Planned obsolescence generates waste that sacrifices the lives of the poor in developing countries

Another dark side of innovation relates to end-of-product-life considerations, that are predictable from the start, but often ignored until the end. Examples include the disposal  of nuclear waste, mining clean-up operations, and heavy metal leakage from the recycling  of electronic waste. With new technologies, and especially technologies with long working lives, these end of life costs may be uncertain. In some instances, a new technology  can reduce these costs, but in many others rising social expectations and more stringent  environmental and health regulations can substantially increase costs over time.  Recycling can reduce the environmental impact of waste. However, if new materials  such as plastics are relatively cheap, recycling can be prohibitively expensive compared to  landfill or burning. In one example, from the UK, Westminster council sent 82% of all  household waste – including that put in recycling bins – for incineration in 2017/18  (Franklin-Wallis 2019). Disposal problems are exacerbated in the case of planned  obsolescence, where products have deliberately shortened lifetimes, or are designed  such that they are impossible or difficult to repair.1 For example, Apple has been  repeatedly accused of deliberately slowing its iPhones in order to increase the sales of  new products, and restricts the repair of Apple products even in the case of fairly simple  repairs (Svensson et al. 2018).  

Despite the usual focus on the benefits of renewable energy, Hansen and Nygaard (this  issue) provide evidence on the dangers. New technologies for solar panels cause problems  of heavy metal disposal, in particular for lead, which is a potent neurotoxin. Many Sub-  Saharan African nations lack capabilities to dispose of waste, and there are uncertainties  about the longer-term environmental performance of solar panels. The recycling of  hazardous materials is often done by the poor who lack equipment, protection, and  political representation. Innovations that address one kind of pollution can create new  problems, that fall on different people, and these costs should not be ignored, even if the  overall improvement is substantial.