater attention to waste avoidance.

In many ways design is the key to shaping a sustainable future and eliminating problems from the outset. Creating long-life products and high utility services that are regenerative, restorative and waste free are a major part of the solution. Designing-out toxics and pollution is the positive disruption needed to make a difference.

If design initiatives embody and demonstrate the ability to lock-out waste, toxics and pollution, maximise the longevity of products, keep materials in use and regenerate natural systems, then we're on the right track. Similarly, if government policies and programs can go beyond conventional resource recovery and market development projects with a view to design-oriented investment and incentives, then positive change is likely, albeit with challenges along the way.
The menace of premature obsolescence
Premature obsolescence of manufactured durables, including electrical and electronic products, is an obvious contributor to waste generation and the loss of otherwise reusable components and recyclable materials. Indeed some critics argue that recycling has evolved into a convenient excuse for brands and manufacturers to build-in premature obsolescence and render products disposable well ahead of what most consumers expect, and this especially relates to electronics - the fastest growing waste stream in the world.

Any conceptual illustration of the circular economy places design for product durability, reuse, repair and the sharing economy as essential activities. It underscores the role of design as critical enabler of circular outcomes and alternative business models aimed at new patterns of consumption. It's not just a simplistic argument about consuming less; it's about how we act intelligently to decouple resource consumption (and its impacts) from economic growth.
The Victorian Design Challenge focused on Ewaste
With increased attention on the role of design we can truly think system-wide to activate circular action, and the 2020 Victorian Design Challenge is highlighting the capacity and capability of our designers, design students, engineers and innovators to engage with ewaste and its elimination. It's about big ideas to deal with big impacts and accelerate electronics sustainability by design.
For more information look here: 2020 Ewaste Challenge
As part of Melbourne Design Week, the National Gallery of Victoria will host the third annual Victorian Design Challenge. School students (primary and secondary), professional designers, engineers, entrepreneurs and innovators are invited to apply design thinking and processes in targeting real-world problems.

Creative Victoria and the NGV are offering a $20,000 major prize for the best design idea addressing one of Australia's fastest growing waste problems - ewaste.

The E-Waste Challenge aims to highlight the capacity and responsibility of designers to contribute to shifting behaviour, raising awareness, redesigning products, or devising smart end-of-life solutions that reduce the negative impacts of e-waste.

The Challenge has been developed in association with the Ewaste Watch Institute - a not-for-profit organisation focused on accelerating electronics sustainability, circular design and environmental stewardship. We are very excited to be assisting with this major initiative.

The Ewaste Challenge is a great opportunity to demonstrate specific solutions that maximise the value and durability of products, close the loop on materials, or maybe redesign systems and services to introduce new business models that enable sharing, leasing and dematerialisation.

The products we enjoy, consume and discard reflect our culture and values, so the time has come to elevate the importance of design to effectively address waste-related impacts and issues.

As a discipline that brings a creative dimension to utility and function, there is no doubt that design can shape a future that is socially responsible, ecologically essential, economically sensible and, of course, culturally desirable.
Acknowledgements
Register for the Challenge ASAP noting the deadline for entries is 1 November 2020.

Presented by the National Gallery of Victoria in partnership with Creative Victoria.

Melbourne Design Week and the Victorian Design Program are initiatives of the Victorian Government.

Supported by the Ewaste Watch Institute, the Design Institute of Australia and EY.

The Victorian Design Challenge Competition process is developed and delivered by CityLab

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Designing-out toxics and pollution is the positive disruption needed to make a difference

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Design is the key to shaping a sustainable future and eliminating problems from the outset. Creating long-life products and high utility services that are regenerative, restorative and waste free are a major part of the solution. Designing-out toxics and pollution is the positive disruption needed to make a difference.

