Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

smartphones are wrecking the planet faster than anyone expected

K

konqerror

macrumors 68020
Dec 31, 2013
2,298
3,700
This sounds like typical flawed math used to hype these academic studies.

They're comparing everything based on the power consumption of the in-use phone, i.e. manufacturing is x% of total impact. We know phones use a tiny amount of power and it's better for phones to use less power, both environmentally and for convenience. Therefore, this number will only go up.

Say I had a phone that manufacturing and end of life was 75% of total impact and in-use emissions was 25%. I change nothing, but I magically make it consume no wall power at all. Now manufacturing and EOL is 100% of total impact. This article would say that's worse. However, my net impact went down 25%, so it's obviously better.

And how does this impact compare to say, people who drive to the Apple store 10 miles to buy the phone? Why aren't they giving the answers in grams CO2e?

They state ICT energy consumption is going up. What is it replacing? Online billing replaces paper bills. Video conference replaces travel. Downloads replace sending plastic disks. Are net emissions going up or down? We know that in the US, absolute demand for electric power is flat or slightly decreasing, and per capita power consumption is decreasing.

In other words, fake news.
 
  • Like
Reactions: decafjava
T

Tech198

Cancelled
Mar 21, 2011
15,915
2,151
konqerror said:
This sounds like typical flawed math used to hype these academic studies.

They're comparing everything based on the power consumption of the in-use phone, i.e. manufacturing is x% of total impact. We know phones use a tiny amount of power and it's better for phones to use less power, both environmentally and for convenience. Therefore, this number will only go up.

Say I had a phone that manufacturing and end of life was 75% of total impact and in-use emissions was 25%. I change nothing, but I magically make it consume no wall power at all. Now manufacturing and EOL is 100% of total impact. This article would say that's worse. However, my net impact went down 25%, so it's obviously better.

And how does this impact compare to say, people who drive to the Apple store 10 miles to buy the phone? Why aren't they giving the answers in grams CO2e?

They state ICT energy consumption is going up. What is it replacing? Online billing replaces paper bills. Video conference replaces travel. Downloads replace sending plastic disks. Are net emissions going up or down? We know that in the US, absolute demand for electric power is flat or slightly decreasing, and per capita power consumption is decreasing.

In other words, fake news.
Click to expand...
Well it is true in part.. Apple has done their part by using Low Every Bluetooth, so you could say "your more likely to keep Bluetooth" as it users less power than non-LE, but its still power over time "most use"

Instead of switching features off you don't use at all like I do.... Convince thigh, always takes over.

You can only do do much with reducing power. It may be much less, but its always "not enough"

phones use much less power than before as well. but arguably you could say "An iPhone 6s plus would use less power than a equivalent iPhone 6s plus, with all features on as well"
 
L

levander

macrumors 6502
Jul 21, 2011
262
168
StellarVixen said:
To reduce impact: return to paleolithic, and reduce human population to around million.
Click to expand...

Amen. Man has been killing the planet since civilization started.

And buddy in the OP thinks we can help stop this if we don’t upgrade our phones quite as often, lol...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Elitegate
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom