The problem is that the manufacturing of electronic devices has a lot of impact on our planet because of the required resources both in terms of energy and precious metals, and because of the growing pile of e-waste, and none of this is priced into our cheap gadgets.
Repairable devices means devices that live longer, which means less environmental impact, there’s nothing romantic about that.
From an environmental perspective, repair is also preferable to recycling, because reuse tends to be much less resource intensive than recycling.
It doesn't mean devices live longer. Only a fraction of them break, and especially with electronics never versions are strictly better than older versions. Most people buy newer iPhone because their old ones have become too slow, not because they are broken.
And I think you are wrong about the economics of repairing vs recycling.
In both cases, it also depends on the market demand.
If people want to repair their stuff so much, why don't any companies come forward with repairable products? Some do (Fairphone, I guess), but it doesn't seem to be a huge success.
In any case, anybody who really wanted to could see to buying only repairable things. What is the point in offering people who don't want to to do the same?
I think people just want the same iPhone they have now, with additional "repairale" property. That is not going to happen. The repairable iPhone will be thicker and less elegant than the non-repairable iPhone (compare iPhone to Fiarphone). And suddenly people are not buying it anymore.
> I think people just want the same iPhone they have now, with additional "repairale" property. That is not going to happen. The repairable iPhone will be thicker and less elegant than the non-repairable iPhone (compare iPhone to Fiarphone). And suddenly people are not buying it anymore.
You're going from one extreme to the other. You could for example require Apple to provide access to their spare parts supply chain (replacement batteries, screens, maybe some key ICs that regularly fail, etc.) to independent repair shops. This would greatly increase the repairability and decrease electronics waste. Right now, many repairs aren't possible simply because you can't find parts, or because customs will block your parts from entering the US, or even because Apple has decided that only they can have the tools to pair a new home button with your current device.
If the goal is to reduce consumption in order to reduce pollution, then simply raise taxes. No need to make it more complicated. Keep raising the tax until consumption is reduced to desired levels.
> Repairable devices means devices that live longer,
Is there proof of this for tiny devices with tons of integrated chips and processors requiring specialized equipment and knowledge to fix?
I think there is an unspoken part to "reduce consumption", "without decreasing the comfort of living". Decreasing individuals' buying power is about as good a solution to consumption as "don't give people enough food to feed their kids" is to overpopulation.
> Is there proof of this for tiny devices with tons of integrated chips and processors requiring specialized equipment and knowledge to fix?
Well, you could say that when a device breaks, it will either get discarded or repaired, so repairability can only be a net positive. It's debatable whether repairability will actually prolong the lifespan for things like headphones, where everything is tiny and will wear down eventually, and monitors, where most of the money goes into an irreparable LCD panel anyway.
I'm convinced, though, that phones and notebooks are expensive and "modular" enough that repairs with proper replacement part availability would be cost-effective.
>I think there is an unspoken part to "reduce consumption", "without decreasing the comfort of living". Decreasing individuals' buying power is about as good a solution to consumption as "don't give people enough food to feed their kids" is to overpopulation.
Attaching a fantasy requirement to real world constraints serves no purpose.
Reducing population does attain the goal of reducing consumption. Reducing people’s ability to take honeymoons to Tahiti reduces consumption. Reducing people’s ability to drive large vehicles to take the kids to school and go shopping for groceries reduces consumption. Reducing people’s ability to live far away from everything, which in turn reduces the amount of energy needed to push all the mass around needed to live far away from everything also reduces consumption.
There is no free lunch.
> I'm convinced, though, that phones and notebooks are expensive and "modular" enough that repairs with proper replacement part availability would be cost-effective.
Are they modular? As far as I understand, everything is getting more and more integrated. Also, compared to the cost of buying new, the cost of labor to fix my MacBook Air or iPhone is far too high where I live. Perhaps if taxes were sufficiently high to make a new laptop or phone more costly to purchase to offset the pollution, then it would make sense.
My point is that reducing how many neat gadgets people can buy will never get anyone's support apart from a few weirdos.
Making products last longer, maybe by forcing repairability, is a more constructive solution that would allow people to have their gadgets while lessening the negative effects of manufacturing them/disposing of them.
The problem is that the manufacturing of electronic devices has a lot of impact on our planet because of the required resources both in terms of energy and precious metals, and because of the growing pile of e-waste, and none of this is priced into our cheap gadgets.
Repairable devices means devices that live longer, which means less environmental impact, there’s nothing romantic about that.
From an environmental perspective, repair is also preferable to recycling, because reuse tends to be much less resource intensive than recycling.