The Story of Electronics

Summary

The script exposes the 'designed for the dump' mentality in electronics, highlighting the environmental and health toll of our throwaway culture. It critiques the unsustainable cycle of planned obsolescence, the toxic production process, and the global e-waste crisis. The speaker advocates for Extended Producer Responsibility and greener product design, urging a shift from a race to the bottom to a 'green Moore's law', where innovation leads to safer, longer-lasting electronics.

Takeaways

• 🌏 The script discusses a world obsessed with material possessions, highlighting the environmental and social crisis caused by our unsustainable consumption and disposal of electronic goods.
• 🔌 The author's personal experience with an abundance of incompatible chargers exemplifies the problem of 'designed for the dump' products, which are intentionally made to become obsolete quickly.
• 🛠️ Moore's Law, which predicts the doubling of processor speed every 18 months, is misinterpreted by companies as a reason to encourage consumers to frequently replace their electronics, contributing to e-waste.
• 🏭 The production of electronics involves more than 1,000 different materials and the use of toxic chemicals, which have severe health and environmental impacts, especially in areas like Silicon Valley.
• 📉 The script points out that the high-tech industry's image as 'clean' is contradicted by the reality of its toxic byproducts and the health risks faced by workers in the industry.
• 🗑️ Disposal of electronic waste (e-waste) is a significant issue, with devices often ending up in landfills or being exported to developing countries where recycling practices are hazardous.
• 🚫 The concept of 'toxics in, toxics out' illustrates that the toxic chemicals used in electronics production will eventually be released into the environment during use or disposal.
• 🌳 The script calls for a change in corporate responsibility, suggesting that companies should be held accountable for the e-waste they produce through Extended Producer Responsibility or Product Takeback laws.
• 🛑 It argues that by making companies deal with their e-waste, they would be incentivized to design longer-lasting, less toxic, and more recyclable products.
• 🏁 The idea of a 'green Moore’s law' is proposed, challenging designers to halve the use of toxic chemicals every 18 months and rapidly reduce worker poisoning.
• 🔄 The script encourages consumers to demand stronger laws on toxic chemicals and e-waste exports, and to choose greener products, but acknowledges that individual choices alone cannot solve the systemic problem.

Q & A

What is the main issue discussed in the script regarding the world's obsession with stuff?

The script discusses the issue of a system in crisis due to the world's obsession with material goods, leading to environmental degradation and social harm without providing true happiness or satisfaction.

Why does the narrator refer to their old chargers as 'designed for the dump'?

The term 'designed for the dump' is used to describe products, like chargers, that are made to become obsolete quickly, encouraging consumers to replace them frequently, which contributes to environmental waste and poor design practices.

What is Moore's Law and how is it being misinterpreted by electronic companies according to the script?

Moore's Law is the observation that the number of transistors on a microchip doubles approximately every 18 months. Companies misinterpret this as a need to discard old electronics and purchase new ones every 18 months, rather than focusing on improving processor speed.

What are some of the toxic chemicals used in the production of electronics mentioned in the script?

The script mentions the use of PVC, mercury, solvents, and flame retardants as toxic chemicals in the production of electronics, which can have severe health and environmental impacts.

How does the script describe the impact of the electronics industry on Silicon Valley?

The script describes Silicon Valley as one of the most poisoned communities in the U.S. due to the electronics industry, with workers experiencing higher rates of miscarriages and deaths from blood, brain, and kidney cancer.

What is the concept of 'Externalizing costs' as discussed in the script?

Externalizing costs refers to the practice of companies not accounting for the true costs of production, such as environmental damage and health impacts, instead shifting these costs onto society and the environment.

What is the 'Extended Producer Responsibility' or 'Product Takeback' mentioned in the script?

Extended Producer Responsibility or Product Takeback is a policy approach where manufacturers are held responsible for the entire life cycle of their products, including disposal and recycling, incentivizing them to design more sustainable and less toxic products.

What does the script suggest as an alternative to the current model of electronic waste disposal?

The script suggests that manufacturers should be responsible for their e-waste, leading to the design of longer-lasting, less toxic, and more recyclable products, and possibly adopting a modular approach to replace broken parts rather than entire devices.

What is the 'green Moore’s law' proposed in the script and what does it aim to achieve?