# data[].attributes.headline
GOVERNMENT - INCREASE EFFORTS TOWARDS PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP

# data[].attributes.subject
GOVERNMENT - INCREASE EFFORTS TOWARDS PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP

# data[].attributes.body
The Product Stewardship Act  came into effect on 8 August 2011. This legislation (set of laws) provides the framework to effectively manage the environmental, health and safety impacts of products, and in particular those impacts associated with the disposal of products.
Maybe we need to move from voluntary product stewardship to mandatory i.e. compulsory?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Latest news

Celebrating 21 Years of MobileMuster - A product stewardship success story

MobileMuster celebrated 21 years of successful operation of their national stewardship scheme for mobile phones.

Car seat recycling to protect young lives

Motoring groups and the child car seat industry have come together for the first time to adopt a "Seat Care" program that makes it easy for parents and families to dispose of old and potentially dangerous child safety seats for recycling.

What is product stewardship?

Product stewardship is an approach to managing the impacts of different products and materials. It acknowledges that those involved in producing, selling, using and disposing of products have a shared responsibility to ensure that those products or materials are managed in a way that reduces their impact, throughout their lifecycle, on the environment and on human health and safety.

The Australian Government administers two pieces of legislation for product stewardship: the Product Stewardship Act 2011 and the Product Stewardship (Oil) Act 2000. It also supports the Australian Packaging Covenant, which is underpinned by the National Environment Protection (Used Packaging Materials) Measure 2011.

Product Stewardship Act

The Product Stewardship Act 2011 provides the framework to effectively manage the environmental, health and safety impacts of products, and in particular those impacts associated with the disposal of products. The Act provides a flexible and practical approach to product stewardship by recognising that each product, material and industry is unique. It allows products to be regulated or product stewardship arrangements to be accredited by the Australian Government. The framework includes voluntary, co-regulatory and mandatory product stewardship.

Voluntary product stewardship

Industries can voluntarily take action to reduce the impact their products have on the environment, health and safety, by forming product stewardship arrangements. These industry-led and funded schemes enable products to be managed sustainably without the need for regulation. Industries can seek Australian Government voluntary product stewardship accreditation for their schemes. Accredited schemes are monitored to ensure they are achieving agreed outcomes.

Co-regulatory product stewardship

Co-regulatory product stewardship schemes are a combination of industry action and Australian Government regulation. Government sets the minimum outcomes and operational requirements, while industry has some discretion about how those requirements and outcomes are achieved.

The National Television and Computer Scheme is a successful and well-established co-regulatory product stewardship scheme under the Act.

Mandatory product stewardship

Mandatory product stewardship places a legal obligation on parties to take certain actions in relation to a product that leave little or no discretion on how the requirements are to be met. There are currently no fully mandatory product stewardship schemes in place under the Act.

Product Stewardship (Oil) Act

The Product Stewardship (Oil) Act 2000 establishes the general framework for the Product Stewardship for Oil Scheme. This scheme provides incentives to increase used oil recycling, and encourages environmentally sustainable management and re-refining of used oil.

Australian Packaging Covenant

The Australian Packaging Covenant is a cooperative arrangement between industry and Australian, state and territory governments that is underpinned by the National Environment Protection (Used Packaging Materials) Measure 2011. The Covenant operates to reduce the environmental impacts of consumer packaging, including plastics, paper and cardboard, by changing the culture of businesses to design more sustainable packaging, increase recycling rates and reduce litter.

Further information

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
MobileMuster celebrated 21 years of successful operation of their national stewardship scheme for mobile phones. Motoring groups and the child car seat industry have come together for the first time to adopt a "Seat Care" program that makes it easy for parents and families to dispose of old and potentially dangerous child safety seats for recycling.

