Mobile Phone Case Study Evaluation of Reductions in Equivalent CO2 Emissions of Mobile Phones Marketed as 'Eco-Friendly' Versus Mobile Phones Not Marketed as ‘Eco-Friendly’
by Kimi Ceridon kceridon@kalepa-tech.com
Abstract Consumers purchase ‘eco-friendly’ products with the understanding these products reduce their personal ecological impact. This case study utilizes a screening Life Cycle Assessment tool to evaluate the effectiveness of some of the commonly employed ‘eco-friendly’ design strategies. Although this assessment is limited in scope, according to the results, ‘eco-friendly’ mobile phones offer reductions in various ecological impact categories. A fraction of aggregated ecological impacts is climate change as measured by equivalent CO 2 emissions. While ‘eco-friendly’ practices reduce aggregated ecological impacts, they are not significantly reducing equivalent CO2 emissions relative to mobile phones not marketed as ‘eco-friendly’. This assessment reveals that greater reductions in equivalent CO2 emissions can be achieved by focusing specifically on reductions in the energy consumption of the mobile phones. From a survey of literature, other studies indicate the issue is more complex. This suggests an expanded evaluation using a comprehensive Life Cycle Assessment tool should be completed on the significant findings of this study.
Introduction: As public awareness of environmental issues including climate change increases, ‘Eco-friendly’ consumer products are becoming more common in the marketplace. ‘Eco-friendly’ offerings include incorporating techniques such as using materials that are less toxic to humans and the environment, reducing energy consumption, harnessing alternative forms of energy such as solar or wind, and using biodegradables. While these techniques are designed to address a range of environmental issues, the goal of this case study is to examine how ‘Eco-friendly’ mobile phones marketed as ‘eco friendly’ are specifically addressing climate change. To evaluate the effectiveness of ‘eco-friendly’ mobile phones at addressing climate change, first a survey of the mobile phone industry and market potential is presented. While the survey is not conclusive, it frames the potential impact the mobile phone industry has on the environment and climate change. Focusing on the US mobile phone market, currently available ‘eco-friendly’ phones are examined for the common ‘eco-friendly’ practices employed in the phone’s design. When possible, these ‘eco-friendly’ practices are evaluated using a screening life cycle assessment (LCA) tool. Each practice is subsequently evaluated for its effectiveness in evaluating climate change by examining the equivalent CO 2 output relative to a ‘non-eco-friendly’ practice. All assumptions for the evaluation are clearly stated and equivalent assumptions in the service rendered and longevity are used for each assessment to ensure a homogeneous comparison. Where a screening LCA is not feasible, the claim is evaluated through literature. Finally, these comparisons are discussed for validity in addressing climate change. In conclusion, the practices are summarized for the most effective strategies for addressing climate change in mobile phone design. Methods: Mobile phones have become ubiquitous fixtures in not only the United States, but around the world. The number of mobile phone users in the United State grew from 34 million to 203 million in span of about 10 years from 1999–2009 [Afareen 2009]. During the same time period, world population grew from nearly 6 billion to nearly 6.7 billion with adult populations (ages 15-64) representing 48% and 73% of a country’s population [The World Bank]. Additionally, estimates indicate there are more than 4.6 billion mobile phones in use in 2009 [ITU]. While this represents mobile phones for roughly 60% of the world’s population, there are differences in market penetration from country to country ranging from 23.8% in Egypt to 150.5% in Hong Kong [ITU]. These trends indicate the great potential for growth in the mobile phone market based on population growth and expanded penetration into unsaturated markets. Judging markets like Hong Kong, penetration beyond saturation is feasible. While trends related to population and penetration are not directly causal indicators, the growth in annual sales of mobile phones has been more than 1 billion each year since 2007. 2009 Topped the scales with 1.2 billion phones sold [Graham 2010]. At the other end of the spectrum, the exact number of mobile phones disposed of each year is difficult to obtain. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) reports that ‘as many 130 million cell phones would be retired annually in the
2
United States’ [Sullivan 2006]. It further reports that less than 1% of these are recycled. This trend correlates well with Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) reports of 14 million mobile phones recycled last year [EPA 2010]. It is difficult to develop correlations or causal relationships between this data, but in general terms, mobile phones represent a large volume of materials and commodities moving across our consumer and economic system. Each new phone uses a number of raw materials and resources. Each phone in use consumes electricity and consumables such as batteries and accessories. Finally, each phone disposed of in a landfill or incinerator takes up land space ultimately leaving toxic and non-toxic traces of the phone in the environment. According to a literature review by Scharnhorst [2008], the largest environmental impacts of a mobile phone result from energy consumption during the use phase and from the toxic materials associated with production and end-of-life phases of batteries and circuit boards. While Scharnhorst did not explicitly isolate climate change related impacts, it appears energy consumption during use-phase results in higher climate change impacts through more equivalent CO 2 emissions. The production and end-of-life of the battery and circuit boards appear to result in higher human toxicity and ecotoxicity impacts. Scharnhorst’s literature review demonstrates that it is unclear how much mobile phones contribute to environmental degradation in generally, and climate change, specifically. However, a few companies attempt to reduce their environmental impacts with ‘eco-friendly’ mobile phone offerings. Several product review websites offer reviews of ‘ecofriendly’ mobile phones. For the purposes of this paper, only phones available in the United States and Europe at the time of this writing are considered for this case study. This includes the following six models: Sony Ericsson Greenheart™ Aspen, Hazel and Elm, the Motorola MOTO™ W233 Renew, the Samsung Reclaim™ SPH-m560 and the Nokia 3110 Evolve. While mentioned in various reviews, phones such as the Samsung Blue Earth, Samsung E200 Eco, ZTE Coral 200 Solar and the LG Solar powered phone are not yet available in the US or Europe[ Fahrenbacher 2009, Greenyour.com 2010, Layton 2009]. The major strategies for reducing the environment impact of the six mobile phones under consideration are determined by examining publically available product specifications and reviewer supplied information for each.
