5 ms·

But manufacturing a smartphone involves a lot of transportation and electricity, doesn't it? Our focus should also be on cutting energy spendings & reducing tr

But manufacturing a smartphone involves a lot of transportation and electricity, doesn't it? Our focus should also be on cutting energy spendings & reducing transportation, and stop buying new phones (and laptops and tvs etc..) every now and then sure will help, will it not?

elorant 8y ago
Or we could reduce meat consumption.
- JoeAltmaier 8y ago
  I suspect its long past the day when a marginal change in consumption will actually affect the world, even a little. The production of meat (and phones) does not change at all for small adjustments in demand - they are far too large an industry with far too large a lead time to respond to much at all. In fact, using homebrew solutions or alternative sources actually increases my environmental footprint. Now I'm not only wasting the goods that were created in preparation for me (phone, meat etc), I'm consuming more goods from an alternative source that is small and can more readily adjust for demand, which it does, by providing for me. Which has a further non-zero environmental impact. So in the short turn (year over year) its actually best to consume only the mainstream sources of goods since their marginal cost is about zero. Whether that seems tragic or efficient is up to the reader.
  - jdietrich 8y ago
    The market is not insensitive to consumer demand. Your choices don't make a significant impact, but the aggregate choices of all consumers is hugely significant. If we buy less meat and lobby for a reduction in agricultural subsidies, the inevitable result is a reduction in meat production, either through a direct response from producers or through the bankruptcy of less efficient producers.
    - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
      How's that going for us so far? Its a hard sell, convincing people to change their behavior now (pointlessly; in fact to the detriment of the ecology short-term) for some theoretical good later.
      - jdietrich 8y ago
        The Ford F-150 is the biggest selling vehicle in the US. Ford haven't even tried to sell it in Europe, because there's no demand. They do sell the Ka, a model even smaller than the Fiesta that isn't available in the US. Ten years ago, the market for grass-fed beef and organic vegetables was negligible. Consumer demand induced the agricultural industry to start shifting towards production techniques with a lower environmental impact. Consumer demand matters.
  - the_gastropod 8y ago
    You changing your diet will not have that big of an impact, you're right. Just like your vote won't sway an election. In aggregate, these things matter. In the U.S., over 9% [1] of the population follows a vegetarian/vegan diet. That absolutely has an impact on how much beef/chicken/pork is produced. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_by_country#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_by_country#Unite...
    - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
      Not in the short term - again, the lead time of beef is years. And so on.
      - AstralStorm 8y ago
        Lead time for climate change has been years too. Unfortunately almost nobody cared.
makomk 8y ago
That presumably includes the transportation and electricity (probably not transportation to the point of sale after manufacture, but that emits even less CO2 according to the article). Remember, we're talking about small, light, high-value goods; transportation isn't going to be a big problem here, compared to say 1kg of beef.
jdietrich 8y ago
The greatest myth in sustainable energy policy is "every little helps". We get caught up on visible but irrelevant things, while ignoring massive systemic problems. Apple publish high-quality, audited environmental impact reports for all their products. A 64gb iPhone 8 produces the equivalent of 57kg of CO2 across the entire product lifespan, from manufacturing to recycling. A return flight from LAX to JFK produces ~580kg of CO2; the climate impact is equivalent to ~1100kg of CO2, because emissions at altitude have a greater warming effect. Driving 10,000 miles in a typical sedan or crossover SUV emits about 3000kg of CO2; in a large pickup like a Ford F150, that figure is closer to 4500kg. The food consumption of the average US household results in equivalent CO2 emissions of 8100kg. Our carbon emissions are dominated by heating and cooling, transport and food. Keeping your phone for another couple of years is a rounding error in the scheme of things - it's equivalent to a two-hour car journey or a good restaurant meal. If we are to stand any chance of limiting the impact of climate change, we need to make big, difficult choices about our lifestyle. We need to massively reduce the amount we drive and fly. We need to redesign homes to require less active heating and cooling. We need far more sustainable electricity generation. We need to radically alter our diets and our approach to agriculture, with far less meat and dairy consumption. This will be difficult, expensive and politically unpopular, but it's the only way we'll make a meaningful impact. https://images.apple.com/environment/pdf/products/iphone/iPhone_8_PER_sept2017.pdf https://images.apple.com/environment/pdf/products/iphone/iPh... https://calculator.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx?tab=3 https://calculator.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx?tab=3 http://css.umich.edu/factsheets/carbon-footprint-factsheet http://css.umich.edu/factsheets/carbon-footprint-factsheet https://www.withouthotair.com/ https://www.withouthotair.com/
- paulintrognon 8y ago
  I understand what you say, and I agree for the most part, but it really seems impossible that a two-hour car journey emits more than manufacturing a smartphone... I mean, building a smartphone involves digging for raw materials, extract them, transport them, assemble them, etc. And i'm not counting the emission during the design process. I know that a two-hour car journey is really not optimized, and that manufacturing phones on a large scale is very optimized, but it seems impossible to me that manufacturing a phone in China from components from all over the world emits less that a good big steak in a restaurant... I that's true, that's incredible.
AstralStorm 8y ago
Smartphones are manufactured in a small area of Asia well stocked with all kinds of electronics, bought in bulk. They're sent to other countries by ship, also in bulk. Efficient but slow. Even the last mile transport does not look bad there. The main rare material in phones is actually lithium and that has some indirect impact - we could use it in cheaper batteries for solar and wind instead.

elorant 8y ago

Or we could reduce meat consumption.