# data[].attributes.headline
GOVERNMENT - EDUCATE CONSUMERS TO BECOME MORE RESPONSIBLE

# data[].attributes.subject
GOVERNMENT - EDUCATE CONSUMERS TO BECOME MORE RESPONSIBLE

# data[].attributes.body
Australians are great at recycling paper and bottles and cardboard and we just need to get them to think about how they can reduce, reuse and recycle.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Education resources for schools teachers and students - ABC Education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
ABC Education has 5000+ educational games, videos and teaching resources for schools and students. Free Primary and Secondary resources covering history, science, English, maths and more

# data[].attributes.headline
ECONOMIC - HIGH COSTS OF POLICING THE DUMPING OF E-WASTE

# data[].attributes.subject
ECONOMIC - HIGH COSTS OF POLICING THE DUMPING OF E-WASTE

# data[].attributes.body
Many people think countries should just enforce laws to stop e-waste dumping but to adopt new laws and enforce them costs large amounts of money. Even really rich countries like those of Europe have found the costs of dealing with their e-waste or preventing all those illegal exports of e-waste as harsh. So you can imagine what it would look like for a poor country in Africa to cover these costs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Societies are producing more and more electronic goods, and therefore more and more electronic waste, or e-waste. The United Nations' Environment Program has released a report that warns of a dangerous rise in the amount of such waste, which is often simply dumped in developing countries, posing health hazards to residents.

Every year the world produces 40 million tons of electronic waste: from TVs to refrigerators to cell phones and computers. And this figure will only increase.

For instance, by 2020, China is expected to throw away seven times more cell phones than now, and India 18 times more.

These high-technology goods not only are bulky, they often contain toxic materials such as lead and mercury. If the e-waste is not taken care of properly, it can cause pollution and health hazards.

The Basel Action Network is a private group focused on halting the trade in toxic goods, particularly waste goods. Executive director Jim Puckett says the world needs to take urgent measures to end toxic trash.

"The industry has built in obsolescence unfortunately, so we're seeing things become waste quicker than every before," Puckett said. "Computers now have a life span of about two years now in the North; many mobile phones are turned over within six months when somebody wants to newest model. So we are creating a mountain and we're not going to stop people from consuming. So the first thing we need to do is to get the toxic materials out of the equation".

The issue of e-waste is one of several topics being discussed this week at the United Nation Program for Environment's conference in Nusa Dua, Indonesia.

Achim Steiner, the agency's secretary-general, says much of the e-waste should be recycled. Beyond the environmental reasons, there is also an economic incentive, he says: for example, three percent of the gold and silver mined worldwide is used in personal computers and mobile phones.

"If you start investing and recycling and reusing these materials, you actually begin to look at turning a problem into an opportunity; you start creating jobs, you start reducing the amount of metals that leaves the cycle of our economy, you can reuse them," Steiner said. "So those are all advantages if you begin to manage electronic waste not as we see from industrialized countries to least developed countries without legislation. It is actually being dumped in the backyards of the slums of this world."

The Basel Convention is an international agreement setting global guidelines on handling e-waste. But it is not without weaknesses.

The United States, the single largest producer of e-waste, has never ratified the convention. Also, e-waste has become a highly profitable illegal trade. Some companies get rid of their trash by exporting it to poor countries where, instead of being treated or recycled, it piles up in landfills, and the toxic materials can leach out into water and soil.

"One example that happened in West Africa: they export obsolete cars, and they stuff the cars with obsolete computers hidden in the cars. So we have all those ingenious schemes to do it. And it is actually in that sense very comparable to arms smuggling, and drug smuggling because the incentives are financial and a huge business is to be found in this," said Katharina Kummer, the executive secretary of the Basel Convention.

The problem today is compounded by the growing complexity of the trade. E-waste used to be produced by developed nations and then dumped in poor countries. But today poor countries without recycling capacity export their e-waste to nations like China, and emerging economies are also increasingly net producers of e-waste: China for example has become the second larger producer after the United States.

Katharina Kummer says there remain limits to how much the traffic can be curbed.

"The responsibility of the countries is to adopt legislation and to enforce it," Kummer said. "The problem though is that it requires a huge amount of money, and even the highest developed countries, like the countries of the European Union, do not have the necessary resources to prevent all those illegal exports from happening. So you can imagine what it would look like for a poor country in Africa for example or a poor country from another part of the world".

Electronic waste is more than an economical problem. It also affects the health of millions of people who make a living by stripping out the waste dumped in their countries. Environmental experts say it will take new funds and manpower to solve the problem, by establishing safe recycling facilities and curbing illegal exports.

