There should be a fourth R in the famous RRR (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle) theory of saving and conserving the environment. The fourth R that I propose should be Repair. In the modern world, we prefer new items to repaired items. It is because the companies that manufacture these products make it so difficult & costly to repair your things. They make it so costly, that a new item seems a logical choice. If my 3 years old Samsung S8’s screen costs me 14,000 Rupees then what do you think I will do? I will obviously think of buying a new phone. Even in bigger appliances like ACs and TVs, they either tell you an insane amount of price or they will simply say that they have stopped manufacturing parts for older models. These outrageous prices and inability to repair causes so much of e-waste every year. Almost 20 to 50 million tonnes of e-waste is produced every year worldwide. 80% of which goes into landfills.
Much of the materials required to manufacture modern gadgets and types of equipment are from around the world. Many of them including rare earth metals need to be mined, and these mines are more often than not situated in those developing countries that do not have strict labour and environmental policies. Their extraction and use have been implicated in human rights violations as well as environmental degradation.
70–80% of the carbon footprint of a computing device is made even before the consumer opens the box. This means that the old iPhone you just threw away because of the cracked screen, not only went into landfills (80% of it) but you also put more carbon in the atmosphere. 69% of 1432 cell phone users answered in a survey that they would opt for repairing instead of buying a new phone. Apple itself said that slashing prices of screen replacements lead to a drop in sales of their iPhones. If that screen (or any other part of any other appliance that could be fixed) was available for a logical price, you would have not thrown it away.
A study in Europe found that if the life expectancy of electronics is extended just by 1 year in the European Union, it can save up to 4 million metric tons of carbon emissions. Still, companies like Apple, Verizon, Toyota, the printer company Lexmark, heavy machinery company Caterpillar, phone insurance company Asurion, medical device company Medtronic spent money lobbying against the right to repair act in the USA. Microsoft lobbyists went around saying that they will not sale some of their product in Washington if the bill was passed.
If the appliances are so hard to repair, then think what would happen while recycling. If it is so hard to get the parts separated than would the companies be willing to put their time in it?
Right to Repair
What I think is, the government should pass a law that these companies need to release DIY guides on how to repair the appliances and also keep a steady flow of replacement parts. Addition they shouldn’t be able to keep outrageous prices on the replacement parts. A mobile screen can not cost one-third value of the phone. It should be priced logically and fairly. If the model is very old and they wish to stop making those replacement parts because of decreased demand, they have to release guides on how to make those parts, so other companies that specialize in repairing can manufacture those parts. With the easy availability of 3-D printers, it is even easier to make small plastic parts (and soon metallic parts too) which are generally the victim of wear which leads in failing of the whole part.
Introducing easy repairs in these times when most companies don’t, may prove to be beneficial because it will build customer loyalty. This will do two things, one is that whenever they are looking for a replacement, they will come straight to you and the second is that they will recommend it to their friends and family.
If this is so obvious, why does the government not see it?
Growth. They want to show growth year by year, to win elections. If they do not show growth, people will think that the elected party is not capable to lead. If the government introduces a law for forcing a repair on all the companies, people will buy less and repair more. The sales of new products will fall, leading to growth rates becoming very low. But, how is the growth useful if we are creating it by destroying our mother earth. The other thing government needs are donations from the huge corporations, the same one that does not want such a law to come into action.