The 'green Moore’s law' is a proposed challenge to cut the use of toxic chemicals in half every 18 months and to reduce the number of workers poisoned, encouraging designers to innovate and create safer, more sustainable electronics.

How does the script suggest consumers can contribute to solving the e-waste problem?

The script suggests that consumers can contribute by ensuring e-waste is not exported to developing countries, choosing greener products when purchasing new gadgets, and joining with others to demand stronger laws on toxic chemicals and banning e-waste exports.

What is the ultimate goal the script proposes for the electronics industry and global society?

The ultimate goal proposed in the script is to move away from a 'design for the dump' mentality and towards building an electronics industry and global society that is designed to last, focusing on sustainability and reducing environmental harm.

Outlines

00:00

🌏 The Problem with 'Designed for the Dump' Electronics

The first paragraph introduces the issue of electronic waste and the unsustainable practices in the consumer electronics industry. It discusses the frustration of dealing with obsolete and non-repairable devices, highlighting the 'designed for the dump' concept where products are intentionally made to become obsolete quickly. The speaker shares a personal anecdote about a computer charger, illustrating the broader problem of electronic devices that are difficult to upgrade, prone to breaking, and challenging to repair. The paragraph also touches on the historical context of Moore's Law and its misinterpretation by companies to push for rapid consumption of electronics, leading to a global toxic emergency due to the materials and chemicals used in production and disposal.

05:02

🛠️ Rethinking E-Waste: Extended Producer Responsibility and Green Design

The second paragraph delves into the concept of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) and the idea of 'Product Takeback,' where manufacturers are held accountable for the waste their products generate. It suggests that if companies were responsible for the e-waste they create, they would be incentivized to design longer-lasting, less toxic, and more recyclable products. The paragraph mentions the emergence of takeback laws in various regions and calls for stronger legislation to prevent the export of e-waste to developing countries. It also emphasizes the need for consumer action and the potential for a 'green Moore's Law,' where the use of toxic chemicals is significantly reduced. The speaker concludes by advocating for collective efforts to demand greener products and stronger regulations, aiming to shift the electronics industry towards sustainable practices.

Keywords

💡Designed for the dump

This concept refers to the intentional design of products to become obsolete quickly, promoting frequent replacement and disposal. It is a strategy used by some companies to drive sales but contributes to environmental waste. In the script, it is exemplified by the speaker's frustration with numerous incompatible chargers, illustrating the problem of planned obsolescence in electronics.

💡Moore's Law

Moore's Law is the observation made by Gordon Moore that the number of transistors on a microchip doubles approximately every 18 months. It has been a driving force behind rapid advancements in technology. However, the script points out a misinterpretation where companies use this law to push consumers into discarding old electronics and buying new ones, rather than improving the longevity and upgradability of devices.

💡Toxic chemicals

The term 'toxic chemicals' encompasses a range of harmful substances used in the production of electronics, such as PVC, mercury, and flame retardants. The script highlights the health and environmental risks these chemicals pose, both in the manufacturing process and during disposal, contributing to a 'global toxic emergency.'

💡E-waste

E-waste refers to discarded electronic devices that are often filled with hazardous materials. The script discusses the mountains of e-waste generated annually and the toxic release that occurs during their disposal or improper recycling, emphasizing the scale and impact of electronic waste on the environment.

💡Externalizing costs

Externalizing costs is an economic term where the true costs of production, such as environmental damage or health impacts, are not included in the price of a product and are instead borne by society or the environment. The script criticizes this practice in the electronics industry, where companies profit while the public and environment suffer the consequences.

💡Product Takeback

Product Takeback, also known as Extended Producer Responsibility, is a policy approach that makes manufacturers responsible for the disposal or recycling of their products. The script suggests this as a solution to force companies to design products that are easier to recycle and less harmful to the environment.

💡Modular design

Modular design in electronics refers to the creation of devices with interchangeable parts, allowing for easy repair or upgrade of individual components. The script proposes this as a more sustainable alternative to current practices, where entire devices are often discarded when one part fails.

💡Green Moore’s Law

The concept of a 'Green Moore’s Law' is a challenge proposed in the script to cut the use of toxic chemicals in half every 18 months, mirroring the pace of technological advancement outlined in Moore's Law. It represents a call for innovation in environmental sustainability within the electronics industry.