Related Stories

Both environmentalists and industry executives agree biodegradable plastics will need to play a larger role in industry's future

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
E-Waste Creates Economic, Environmental Problem for Developing Nations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Societies are producing more and more electronic goods, and therefore more and more electronic waste, or e-waste. The United Nations' Environment Program has released a report that warns of a dangerous rise in the amount of such waste, which is often simply dumped in developing countries, posing health hazards to residents.

# data[].attributes.headline
MANUFACTURERS - TAKE ON MORE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAKING ECONOMY MORE CIRCULAR

# data[].attributes.subject
MANUFACTURERS - TAKE ON MORE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAKING ECONOMY MORE CIRCULAR

# data[].attributes.body
Some manufacturers charge clients to collect their electronics and to securely wipe their data; the company then also makes money from refurbishing and reselling devices.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With people upgrading to new technology they aren't considering the environmental impact and how electronic waste is a global problem.

# data[].attributes.body
Americans spent $71 billion on telephone and communication equipment in 2017, nearly five times what they spent in 2010. Many of us demand constant innovation and updates. Manufacturers are very willing to respond to consumer demand.
When we buy something new, we get rid of what’s old. That cycle of consumption has made electronics waste the world’s fastest-growing solid-waste stream.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With people upgrading to new technology they aren't considering the environmental impact and how electronic waste is a global problem.

# data[].attributes.headline
GOVERNMENT - MAKE PLANNED OBSOLESCENCE A CRIME

# data[].attributes.subject
GOVERNMENT - MAKE PLANNED OBSOLESCENCE A CRIME

# data[].attributes.body
Under French law it is a crime to intentionally shorten lifespan of a product with the aim of making customers replace it. Penalties could include up to 5% of annual turnover or even a jail term.

In December 2018, Apple admitted that older iPhone models were deliberately slowed down through software updates. They issued an apology, slashed the price of replacing an aged battery by two-thirds, which it said would restore devices and promised  to be more transparent in future.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
French prosecutors have launched a probe over allegations of "planned obsolescence" in Apple's iPhone.

Under French law it is a crime to intentionally shorten lifespan of a product with the aim of making customers replace it.

In December, Apple admitted that older iPhone models were deliberately slowed down through software updates.

But it insisted it was because the phones' battery performance diminished over time.

The French investigation is being led by the economy ministry's consumer protection agency.

It follows a legal complaint filed in December by pro-consumer group Stop Planned Obsolescence (Hop).

Hop said France was the third country to investigate Apple after Israel and the US, but the only one in which the alleged offence was a crime. Penalties could include up to 5% of annual turnover or even a jail term.

The group alleged that Apple had both deliberately slowed down some iPhone models through a software update and timed the update to coincide with the release of the newer model, the iPhone 8.

"The slowing down of older devices seems to have the deliberate aim of pushing Apple customers towards purchasing the new model," the group said.

Hop has previously filed legal complaints against printer manufacturers Epson, Canon, HP and Brother, alleging that the firms deliberately shorten the life of print cartridges.

Apple apologises for iPhone slowdowns

Is Apple getting sloppy?

Buyers of the iPhone have shared anecdotes about the devices slowing down with age for many years.

The company issued a public apology in December when confirmation came from users running in-depth tests on their own devices and publishing the results.

Apple said the update was designed to extend the life of older phones as their batteries became less capable of providing the power for high-speed operations.

"Lithium-ion batteries become less capable of supplying peak current demands... as they age over time, which can result in the device unexpectedly shutting down to protect its electronic components," the company said.

It said its update was made "to smooth out the instantaneous peaks only when needed".

It slashed the price of replacing an aged battery by two-thirds, which it said would restore devices to their former speed, and pledged to be more transparent in future.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
French prosecutors have launched a probe over allegations of "planned obsolescence" in Apple's iPhone. Under French law it is a crime to intentionally shorten lifespan of a product with the aim of making customers replace it. In December, Apple admitted that older iPhone models were deliberately slowed down through software updates.

