I agree this is a big concern, however the primary issue is not landfill, but the enormous amount of embodied (CO2) energy that is wrapped up in all this rapidly obsolete stuff.

Technological innovation is not limited to non-durables. Increases in speed and memory have pushed capabilities way beyond the average user's requirements that, in turn, become part of the upgrade/obsolecence upward spiral of 'durables'. Just how fast is fast enough? How much memory is memory enough? I think I reached my level of needs with broadband and a memory stick of one gigabyte! I doubt I can go much faster or need to 'remember' much more. What are the ceilings? When do we reach the pinnacle of need? Am I becoming a neo-Luddite or am I a discerning consumer, with knowledge that my screen is big enough, my pixelation is sharp enough, my whistels and bells are musical enough and that my system security is secure enough?

The article picked the wrong target. If you are going to attack something as try to pick a target that creates more waste as it evolves, not less.

In mobile phones the life span of the most environmentally obnoxious part of them, the battery, is two years. As battery is worth around 1/3 of the cost of a cheap phone it determines the phones life.

Yes, the manufacturers take the opportunity to upgrade the phones capabilities each time through the life cycle. It is happening because the computers inside are getting smaller and less power hungry, not because the phones are getting bigger or use more resources. In fact the reverse is true - they are shrinking. So at worst environmentally this costs us nothing. At best the newer phones replace other gadgets we might have on us - cameras, PDA's, radio's, torches, music players, CB radios, calculators, address books - it is a big list. And it hasn't stopped growing. In the future it will be credit cards, keys, licenses, passports, keys, GPS, street directories, newspapers, magazines, books, and god knows what else - my old mind isn't flexible enough to see.

If you want to pick on a technological sector gone mad, why not try home entertainment? Most people can still pick up any mobile phone and dial a number or answer a call. Compare that you your TV/VCR/DVD/Cable player. It is a rare person indeed who can operate new home entertainment system without referring to the manual. Not too many years ago it was just a case of turning the thing or and flipping to the right channel - grandma could of done it. Is this progress?

Yes, we have bigger screens and louder sound, but the things are also 10 times the size and consume power like a bar heater when in full flight. And for what? They still do the same thing - allow us to see the news presenter at 7. The major difference is we can see their freckles now, so they have to use a lot more makeup.

It's a fair point - but the waste is not limited to technology. The same occurs in cars (SUVs?), boats, fashion/clothes, medicine and consulting services.

At the end of the day, people simply have too much money to buy crap with. Many of us drive to work in newish cars in order to work on projects that have been sold to clients for millions and which will be tossed out (I'm thinking IT now) or irrelevant in a couple of years.

But we cannot stop the waste of others. Maybe the best we can do is to put our own money to good use.

I support James Massola's call to 'step outside of the upgrade cycle', think i've saved considerable time and money to extent have done so. Thats heartwarming for me, but wont ever over-ride price or shiny-pretty-bundled-no-money-down marketing for majority of consumers.

Planned obsolescence and consumerism are not accidental side effects of growth-dependant economics, they're essential, and they wont ever be fixed by the econ.rationalist robots who rule. The market failure could be eased by pricing in the uncosted externalities (embodied energy, emissions, toxic waste to landfill, depletion of metal reserves, opportunity cost), but most likely this phenomenon of privelidge will be snuffed out by scarcity as energy supply declines. In twenty years we'll all be keeping quiet about current excesses, lest our considerably poorer descendants decide euthanasia needn't be voluntary.

I am currently typing this on an 8-year-old laptop, connected wirelessly (802.11G) to my router. Another 8-year-old laptop (bought second-hand on eBay for $200.00) is playing music through my stereo. I don't play CDs any more as I have ripped them all as MP3s and find computer access much easier.

Mind you, these 350 and 400 Mhz machines are too slow for Photoshop (or ripping CDs), so I use my 3-year-old 1.8 Ghz desktop machine (bought second-hand) for that. I upgrade when I have to, generally because of software I need to run. I retired a 9-year-old machine last year and gave it to my sister. Sadly it suffered a catastophic logic-board falure soon after, and the gutted hulk is sitting in my shed. I removed the ram, hard drive and network card whcih are waiting for a new home and may replace an even older machine I have farmed out elswhere.

