One of the most pressing issues facing us today is the impact our gadget-laden lives has on the planet. As the demand for the latest smartphone, TV or tablet grows, the impact of manufacturing and disposing these gadgets is putting growing pressure on the environment. We spoke to former Australian of the Year and climate change expert Professor Tim Flannery about the importance of technology in helping solve the environmental damage our gadget lust has on the planet.
Manufacturing Environmental Change with Technology
“In terms of the volume of manufacturing, [the growing number of gadget purchases]would be adding a significant portion of the greenhouse gases,” Professor Flannery tells us in a phone interview.
It’s an issue we, as gadget lovers, generally fail to think about. Every year, we buy a new mobile phone. Every few years, it’s a new computer, a new TV. Slightly longer than that and we’re buying new games consoles, new speaker systems, new iPods. But what happens to the older models these new gadgets are replacing? How many end up in the bin, to be taken to landfill where they start to decompose, letting rare (and sometimes poisonous) metals seep back into the earth? The answer, simply put, is too many.
So how do we reverse this situation? Professor Flannery thinks it comes down to two main approaches.
“The key to that sort of thing, really, is recycling and a shift to a low-emissions economy – so we’re getting our energy sources from renewable resources that don’t contribute to the greenhouse gas problem. Between those two, you have a very powerful tool, really, for reducing the impact that manufacturing has on the planet.”
Recycling is an interesting proposition. While we’ve readily reached a point in Australian society where recycling household cardboard, glass and plastics is common place, the same cannot be said for recycling electronics. Finding out how and where you can recycle items like CRT TVs and computer monitors – and to a lesser extent mobile phones and portable gadgets – generally involves a lot more work than putting them in a different coloured bin each week. But professor Flannery believes that as time goes on and the materials inside these electronics get rarer, recycling will become a much more popular alternative.
“[Recycling electronics]is harder, but it’s also the case that the products are also much more high value. I think that as rare earths and so forth become more limited, and metal prices and commodity prices go up, the incentive for that sort of recycling is only going to increase.
“But it can be helped by government mandating that a percentage of materials has to be from recycled materials and so forth, so you can have a legislative framework as well to assist with that.”
Leading manufacturers are already doing a very good job of trying to create an environmentally conscious lineup of products, according to Professor Flannery.
“[The leading companies]are investing heavily in R&D, particularly to minimise electricity use for any of their products – delivering the same service but with less electric use, which only comes about through innovation.
“They’re also taking a lead in whole of lifecycle care, custodianship for their materials and so forth and recycling, playing a big role in recycling. And the best of them are playing a more active role in trying to encourage governments to get better regulation in place.”
The Strength Of The Green Technology Ecosystem
That R&D and effort being put into creating a new class of eco-friendly gadget is already making a difference. While some people have the perception that green technology comes at the expense of performance, Professor Flannery begs to differ.
“Green technology’s already a superior technology in many areas, I think. You’ve only got to look at some hybrid vehicles and their performance, and their ratings for safety and reliability, so they really are pretty good.
“The old days where you bought a light globe – one of the new compact fluoro light globes and it took 30 seconds for it to get bright – they’re already behind. So the product does get better as time goes on. And I think that’s just part of the nature of enterprise, those sort of things will occur.”
While technology develops to become even more environmentally friendly, meeting the growing demand from consumers, Professor Flannery still believes that there is plenty we can do today to limit the amount of damage we do to the environment with our gadget lust. It may involve some sacrifices though.
“There are a couple of options [to reduce your personal impact to the environment] . Number one is to buy green electricity. The other is to take advantage of some of the subsidies that are available, and put some photovoltaics – you know, solar panels – on your roof so you’re generating your own electricity.
“Thirdly, what we all should do is try and minimise the amount of electricity we burn, the electricity we use. So turning things off at the switch, getting rid of the beer fridge – you know the beer fridge is probably going to do more damage than 100 phone recharges, I think.”
The Future Is Up To You
There’s no simple solution to solving the problem of climate change, but there are still plenty of things that each individual person can do to make an impact. What’s needed now more than anything, according to Professor Flannery, is people to stand up and actively try to do their part in minimising the effect of their technology usage.
“It’s all about leadership, really. If you just buy the middle-of-the-road, or the cheapest, and just allow the environment to carry the cost of inefficient energy and so forth, you just become part of the problem.
“If you support the leaders, and invest a bit in the future and reduce your own electricity costs, you become one of the leaders. And we need more leaders in the world.”


















Simon Reidy
Monday, April 4, 2011 at 2:09 PMExcellent interview Nick. I admire Tim Flannery greatly so that was a really good read.
Doing whatever we can to reduce harm to the environment, and reduce energy usage, is extremely important to me, but it’s hard given the number of power hungry gadgets I use every day.
Donny
Monday, April 4, 2011 at 3:32 PMI’m putting in a PV array – 1.9kW. I hope to produce 5-6kW per day afterage over the year.
My beer fridges (yes, two) are staying.. I need one for brewing, and my kegerator for serving. I figure that’s greener than a normal fridge anyway, because the door on it never opens.
attila
Monday, April 4, 2011 at 3:58 PMHe says Green technology is already a superior technology in many areas, then fails to name any – the best he could come up with is that some of the hyrbid cars are “pretty good”.
Rossco
Monday, April 4, 2011 at 5:08 PMThat’s because if he’s specific he has a larger chance of being wrong (which he so often is). Besides, he has an image to uphold and books about things he’s not qualified to write about to peddle to the clueless public…
Mogwai
Monday, April 4, 2011 at 6:12 PMwhich they’re not and everyone knows it.
