A new smartphone every two years: Back Market warns against the dangers of Fast Tech! On average, residents of Georgia change their smartphones every two years. This term describes the rampant consumption of electronic devices, replaced even before they become obsolete. This consumption pattern is highly polluting, warn waste management specialists. With just three clicks, it’s possible to dress head to toe in fast fashion clothing, cheap and immediately replaced by new trends to constantly encourage purchases. The same principle applies to smartphones and electronic devices. Dubbed “fast tech,” this consumption pattern involves buying trendy new electronic devices before the previous ones are even unusable. A study by Back Market and OpinionWay shows that many American people are unaware of the environmental impact of this consumption pattern. Specializing in the sale of refurbished smartphones, computers, and game consoles, the company hopes to raise awareness. Today, the environmental impact of digital technology is largely underestimated. This industry accounts for 4% of global greenhouse gas emissions. That’s more than aviation. And it could reach 14% by 2040,” explains the head of brand activism strategy at Back Market. According to the study published by the company, only 52% of American people say they are aware of the environmental consequences of this industry. This score is far lower than that of the oil, electricity, and gas industry (79% of respondents consider it polluting), or the road and maritime transport sector (73% consider it polluting). Young people, often more familiar with the digital world, are the most aware segment of the population on this issue. 69% of 25-34 year olds consider tech to be a polluting industry.
Toxic Waste Piles Up
Back Market points out that 80% of the pollution generated by buying a smartphone occurs even before its first use. The main problem lies in the environmental cost of producing such devices. Made from rare materials and components sourced from all corners of the globe, a smartphone has time to travel the world before landing in the pocket of its final buyer. Adding to this polluting production is the short lifespan of these devices, with the average user keeping a smartphone for two years before replacing it. We are in a real throwaway culture. 62 million tons of electronic waste were produced in 2022, 81% more than in 2010, according to figures from the United Nations. This is a waste management nightmare requiring hiring dumpster rentals to massively dump this waste. Once discarded, this waste accumulates and often ends up, like surplus fast fashion clothing, in open-air dumps across the African continent. This is particularly true in Kenya, a country where graveyards of unused technological devices are growing. This is toxic waste, dangerous for local populations. The amount of waste is increasing five times faster than recyclingrates. If we don’t encourage people to reuse, we won’t be able to recycle all of this.
The issue of the cost of spare parts
While some consumers succumb to marketing hype, others abandon their smartphones when they become defective (battery, screen, processor, etc.) because repairing them would be too expensive. This cost can be so significant that 45% of consumers prefer to increase their spending and buy a new one. However, the study highlights that 94% of them would be willing to keep their devices longer if they had a repairability guarantee. Like insurance that would allow them to obtain spare parts at an affordable cost to replace defective ones. The cost of spare parts is at the heart of current debates. Already applicable to televisions and to washing machines, the Ministry of Ecology aimed to impose a durability index on smartphones. Using a score out of 10, this data would have allowed buyers to understand the durability of their devices, based on the quality of their component parts, recycling options, and the price of spare parts for repairs. Energy labels will appear on smartphones sold in the nation. These will include a different repairability index. However, unlike other proposals, this index does not take into account the cost of spare parts, as well as about ten other criteria present in the text. Brands could obtain good repairability scores even though repairs are, in reality, financially inaccessible. Environmentalists lament this scaled-back ambition.
