Making things to last

I've just been watching a few videos, notably one about the recycling of electronic goods in India and China.

Electronic goods have valuable components and materials, such as copper, which can be extracted from dead or obsolete equipment, so recycling these products is a commercially viable occupation. The problem is that these products contain very toxic materials, and if not recycled with due care, these toxins get into the environment as well as poisoning the people who recycle them.

Greenpeace, quite rightly, are pushing manufacturers to stop using toxic materials in products where there are viable alternatives. But I think there is another option that could work in tandem - build things to last.

Many consumer electronic devices are designed to work for a few years, and then be thrown away and replaced. Devices which should last for decades, such as kettles, TVs, boilers, washing machines, and so on frequently don't last more than a few years. These devices are being designed badly in my view. They are not being designed to last, but what is just as bad, is that they are being designed in such a way that they are almost impossible to repair. Instead we just chuck them out. The tragedy here is that when most devices fail it's generally just some small component which could easily be replaced without having to replace the whole unit. I generally repair devices (just fixed my home phone for example) and 9 times out of 10 I don't need to replace any components at all.

All we need to do to force manufacturers to take this seriously is increase the statutory warrantee period on products. If manufacturers were penalised (by having to repair or replace broken devices) they would put more effort into making things last longer. This would be good for the consumer, good for the environment, and if we, in this country were wise enough to lead the way, it would be good for British industry - building a reputation for products that last.

Even devices such as computers which are obsolete quite quickly due to the rate of advance can be designed better. Many components of a computer don't need to be upgraded so often. Many PC users are familiar with the idea of upgrading part of their system, and some have machines which are many years old but still up to date. This philosophy of designing for upgradability needs to filter through to other markets. iPod's for example could in principle be upgradable by replacing the harddrive with a larger capacity one (or the Flash RAM in some models), and upgrading the software to add new functionality. Many components would not need to be replaced, but this is not the philosophy of the iPod. Instead it's a sealed unit, which has it's beauty, but that beauty has a price in pollution - and that price is too high. Upgradability should be mandatory for rapidly changing technologies. Making it mandatory for manufacturers to offer cut price upgrades to customers for a long period after a sale would again encourage manufacturers to see how they could upgrade devices rather than merely replace them, although clearly this problem is more complex than simply extending warrantee periods.

---