💡Citizen action

Citizen action refers to the collective efforts of individuals to bring about social or political change. In the context of the script, it is suggested as a means to demand greener products and stronger laws on toxic chemicals and e-waste exports, emphasizing the role of consumers in driving industry change.

💡E-waste exports

E-waste exports involve shipping discarded electronics to other countries, often developing nations, where regulations may be lax, and disposal methods can be harmful. The script criticizes this practice, highlighting the inequity and environmental injustice of exporting toxic waste to less developed areas.

💡Innovation

Innovation in the script is presented as the key to solving the problem of e-waste and toxic chemical use in electronics. It calls for designers and companies to innovate in ways that prioritize sustainability, longevity, and reduced environmental impact, rather than just technological advancement.

Highlights

The world is in a crisis due to an obsession with material possessions, leading to environmental and social degradation.

Understanding the system reveals opportunities to transform problems into solutions.

The speaker's personal experience with obsolete chargers exemplifies the issue of 'designed for the dump' products.

Electronics are often hard to upgrade, easy to break, and impractical to repair, contributing to waste.

The cost of repairing an old DVD player is higher than buying a new one, illustrating the throwaway culture.

Moore's Law, predicting processor speed doubling every 18 months, has been misinterpreted as a need to replace electronics frequently.

The short lifespan of electronics leads to a global toxic emergency due to their production and disposal.

Electronics production involves over 1,000 materials and toxic chemicals, impacting workers and communities.

Silicon Valley has become one of the most poisoned communities in the U.S. due to the electronics industry.

Workers in the electronics industry face increased health risks, including miscarriages and cancers.

E-waste disposal is often outsourced to developing countries, leading to environmental and health hazards.

E-waste contains toxic chemicals that can be released during disposal, posing a risk to human health.

The high-tech industry's image is tarnished by its contribution to environmental pollution.

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) or Product Takeback laws can incentivize companies to design more sustainable products.

Modular design can reduce e-waste by allowing for easy replacement of broken parts.

Takeback laws are emerging in Europe and Asia, and are being considered in the U.S., promoting greener product design.

A 'green Moore's law' is proposed, aiming to halve the use of toxic chemicals every 18 months.

Citizen action and stronger laws are needed to demand and achieve a more sustainable electronics industry.

The speaker advocates for a shift from a throwaway culture to one that values longevity and sustainability in product design.

Transcripts

This is a story about a world of obsessed with stuff.

It's a story about a system in crisis. We're trashing the planet,

we're trashing each other, and we're not even having fun.

the good thing is that when we start to understand the system

we start to see lots of places to step in and turn these problems into solutions

The other day, I couldn’t find my computer charger.

My computer is my lifeline to my work, my friends, my music.

So I looked everywhere,

even in that drawer where this lives.

I know you have one too, a tangle of old chargers,

the sad remains of electronics past.

How did I end up with so many of these things?

It’s not like I’m always after the latest gadget.

My old devices broke or became so obsolete I couldn’t use them anymore.

And not one of these old chargers fits my computer.

Augh. This isn’t just bad luck.

It’s bad design.

I call it “designed for the dump.”

“Designed for the dump” sounds crazy, right?

But when you’re trying to sell lots of stuff, it makes perfect sense.

It’s a key strategy

of the companies that make our electronics.

In fact it’s a key part of our whole unsustainable materials economy.

Designed for the dump means making stuff to be thrown away quickly.

Today’s electronics are hard to upgrade, easy to break, and impractical to repair.

My DVD player broke and I took it to a shop to get fixed.

The repair guy wanted $50 just to look at it!

A new one at Target costs $39.

In the 1960s, Gordon Moore, the giant brain and semiconductor pioneer,

predicted that electronics designers could double

processor speed every 18 months.

So far he’s been right.

This is called Moore’s Law.

But somehow the bosses of these genius designers got it all twisted up.

They seem to think Moore’s Law means every 18 months we have to throw out our old electronics

and buy more.

Problem is, the 18 months that we use these things are just a blip in their entire lifecycle.

And that’s where these dump designers aren’t just causing a pain in our wallets.

They’re creating a global toxic emergency!

See, electronics start where most stuff starts, in mines and factories.

Many of our gadgets are made from more than 1,000 different materials,

shipped from around the world to assembly plants. There, workers turn them into products,

using loads of toxic chemicals, like PVC, mercury, solvents and flame retardants.