Why not ask him something useful like whether sustainable’s can produce base load power for a country like Australia. This seems to be the most debated issue and I’ve never heard an decent answers.
The worst thing about this whole gadget thing is that once they become obsolete they are in no way valueless as a whole. One thing manufacturers go out of their way to avoid, is these 1st or 2nd generation devices being re-sold into emerging markets. This would cut off another major revenue source. Even though they are happy to sell a terrible low end phone in africa, that same phone is now obsolete in 1st world countries.
Why are the vendors so keen to get behind the destruction (recycling) of devices rather than shipping them to Africa and India where millions of people could take advantage of them for next to nothing.
We have a whole program to recycle phones and PCs in Australia which in most cases are only one generation old in our culture yet probably 2 generations ahead in others.
One laptop per child. How about re-distributing what we no longer need to those who do need it.
Leanther
Monday, April 4, 2011 at 5:05 PMUnfortunately, Tim is among the group of “green” technology promoters that have left out the only, and I mean the only, viable alternative base load “green” power means, Nuclear.
Think about it, a 1GW Nuclear power station produces about 300 tons of disposable waste every year (as opposed to about 300,000 tons from 1GW coal), and not all of it is radioactive.
It doesn’t need hundreds of square kilometers of land, which can’t be used for anything else, to work (wind, solar) and it’s many times cheaper than everything else except Coal and Gas.
It’s almost insane that the government has banned development of it.
What we really need in this country is proper education about how radiation works and why we shouldn’t be scared of it (ie: alpha, beta, gamma radiation, and instant exposure vs exposure over time, background radiation etc).
Cars already have a viable alternative fuel: Hydrogen fuel cells. (Lookup the Honda clarity) Hybrid cars are just a waste of time and effort.
With a bit of work, Australia could be emissions neutral or even emissions free within our lifetimes, if we rolled over our power generation from coal & gas to nuclear, and from Petrol to Hydrogen.
Brendan
Monday, April 4, 2011 at 7:32 PMNo, no and no to uranium based nuclear. Absolutely terrible idea. I would like to see more development on thorium based nuclear power generation however. Non- weaponisable, waste products have a half life of only five hundred years.
matt
Monday, April 4, 2011 at 8:14 PMI agree with hydrogen cars.
but with regards to current renewable sources using lots of our “valuable” land…
I think you are forgetting something…
http://rlv.zcache.com/funny_australian_card-p137218303762507241q6k5_400.jpg
there is a MASSIVE DESERT in the middle of the country… it gets hit by a lot of sun, and the land isn’t much good for anything else!
nuclear is fine, but frankly, a cop out… WE can do better! already many households are generating what? a third of their electricity with just a couple of solar panels covering a part of their roof??
ozoneocean
Tuesday, April 5, 2011 at 4:23 AMMany device manufactures are guilty of deliberately instituting a throw-away culture and cultivating a fake “green” image. Apple is a prime offender in this regard- They have a yearly upgrade cycle of all their consumer devices- devices that a supported by a whole interconnecting network of software and paid for downloaded content- and that tied with the constant updates of the OSs and the itunes software that will frequently run poorly with older devices actively helps to encourage users to update those devices and discard the older ones.
Then there’s the guff about the “machined” aluminium casings being “green”. Aluminium is only a little bit “green” if you use recycled stock. Apart from that it is massively energy intensive to refine, and machining metal makes it even more energy intensive in the manufacture cycle. Plastic casings would actually be better since they lock fossil carbon away in a reasonabley stable form and don’t involve as much carbon release in manufacture.
Kroo
Tuesday, April 5, 2011 at 7:52 AMHonestly, you can’t take this guy seriously. He’s a global warming alarmist and says stupid stuff like “Sydney and Brisbane will run out of drinking water within a decade” and the east coast of Australia will be under 2 meters of water when the oceans rise. He’s a mammalogist (study of mammals) not a climate scientist. His stupid rants puts people off and diverts real debate on sustainable living. I’ve been an advocate of sustainable living for 30 years back when I was in town planning, we should always strive to do things better and cleaner just for our own health. Two facts that keep being left out of the whole climate change debate. Carbon makes up just 0.038% of the atmosphere and makes up just 3% of greenhouse gases, water vapour taking up over 70%. Remember without the greenhouse affect we’d all fry from cosmic radiation. I don’t like radicals from either side putting fear or misinformation out there to justify their existence or billion dollar government funding. every building has the ability to be self sustaining, why don’t we start there?
Shane Kerr
Tuesday, April 5, 2011 at 12:26 PMWhat exactly makes Flannery an”Expert”? The only thing he’s an expert at is getting his mug in front of cameras to flog his alarmism, his own geothermal projects (which he is heavily invested in) and his scary books.
Oh, and his expert predictions have all failed to come true.
Nice photo though,lovely bokeh.
Joanna van Kool
Wednesday, April 6, 2011 at 11:37 AMI am having problems with Dr Tim Flannery’s recenty reported public comment that nothing will change in a hundred years re the cimate if we do nothing.( I didn’t hear the broadcast myself, but am assured that this is what he openly said).I am being bombarded with this by all my local climate change sceptics. I would like him to explain publicly what he meant by this statement. I am not a scientist, but I think I understand though have difficulty explaining it to others. I know the comment has given fuel to the sceptics who seem to be growing in numbers. I am endeavouring to understand it all as are many others. I try to draw a line between hysteria and denial. I think statements such as Dr Flannery made need to be explained so we may all, scientists and non scientists alike, continue to make valued and reasoned judgements about where we go from here and what we, as individuals, can do to leave our planet viable for future generations. Joanna van Kool
Baldrick
Saturday, April 9, 2011 at 9:39 PMTim’s a wombat … anyone who believes his dribble has rocks in their head!