In business, it is said, if you fail to plan, you plan to fail. However, this is not the case for planned obsolescence, where planned failure is factored in at product design stage. As we are to be subjected to ever more stringent and punitive climate change measures, the increasing use of precious finite resources of all types in planned obsolescence barely rates a mention whereas the two are intrinsically linked.
The deliberate limiting of a product’s lifespan goes back to the 1920s when incandescent lightbulbs were deliberately designed to fail after 1,000 hours use, a calculated drop from the standard of 1,500 to 2,000 hours. The Phoebus Cartel, which included Osram, GE, Philips, and Compagnie des Lampes were the first to develop what became known as Planned Obsolescence. It was “a policy of producing consumer goods that rapidly become obsolete and so require replacing, achieved by frequent changes in design, termination of the supply of spare parts, and the use of non-durable materials.”
Lightbulb moments were not alone in this strategy.
The planned obsolescence of cars dates back to 1924, when General Motors announced the launch of cars with new design changes to motivate the consumers to either replace their old car with a new model or buy a new car entirely.
Bing.com
Today we purchase and repurchase, with monotonous regularity, products, most incorporating electronic componentry, and with no surprise from the retailer that the item has failed the day after the warranty expired.
The use of minerals, fossil fuels, assorted resources, and manpower, are all wastefully expended to meet the planned failure of each item. Yet in New Zealand, as farming has the guts ripped out of it to meet unrealistic and punitive emissions targets assigned by a virtue-signalling Prime Minister, we hear nothing about the fact that part of the solution towards a sustainable future comes significantly from sustainable design and reduced obsolescence.
We are participants in a scam that wants increased purchase cost, purchase regularity, and increased sales volume. It is all in the bottom line via the initial design and manufacture of every purchase we make. We are conditioned to be repeat buyers, like it or not. The economy depends on it.
We also fall victim to perceived obsolescence, the need to have the newer model, the bigger or smaller, the upgrade, the improved. The ones the early adopters cannot wait to get their hands on.
The iPhone is Apple’s cash cow – it is ironic that this country is to be forced to decrease ruminant numbers, while “research shows that New Zealand beef and lamb are among the most carbon efficient in the world”.
The loss of how many cows will it take to ideologically compensate for that new iPhone?
Year after year, like clockwork, Apple announces a new iPhone every September.
Apple has the production capacity to make up to 500,000 iPhones per day in China. And all iPhones in circulation today started life in China, making their way out of the country on specially designed planes before being delivered to depots around the world for distribution.
knowyourmobile.com
We are living in a fool’s paradise if we believe that the use of fossil fuels will be cleanly and virtuously replaced by so-called renewables in new product development in the pursuit of a brave new world. No resource is infinite. Minerals are not infinite. Nor is their collection and processing for the manufacture of goods without problems.
The electronics manufacturing sector is a large emitter of greenhouse gases. For example, according to the EPA, electronics manufacturing emitted 6.1 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2017. Semiconductor manufacturing, which is required for many electronics, makes up most of these emissions. As of January 2022, most semiconductors are made in China, which raises particular environmental concern due to the relative lack of environmental regulation for Chinese industry. Even electronics companies that undergo quality control inspections in China may not truly account for the impacts of semiconductor production on climate change and the environment as a whole.
thesustainabilitycooperative.net
Why do we continue to blame ruminants? Why do we not assess the e-waste from electronic graveyards that are the resting place for all that electronic wizardry? Or the tonnes of methane generated every day all day from landfill? And disposable nappies; 20 billion into landfill each year worldwide, each taking some 500 years to decompose.
Disposability and planned obsolescence are the basis of the commercial world, and our entire economy is based on those commandments.
If we want to reverse the ecological catastrophe engulfing our planet, we must refocus attention on what is produced and how.
The Guardian
And EV’s?
In the rush to embrace this technology, auto companies are adopting the same pretence that has been embraced by the plastics industry: They are claiming that used batteries will be recycled. However, the truth is being swept under the rug. None of the lithium-ion batteries in electric vehicles are recyclable in the same sense that paper, glass, and lead car batteries are. Although efforts to improve recycling methods are underway, generally only around half the materials in these batteries is currently extracted and repurposed. And without the most valuable ingredients, there will be little economic incentive to invest in recycling technologies. The result, if nothing is done to tip the scales, could be a massive health and environmental crisis.
Canada’s National Observer
Rapid action to improve resource efficiency is essential for achieving climate mitigation goals. Likely to reshape everyday life in unexpected ways; new products, policies and business models will need to consider the public acceptability of resources efficiency strategies, as well as technical emissions reductions potential.
Behavioural and Social Sciences at Nature Portfolio
As we throw away machines and devices damned [sic] as out of date, the result is a growing mountain of e-waste. Last year alone, it was reckoned that more than 50 million tonnes of it were generated globally, with only around 20% of it officially recycled. Half of the 50 million tonnes represented large household appliances, and heating and cooling equipment. The remainder was TVs, computers, smartphones and tablets. (2020 figures.)
The Guardian
We don’t do well in the recycling stakes.
Compared to other developed countries, NZ has a vague and scattered approach to achieving zero-waste status.
recycle.co.nz
We still send the majority of our waste to landfill, which is a significant issue as methane gas caused by anaerobic decomposition is released into the atmosphere.
It is estimated that in Aotearoa New Zealand we generate 17.49 million tonnes of waste per year, of which an estimated 12.59 million tonnes are sent to landfill.
bing.com
If we are to build climate resilience then we are going to have to look at the total picture. The Prime Minister would do well to reconsider her punishing position on ruminants.