# data[].attributes.body
Safety concerns arise because e-waste also contains hazardous constituents such as lead, mercury, and chromium, certain chemicals in plastics, and flame retardants. Possible impacts and may include changes in thyroid function, altered cellular expression and function, adverse neonatal outcomes, cognitive and behavioral changes, and decreased lung function. from

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With the usage of electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) on the rise, the amount of electrical and electronic waste (e-waste) produced each day is equally growing enormously around the globe. Recycling of valuable elements contained in e-waste such as copper and gold has become a source of income mostly in the informal sector of developing or emerging industrialized countries.

# data[].attributes.headline
GOVERNMENT - LEGISLATION - Product Stewardship Act 2011 (Australia)

# data[].attributes.subject
GOVERNMENT - LEGISLATION - Product Stewardship Act 2011 (Australia)

# data[].attributes.body
The Act provides a flexible and practical approach to product stewardship by recognizing that each product, material and industry is unique. It allows products to be regulated or product stewardship arrangements to be accredited by the Australian Government.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Latest news

Celebrating 21 Years of MobileMuster - A product stewardship success story

MobileMuster celebrated 21 years of successful operation of their national stewardship scheme for mobile phones.

Car seat recycling to protect young lives

Motoring groups and the child car seat industry have come together for the first time to adopt a "Seat Care" program that makes it easy for parents and families to dispose of old and potentially dangerous child safety seats for recycling.

What is product stewardship?

Product stewardship is an approach to managing the impacts of different products and materials. It acknowledges that those involved in producing, selling, using and disposing of products have a shared responsibility to ensure that those products or materials are managed in a way that reduces their impact, throughout their lifecycle, on the environment and on human health and safety.

The Australian Government administers two pieces of legislation for product stewardship: the Product Stewardship Act 2011 and the Product Stewardship (Oil) Act 2000. It also supports the Australian Packaging Covenant, which is underpinned by the National Environment Protection (Used Packaging Materials) Measure 2011.

Product Stewardship Act

The Product Stewardship Act 2011 provides the framework to effectively manage the environmental, health and safety impacts of products, and in particular those impacts associated with the disposal of products. The Act provides a flexible and practical approach to product stewardship by recognising that each product, material and industry is unique. It allows products to be regulated or product stewardship arrangements to be accredited by the Australian Government. The framework includes voluntary, co-regulatory and mandatory product stewardship.

Voluntary product stewardship

Industries can voluntarily take action to reduce the impact their products have on the environment, health and safety, by forming product stewardship arrangements. These industry-led and funded schemes enable products to be managed sustainably without the need for regulation. Industries can seek Australian Government voluntary product stewardship accreditation for their schemes. Accredited schemes are monitored to ensure they are achieving agreed outcomes.

Co-regulatory product stewardship

Co-regulatory product stewardship schemes are a combination of industry action and Australian Government regulation. Government sets the minimum outcomes and operational requirements, while industry has some discretion about how those requirements and outcomes are achieved.

The National Television and Computer Scheme is a successful and well-established co-regulatory product stewardship scheme under the Act.

Mandatory product stewardship

Mandatory product stewardship places a legal obligation on parties to take certain actions in relation to a product that leave little or no discretion on how the requirements are to be met. There are currently no fully mandatory product stewardship schemes in place under the Act.

Product Stewardship (Oil) Act

The Product Stewardship (Oil) Act 2000 establishes the general framework for the Product Stewardship for Oil Scheme. This scheme provides incentives to increase used oil recycling, and encourages environmentally sustainable management and re-refining of used oil.

Australian Packaging Covenant

The Australian Packaging Covenant is a cooperative arrangement between industry and Australian, state and territory governments that is underpinned by the National Environment Protection (Used Packaging Materials) Measure 2011. The Covenant operates to reduce the environmental impacts of consumer packaging, including plastics, paper and cardboard, by changing the culture of businesses to design more sustainable packaging, increase recycling rates and reduce litter.

