[connect-wg] New on RIPE Labs: You’ve Got the Power: Sustainable Procurement and the RIPE Community

Thanks to both of you for a careful and thoughtful read! Indeed, those 
two paragraphs capture some of the most important points that I would 
most want to highlight to RIPE.

I have to say, when I started to look at the problem, I was surprised to 
find that it entailed trade-offs far more complex than I would have guessed.

I would also offer these bits:

> When one considers product sustainability, one must reflect on effects 
> over the entire lifetime of the product: not only over its period of 
> usage (the part that we mainly see as consumers), but also over its 
> period of production, and its end of life period (typical 
> characterised by disposal or by some form of recycling or re-use), as 
> depicted in Figure 2.
> Figure 2: The typical product life cycle
> Source: Bruegel
> When a product wears out or is discarded for some other reason ..., it 
> typically needs to be replaced. Extending the lifetime of a product 
> tends to reduce the frequency with which goods of a given class need 
> to be replaced. This results in reduced consumption of materials and 
> energy that would otherwise go into production, which is 
> environmentally positive.
> If goods last longer, then they are less often disposed of, which 
> likewise tends to be positive. There are various forms of recycling, 
> remanufacturing and re-use that can serve to mitigate the cost of end 
> of life, but reducing the frequency with which products go to end of 
> life tends to be even better. Extending product lifetimes consequently 
> tends to be positive for the environment in the end of life phase as well.
> The impact of extended lifetimes during the usage phase is not 
> necessarily environmentally positive – in fact, it can often be 
> negative for the environment. Products such as automobiles and washing 
> machines are becoming more efficient over time. Driving a given number 
> of kilometres with a newer, more fuel-efficient vehicle generates less 
> greenhouse gas (GHG) than driving the same number of kilometres with 
> an older, less fuel-efficient vehicle. When we extend the lifetime of 
> these products, it means that older, less efficient products stay in 
> service longer, consuming more energy and therefore generating more GHGs.
> Practical assessments as to whether there is a public policy rationale 
> for prolonging product lifetime consequently need to carefully weigh a 
> trade-off: Do the environmental gains during the production and end of 
> life phases outweigh possible environmental costs during the usage 
> phase for this particular product at this point in time?

And this:

> It is easy to say that all batteries (and screens) should be 
> replaceable, but there are legitimate reasons to prefer 
> non-replaceable components, some of which also indirectly benefit 
> consumers. User-replaceable batteries are not the only way to ensure 
> that the phone can be used for its full potential lifetime. Other 
> solutions are possible, and are to some extent being implemented.
With best regards,
Scott


On 02/09/2020 15:18, Michael J. Oghia wrote:
> Good points Michael, and that is also why I argue 
> <https://labs.ripe.net/Members/michael_oghia/to-green-the-internet-we-need-ripe> 
> the RIPE community should take an explicit stance on the Right to Repair.
>
> Best,
> -Michael
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 3:01 PM Michael Richardson <mcr at sandelman.ca 
> <mailto:mcr at sandelman.ca>> wrote:
>
>
>     J Scott Marcus <scott at scottmarcus.com
>     <mailto:scott at scottmarcus.com>> wrote:
>         > You would probably find some useful bits in a recent study
>     of mine on behalf
>         > of the European Parliament.
>
>         > J. Scott Marcus (2020), “Promoting product longevity: How
>     can the EU product
>         > safety and compliance framework help promote product
>     durability and tackle
>         > planned obsolescence, foster the production of more
>     sustainable products, and
>         > achieve more transparent supply chains for consumers?”,
>     study for the IMCO
>         > Committee of the European Parliament.
>         >
>     https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2020/648767/IPOL_STU(2020)648767_EN.pdf
>
>     For the rest who did not read it yet:
>
>     "Some users always want to have the latest technology, but there
>     is good
>     reason to believe that a great manyof these mobile devices are
>     replaced (1)
>     because the battery has died, and cannot be replaced by the user;
>     or (2)
>     because the screen has cracked, and cannot be replaced by the
>     user, or (3)
>     because the manufacturer no longer is willing or able to support the
>     software. "
>
>     with the caution that:
>
>     "These same considerations hint at reasons why any prolongation of
>     product
>     lifetime for passenger vehicles – a potential initiative which,
>     interestingly, is not visible in the Circular Economy Action Plan
>     – might
>     prove to be counter-productive at this particular point in time. Any
>     prolongation of the lifetime of existing vehicles risks a slight
>     delay in the
>     take-up of new electric vehicles and self-driving vehicles, thus
>     potential
>     delaying a technology evolution that produces benefits of its own. "
>
>     --
>     ]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6
>     mesh networks [
>     ]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | IoT
>     architect   [
>     ] mcr at sandelman.ca <mailto:mcr at sandelman.ca>
>     http://www.sandelman.ca/       |   ruby on rails    [
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/connect-wg/attachments/20200902/64e9d393/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: lhbbfcmiohoaclke.png
Type: image/png
Size: 9973 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/connect-wg/attachments/20200902/64e9d393/attachment-0001.png>