Goodbye to the power supply included with the smartphone green choice

In October of last year, Apple once again stunned the world with a counter-current move: removing the wall power supply from the iPhone sales packages. Obviously, user complaints and competitor teasing followed suit, but Samsung and Xiaomi decided to follow the same path right away with their top-of-the-line devices.

All of the companies cited defended this initiative when asked why they made this decision, saying that they wished to lessen the environmental effect associated with the manufacturing of their cellphones. But is it actually true? We seek clarification.

Goodbye to the power supply included with the smartphone green choice

It’s no secret that a smartphone pollutes (and not just a little bit) over the course of its lifetime. Significant amounts of CO2 are produced during the process of extracting raw materials, during their processing and assembly, as well as during daily use. Even seemingly innocuous actions like charging your device or sending an email use energy and, as a result, add to air pollution.

As a result, there is a problem, the trend is unabated, and businesses must make every effort to lessen their negative impact on the environment. I made the decision to hunt for more information because I wanted to estimate how much the planet would gain from sales packaging being free of wall chargers.

Unfortunately, despite the firms’ statements, only Apple has shared data that can be analysed, making my research considerably more difficult than I had anticipated. Assuming Samsung and Xiaomi have obtained comparable, if not worse results (otherwise, why not publish them? ), we will consequently have to use the latter as a benchmark. After all, it would be a great chance for them to gain attention).

In any case, the 512GB iPhone 12 Pro Max is the second-most “polluting” iDevice ever, producing 110Kg of CO2, just 1 less than its predecessor, the iPhone 11 Pro Max 512GB. The iPhone 12 Pro 512GB is right behind it, producing 107Kg of CO2 over the course of its lifetime, matching the output of the iPhone 11 Pro 512GB, while the iPhone 12 produces 87, exactly the same as its predecessor.

These outcomes are not exceptional, therefore. Yes, current Cupertino cellphones would have likely generated a little bit more glasshouse gases if they had chargers. however, by how much? Is the difference noteworthy when taken as a whole?

Just a negative response is possible. According to the Global E-waste Monitor 2020 study, humanity produced about 54 million tonnes of electronic garbage in 2019 alone, of which chargers make up a negligible portion—roughly 0.1% of the total. This means that the environmental advantages of choosing this course would be difficult to understand if all manufacturers did so.

As a result, rather from being an environmentally benign action, it appears that we are facing a new scheme to boost the revenues of businesses who would like to boost their reputation by appearing to support the ecological cause. In essence, it appears to be addressing another another instance of greenwashing.

At this point someone could argue: “it’s a drop in the ocean, but at least it’s something, after all I already have hundreds of magazines at home, forgotten at the bottom of a drawer”.

This is true, but it is also true that it frequently proves to be insufficient. In fact, even a power supply that is ten years old can be used to recharge even the most modern smartphone without any issues, but the problem is the length of time needed to have a full charge, especially given current technologies.

Manufacturers prefer to avoid using overly large batteries, especially in high-end gadgets, in order to keep the total thickness and weight in check. Instead, they invest in the creation of more effective rapid charging methods.

The iPhone 11 has 18W of fast charging capabilities out of the box, the iPhone 12 has 20W, the Mi 10 has 30W, and the Mi 11 has 55W. These guidelines can shorten the time needed to fully charge a smartphone from several hours to just a few minutes. In actuality, using an outdated power supply means sacrificing a characteristic that is frequently promoted by vendors during presentations.

There are two options from here: either forego a function that, albeit marginally, you are paying for when purchasing a new smartphone, or “pay it twice,” by purchasing a charger separately, for which, incidentally, Apple charges €25 and Samsung €20.

I agree that these are not astounding numbers, but in light of what has just been said, I find it understandable that some users are at the very least irritated by the idea of having to reach for their wallet once more in order to fully utilise a recently purchased device, especially at such a low cost.

As a result, eliminating this item does not appear to be the wisest course of action, neither for the environment nor for the benefit of consumers. What then might be the major route to take? I’m not sure if that’s the best response, but I’d like to share my perspective on it and would be interested in hearing yours as well.

By 2020, there will likely be 3.5 billion cellphones in use worldwide. One of the most well-known management consulting firms in the world, Gartner, calculated that the carbon emissions from cellphones sold in 2018 alone were equivalent to those of the Philippines, a nation with a population of roughly 100 million. According to the business, if we could increase the usable life of these smartphones by only a third, we could avoid emitting as much CO2 in a year as Ireland does.

Companies may therefore cancel (or at least amend) their planned obsolescence strategies if they truly wished to significantly reduce the pollution associated with the life cycle of their products. This would be beneficial for the environment.

True, this would cause a decline in their profits (at least temporarily), but the positive impact on their reputation would be enormous, and the number of customers they could attract would increase as a result of the possibility of using smartphones without any issues for another 5, 6, or more years.