Further information

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
MobileMuster celebrated 21 years of successful operation of their national stewardship scheme for mobile phones. Motoring groups and the child car seat industry have come together for the first time to adopt a "Seat Care" program that makes it easy for parents and families to dispose of old and potentially dangerous child safety seats for recycling.

# data[].attributes.headline
CHEAPER TO REPLACE THAN REPAIR - ECONOMICS OF GADGETS ENCOURAGES DISPOSAL

# data[].attributes.subject
CHEAPER TO REPLACE THAN REPAIR - ECONOMICS OF GADGETS ENCOURAGES DISPOSAL

# data[].attributes.body
It is often cheaper to replace an appliance than to repair it or replace parts. This saves the consumer money. The economics of gadgets encourages disposal.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Computers, phones, and other digital devices increasingly are made to be thrown away-which is bad for both consumers and the environment. An Object Lesson.

Michael Conroy / AP

Apple has already sold millions of the new iPhone 7, which started shipping this month. For many who bought one, the device replaces a perfectly good, recent model. True, after a couple years an iPhone might start showing signs of wear: The home button sticks, or the glass might be cracked. Some of these defects can be repaired, although few choose repair over upgrade. Others are caused by planned obsolescence. For example, Apple's latest operating system, iOS 10, makes extensive use of haptic features that require an iPhone 6s-a device released just last year.

And so people replace things: smartphones, tablets, phablets, laptops, LEDs, LCDs, DVD players, portable music players. Whether from breakdown, slow-down, or just the availability of a newer model, people discard electronics at the slightest inconvenience. It's not just laziness or a lust for the future, either; the economics of gadgets encourages disposal. In some cases, for example, buying a new printer is cheaper than buying a set of new ink cartridges.

The increase in consumption of electronics has two major adverse ecological effects. First, it significantly increases mining and procurement for the materials needed for production of gadgets. And second, discarded devices produce large quantities of electronic waste. That waste could be reduced through reuse, repair, or resale. Whether it ever will be is an open question.

More in this series

* * *

Electronics have always produced waste, but the quantity and speed of discard has increased rapidly in recent years. There was a time when households would keep televisions for more than a decade. But thanks to changes in technology and consumer demand, there is hardly any device now that persists for more than a couple of years in the hands of the original owner. As per the report of ENDS Europe agency, built-in obsolescence increased the proportions of all units sold to replace defective appliances from 3.5 percent in 2004 to 8.3 percent in 2012. The share of large household appliances that had to be replaced within the first five years grew from 7 percent of total replacements in 2004 to 13 percent in 2013. According to a 2014 Gallup poll, 89 percent of young adults (18 to 29) own smartphones; 41 percent of the older generation owned VCRs at the same age.

The widespread use of semi-conductors and entrance of new players from Brazil, China, and India has made the manufacturing of portable devices relatively inexpensive, and the difficulty, inconvenience, or high cost of repair has made new purchases more economical. Manufacturers have also used software updates to privilege newer models of smartphones and computers, invisibly pressuring consumers to buy new devices just to maintain parity of experience. And companies have also increasingly ended support for older models or the operating systems that run on them. WhatsApp and Facebook, for example, recently announced that they will stop providing support for their apps on certain older models of Blackberry.

Following the lead set by razor blades, printer manufacturers have realized that they can make more money selling ink and toner than the printer hardware itself. According to a Financial Times report, a gallon of ink for the typical printer costs the consumer around $8,000. But the prices of printers are so low that once their initial ink supply is spent, the consumer is tempted to buy a whole new machine.

This idea of pushing consumers to buy new items quickly by artificially reducing the lifespan of products is hardly new. In 1924, Phoebus, a cartel between Osram, Phillips, Tungsram, and General Electric, insured that light bulbs did not exceed an expected life span of 1,000 hours. This cartel was dissolved in 1939, when Eastern European manufacturers started producing low-cost bulbs.