Much of my gear is obsolescent, or obsolete, but still renders good service for word-processing, web-browsing and music. Oh, and it is 100% Apple Macintosh. I have found Macs to be tough, long-lasting machines. I suppose that must make me a "chic designer, pedantic publisher or posing puss"?

James Massola's article has triggered an interesting response here http://www.lowendmac.com/musings/07/0411.html . "Whether you're looking at your iPod, computer, car, or old fashioned analog television set, we'd rather you make the most of it for as long as you can. And when it comes time to replace it, find a good home for it. Break the consumption cycle by using it up before you move it out."

The best recommendation I've seen for the problem of planned obsolescence is to make manufacturers hire you the item rather than sell it to you. They provide you with a service instead of a product. They must take back obsolescent products and they are responsible for recycling them. I am sure that in a hiring situation they would ensure that chargers remain compatible.

Surely a carbon tax is going to have ramifications that will effect this issue. For example, if a manufacturer produces a product, they will be be responsible for CO2 emissions for the maufacturing process and have to offset that emission with carbon credits. The transport company that moves the product will have to offset their emissions with credits. Finally, the product reach's the consumer who will have to offset the energy used in running the product with either higher energy cost or carbon credits. Once the product is deemed obsolete by the consumer, the landfill operator will have to pay the tax or offset with carbon credits. Under these conditions, the landfill operator bears the responsibility, which I think is unfair and will probably means that there will be very few such operators around. Maybe be some form of end user certificate will have to issued with every product whereby the manufacturer has to contribute to the final carbon cost of the consequences of obsolescence of the product.

Its a difficult question and maybe before its time but it will have to be resolved in the near future.

Lowendmac seems laudable, but Apple Computers got panned by Greenpeace for toxic chemical and waste policies
http://media.www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2007/04/09/CityNews/Greenpeace.International.Ranks.Apple.Inc.Last.On.List.Of.Electronic.Companies.E-2831865.shtml%E2%80%9D
Chinese manufacturer Lenovo did best - damn reality, keeps disproving the marketing.

Liam, not everyone liked Greenpeace's methodology. Have a look here http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2007/tc20070329_721408.htm Most computers use brominated flame retardants (BFRs) on their circuit boards, Apple scores worse because it hasn't nominated a timetable for phasing them out (ie punished for what it says rather than what it does). By contrast Apple gets much better than average results at EPEAT http://www.epeat.net/, an environmental analysis by the Green Electronics Council. This looks like a legitimate program to me, but have a look and let me know.

I don't particularly want to be seen as an apologist for Apple, but I don't think they are the worst offender in what is obviously a poisonous business. Most computers and consumer electonics are produced in the same factories in China, with cheap labour and poor working conditions. Lenovo (which scored best according to Greenpeace) is owned by Chinese Communist Party interests and I'd be interested to know what their industrial relations are like.

We shouldn't get caught up in an upgrade spiral that only benefits vendors. Don't get blinded by the halo that surrounds a shiny new product (in the Apple blogsphere this is generally known as the Reality Distortion Field). We should also push for less poisonous products, better recycling and a more sustainable industry. In the end though, as consumers we should buy what is useful, and use it.

Thanks Johnj for info, am no expert and am quite willing to consider alternative assessments. IMHO, the greenest product is the one you don't buy, ie. reuse repair reconsider, but transperancy by all manufacturers is a great step forward and to be encouraged.

Yes we are wasting to the detriment of the environment and our sanity.

But with less work to do... what will happen to our jobs?

Liam, "IMHO, the greenest product is the one you don't buy, ie. reuse repair reconsider." Amen to that.

Savoir68 "But with less work to do... what will happen to our jobs?" Computers have displaced some jobs (ie typists), but for most people the computer means more work, rather than less. Just like the "paperless office"...