JoeAltmaier 8y ago
I suspect its long past the day when a marginal change in consumption will actually affect the world, even a little. The production of meat (and phones) does not change at all for small adjustments in demand - they are far too large an industry with far too large a lead time to respond to much at all. In fact, using homebrew solutions or alternative sources actually increases my environmental footprint. Now I'm not only wasting the goods that were created in preparation for me (phone, meat etc), I'm consuming more goods from an alternative source that is small and can more readily adjust for demand, which it does, by providing for me. Which has a further non-zero environmental impact. So in the short turn (year over year) its actually best to consume only the mainstream sources of goods since their marginal cost is about zero. Whether that seems tragic or efficient is up to the reader.
- jdietrich 8y ago
  The market is not insensitive to consumer demand. Your choices don't make a significant impact, but the aggregate choices of all consumers is hugely significant. If we buy less meat and lobby for a reduction in agricultural subsidies, the inevitable result is a reduction in meat production, either through a direct response from producers or through the bankruptcy of less efficient producers.
  - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
    How's that going for us so far? Its a hard sell, convincing people to change their behavior now (pointlessly; in fact to the detriment of the ecology short-term) for some theoretical good later.
    - jdietrich 8y ago
      The Ford F-150 is the biggest selling vehicle in the US. Ford haven't even tried to sell it in Europe, because there's no demand. They do sell the Ka, a model even smaller than the Fiesta that isn't available in the US. Ten years ago, the market for grass-fed beef and organic vegetables was negligible. Consumer demand induced the agricultural industry to start shifting towards production techniques with a lower environmental impact. Consumer demand matters.
- the_gastropod 8y ago
  You changing your diet will not have that big of an impact, you're right. Just like your vote won't sway an election. In aggregate, these things matter. In the U.S., over 9% [1] of the population follows a vegetarian/vegan diet. That absolutely has an impact on how much beef/chicken/pork is produced. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_by_country#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_by_country#Unite...
  - JoeAltmaier 8y ago
    Not in the short term - again, the lead time of beef is years. And so on.
    - AstralStorm 8y ago
      Lead time for climate change has been years too. Unfortunately almost nobody cared.

makomk 8y ago

That presumably includes the transportation and electricity (probably not transportation to the point of sale after manufacture, but that emits even less CO2 according to the article). Remember, we're talking about small, light, high-value goods; transportation isn't going to be a big problem here, compared to say 1kg of beef.

jdietrich 8y ago

The greatest myth in sustainable energy policy is "every little helps". We get caught up on visible but irrelevant things, while ignoring massive systemic problems. Apple publish high-quality, audited environmental impact reports for all their products. A 64gb iPhone 8 produces the equivalent of 57kg of CO2 across the entire product lifespan, from manufacturing to recycling. A return flight from LAX to JFK produces ~580kg of CO2; the climate impact is equivalent to ~1100kg of CO2, because emissions at altitude have a greater warming effect. Driving 10,000 miles in a typical sedan or crossover SUV emits about 3000kg of CO2; in a large pickup like a Ford F150, that figure is closer to 4500kg. The food consumption of the average US household results in equivalent CO2 emissions of 8100kg. Our carbon emissions are dominated by heating and cooling, transport and food. Keeping your phone for another couple of years is a rounding error in the scheme of things - it's equivalent to a two-hour car journey or a good restaurant meal. If we are to stand any chance of limiting the impact of climate change, we need to make big, difficult choices about our lifestyle. We need to massively reduce the amount we drive and fly. We need to redesign homes to require less active heating and cooling. We need far more sustainable electricity generation. We need to radically alter our diets and our approach to agriculture, with far less meat and dairy consumption. This will be difficult, expensive and politically unpopular, but it's the only way we'll make a meaningful impact. https://images.apple.com/environment/pdf/products/iphone/iPhone_8_PER_sept2017.pdf https://images.apple.com/environment/pdf/products/iphone/iPh... https://calculator.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx?tab=3 https://calculator.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx?tab=3 http://css.umich.edu/factsheets/carbon-footprint-factsheet http://css.umich.edu/factsheets/carbon-footprint-factsheet https://www.withouthotair.com/ https://www.withouthotair.com/

paulintrognon 8y ago
I understand what you say, and I agree for the most part, but it really seems impossible that a two-hour car journey emits more than manufacturing a smartphone... I mean, building a smartphone involves digging for raw materials, extract them, transport them, assemble them, etc. And i'm not counting the emission during the design process. I know that a two-hour car journey is really not optimized, and that manufacturing phones on a large scale is very optimized, but it seems impossible to me that manufacturing a phone in China from components from all over the world emits less that a good big steak in a restaurant... I that's true, that's incredible.

AstralStorm 8y ago

Smartphones are manufactured in a small area of Asia well stocked with all kinds of electronics, bought in bulk. They're sent to other countries by ship, also in bulk. Efficient but slow. Even the last mile transport does not look bad there. The main rare material in phones is actually lithium and that has some indirect impact - we could use it in cheaper batteries for solar and wind instead.