But today, planned obsolescence has broader and more serious consequences. Electronic waste is a global ecological issue. It raises concern about air pollution, water pollution, soil pollution, information security, and even human exploitation. Air can be polluted when scavengers burn electronic waste to get the copper. If not disposed of properly, toxins from electronic waste can enter the soil and water supplies. And unlike light bulbs, which were engineered to break, much e-waste contains operational devices, which might contain intact data ready to be exploited after discard. The shortened lifespans of electronic devices, encouraged or designed by manufacturers, have pushed consumers to interpret working electronics as insufficient or unusable.

Countries like the United States regulate where and how e-waste gets recycled, but many goods still fill landfills instead. Of the $206 billion spent on consumer electronics in the U.S. in 2012, only 29 percent of the resulting e-waste generated was recycled. The rest were simply trashed. Who even remembers what they did with their first (or third, or fifth) iPhone?

* * *

Who is to blame? Consumers certainly have a role to play in the increase of e-waste-they're buying the goods, after all. But manufacturers have given people fewer and fewer viable ways to keep older electronics functioning effectively. In the process, profits from device sales are way up, along with the satisfaction of these companies' shareholders. It's an impasse, one group pointing to the other as the ultimate source of electronic dross.

For this reason, reducing e-waste cannot fall on the shoulders of consumers or manufacturers alone. One possible alternative is to require producers of electronics to offer buy-back or return systems for old equipment. Export limits could be placed on manufacturers, too, where the quantity of goods that can be exported should be directly proportional to the amount of e-waste the company has recycled or re-used. Then there needs to be an effective way to insure that these returned devices get repurposed. Governments could give some form of tax break or rebate for companies that effectively process old equipment. And companies could reuse recovered parts from discarded goods in newer systems. Partially recycled devices could be sold in markets where buying capacity is limited. Or, they could be marketed as "reclaimed," offering a social benefit even in wealthy markets.

Another option is recommitting to repairing smartphones and computers. Done properly, electronics repair might help reduce unemployment. Companies and NGOs could set up simple training centers where people could learn the skills, and manufacturers could provide better access to repair options and facilities. Government involvement in such programs would be extremely important, as the creation of such centers would need to contribute to broader socio-economic goals. Donors to NGOs might have a role to play in advocating for such change.

Resale is another option. Companies like Ebay and Olx offer the means, but obsolescence still hampers second-hand use. If older devices are not supported by manufacturers and developers, these gadgets end up back in landfills. Emerging economies such as Pakistan and Nigeria, where purchasing power is low, offer promising markets for the reuse of such devices. Pakistan has a thriving second- and third-hand market for older phones already; even older Nokia phones are common, complete with the monochrome snake game.

The conditions at e-waste processing facilities are dire. Devices have to be laboriously manually sorted and then disassembled. Furthermore, used electronic devices contain hazardous materials like mercury, lead, silver, and flame-retardants. They also contain small amounts of valuable raw materials, such as gold, copper, titanium, and platinum; one ton of electronic waste might yield 200 grams of gold. This sometimes makes the business of e-waste recycling unviable. Manufacturers have a role to play here, too: for example, by assisting in the creation of e-waste recycling centers in developing countries rather than using them as dumping sites.

* * *

According to a United Nations Environment Program report titled " Waste Crimes," up to 50 million tons of electronic waste-mainly computers and smartphones-are expected to be dumped in 2017. That's up 20 percent from 2015, when about 41 million tons of electronic waste was discarded, mostly into third world countries serving as global landfills.

Everyone has a role to play in reducing electronic waste. Consumers can resist, or at least delay, acquiring new devices until they really need them. They can repair devices when possible rather than abandoning them. And after a new purchase, they can resell or recycle their old devices. But consumer intervention only goes so far. Governments need to regulate electronic waste, and the companies that make the consumer electronics they sell over and over again to the same people, at great profit.
This article appears courtesy of Object Lessons.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
united nations environment program report

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
shortened lifespans of electronic devices

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Computers, phones, and other digital devices increasingly are made to be thrown away-which is bad for both consumers and the environment. An Object Lesson. Apple has already sold millions of the new iPhone 7, which started shipping this month. For many who bought one, the device replaces a perfectly good, recent model.