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.