Today this usually happens in far off places that are hard to monitor.

But it used to happen near my home, in Silicon Valley,

which thanks to the electronics industry is one of the most poisoned communities

in the U.S.

IBM’s own data revealed that its workers making computer chips had 40% more miscarriages

and were significantly more likely to die from blood, brain and kidney cancer.

The same thing is starting to happen all around the world.

Turns out the high tech industry isn’t as clean as its image.

So, after its toxic trip around the globe, the gadget lands in my hands.

I love it for a year or so and then it starts drifting further

from its place of honor on my desk or in my pocket.

Maybe it spends a little time in my garage

before being tossed out.

And that brings us to disposal,

which we think of as the end of its life.

But really it’s just moved on to become part of the mountains of e-waste we make every year.

Remember how these devices were packed with toxic chemicals? Well there’s a simple rule of production:

toxics in, toxics out.

Computers, cell phones, TVs, all this stuff, is just waiting to release all their toxics

when we throw them away.

Some of them are slowly releasing this stuff even while we’re using them.

You know those fat, old TVs that people are chucking for high-def flat screens?

They each have about 5 pounds of lead in them. Lead! As in lead poisoning!

So almost all this e-waste either goes from my garage to a landfill or it gets shipped overseas to the garage

workshop of some guy in Guiyu, China whose job it is to recycle it.

I’ve visited a bunch of these so-called recycling operations.

Workers, without protective gear, sit on the ground, smashing open electronics to recover the valuable

metals inside and chucking or burning the parts no one will pay them for.

So while I’m on to my next gadget,

my last gadget is off

poisoning families in Guiyu or India or Nigeria.

Each year we make 25 million tonnes of e-waste

which gets dumped, burned or recycled.

And that recycling is anything but green.

So are the geniuses who design these electronics actually... evil geniuses? I don’t think so,

because the problems they’re creating are well hidden even from them.

You see, the companies they work

for keep these human and environmental costs out of sight and off their accounting books.

It’s all about externalizing the true costs of production.

Instead of companies paying to make their facilities safe the workers pay with their health.

Instead of them paying to redesign using less toxics villagers pay by losing their clean drinking water.

Externalizing costs allows companies to keep designing for the dump –

they get the profits and everyone else pays.

When we go along with it, it’s like we’re looking at this toxic mess and saying to companies

“you made it, but we’ll deal with it.”

I’ve got a better idea. How about “you made it, you deal with it”?

Doesn’t that make more sense?

Imagine that instead of all this toxic e-waste piling up

in our garages and the streets of Guiyu,

we sent it to the garages of the CEOs who made it.

You can bet that they’d be on the phone to their designers demanding they

stop designing for the dump.

Making companies deal with their e-waste is called Extended Producer Responsibility

or Product Takeback.

If all these old gadgets were their problem,

it would be cheaper for them to just design longer lasting, less toxic,

and more recyclable products in the first place.

They could even make them modular, so that when one part broke,

they could just send us a new piece, instead of taking back the whole broken mess.

Already takeback laws are popping up all over Europe and Asia.

In the U.S. many cities and states are passing similar laws –

these need to be protected and strengthened.

It’s time to get these brainiacs working on our side.

With takeback laws and citizen action to demand greener products,

we are starting a race to the top, where designers compete to make long-lasting,

toxic-free products.

So, let’s have a green Moore’s law.

How about:

the use of toxic chemicals will be cut in half every 18 months?

The number of workers poisoned will decline at an even faster rate?

We need to give these designers a challenge they can rise to and do what they do best –

innovate.

Already, some of them are realizing they’re too smart to be dump designers

and are figuring out how to make computers without PVC or toxic flame retardants.

Good job guys.

But we can do even more.

When we take our e-waste to recyclers,

we can make sure they don’t export it to developing countries.

And when we do need to buy new gadgets, we can choose greener products.

But the truth is: we are never going to just shop our way out of this problem

because the choices available to us at the store are limited by choices of designers

and policymakers outside of the store. That’s why we need to join with others to demand

stronger laws on toxic chemicals and on banning e-waste exports.

There are billions of people out there who want access to the incredible web of information

and entertainment electronics offer.

But it’s the access they want,

not all that toxic garbage.

So let’s get our brains working on sending that old design for the

dump mentality to the dump where it belongs and instead

building an electronics industry and a global society that’s designed to last.