Sony Ericsson Greenheart
TM
Aspen, Hazel and Elm – These three phones use a similar design strategy but each
utilizes a different operating system platform. Greenheart
TM
models eliminate additional banned substances
beyond RoHS. This list is not explicitly defined, so it is not included in this evaluation. At minimum,50% of plastics are post consumer recycled polycarbonates. They reduce carbon footprint by 15% through measures like electronic user guides, ‘optimised display light sensor’ and waterbourne paint. The baseline the reduction relative to is not defined. The phone uses 0.1-Watts in standby mode. Sony Ericsson’s take back program is included for recycling this phone [Sony Ericsson 2010].
3
Motorola, MOTO W233 Renew – This phone’s plastic housing is post-consumer, recycled water bottles. The housing is 100% recyclable. Packaging is minimized and instructional materials are 100% post-consumer, recycled paper. The phone uses 0.1-Watts in standby mode. It is ‘Certified Carbonfree®’ via offsets purchased from CarbonFund.org for CO2 emissions due to manufacture, distribution and operation. Assumptions and values for offsets are not defined. Motorola’s take back program is included for recycling this phone [Motorola 2010]. Samsung Reclaim SPH-m560 – This phone’s casing is 40% ‘bio-plastic materials, which are 100% biodegradable’. This is corn based material. No instructions for composting or degrading the casing are provided. It is packaged in recycled materials and incorporates virtual user guides and instructions. Other than being EnergyStar compliant, there is no indication of standby power consumption. It is assumed to consume 0.35-Watts in standby. Samsung’s take back program is included for recycling this phone [Samsung 2010]. Nokia 3110 Evolve – This phone incorporates ‘bio-materials’. The specific percentage is not indicated. The packaging is 60% recycled materials. The charger for this phone includes ‘intelligent charging’ which detects when the battery is fully charged and turns off the charging circuit. The package includes a user guide. Other than being EnergyStar compliant, there is no indication of standby power consumption. It is assumed to consume 0.35-Watts in standby. Nokia’s take back program is included for recycling this phone [Nokia 2010]. The eco-design strategies and the corresponding products incorporating them are summarized in Table 1. Table 1 – Summary of Eco-Design Strategies
Company Product Recycled plastic
Sony Ericsson Greenheart™ Aspen, Hazel & Elm
Motorola
Samsung
Nokia
MOTO W233 Renew
Reclaim SPHm560
3110 Evolve
Bio-based plastic Recycled Packaging
Eliminates paper manuals
0.35 Watts standby power 0.1 Watts standby power
Carbon Offsets Take Back Programs
All of these ‘eco-friendly’ mobile phones as well as equivalent ‘non-eco-friendly’ mobile phones appear to adhere to European Union directives of Reduction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) and Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE), so strategies for hazardous materials related to RoHS and WEEE are not included. None of the product specifications provide estimates on power consumption during use, thus the ‘standby’ information is used for later comparisons. Since all of the companies offer a take back programs that are not exclusive for the ‘eco-friendly’ mobile
4
phones, these programs are not considered in these comparisons. Where specifics of the strategy are not defined, they are not considered. Off-sets are not treated in the comparison or assessment, but rather discussed in conclusions. Table 1 outlines strategies used for specific mobile phones. Since many of the specifics of these strategies are not provided in publically available specifications, the overall ‘climate change performance’ of each mobile phone cannot be readily determined. For the purposes of this study, each strategy is evaluated in a generalized manner. 100% primary raw plastic housing versus 100% recycled plastic versus 100% bio-polymer housing. It is assumed all design aspects (shape, size and wall thickness) are equivalent. End-of-life of 100% recycles versus 100% incinerated for the entire mobile phone. While the exact bill of material for the products is not known, it is assumed all mobile phones have the same electronics. 100% primary paper board versus 100% recycled paper board for packaging averaged. It is assumed all design aspects (shape, size, board weight) are equivalent. 100% primary paper versus 100% recycled paper for instructions. It is assumed all design aspects (number of pages and paper weight) are equivalent. Evaluating virtual instructions read on-line is beyond the scope of this study. Standby power consumption at a rate of 8 hours per day for a 2 year life for 0.35-Watts versus 0.1-Watts. The impacts on reducing climate change related to carbon offsets are not well understood, so the impacts due to these strategies are not treated with regards to the results. To compare the outlined eco-design strategies for their impact on climate change, the Life Cycle Assessment tool Sustainable Minds is utilized. This tool is chosen for its ability to rapidly iterate strategies. Sustainable Minds Life Cycle Assessment Tool presents overall environmental impact results in a scaled score called ‘Okala millipoints’. According to the Sustainable Minds learning center, the scores are built using life cycle inventory data from the EcoInvent v2.0 database. This database is commonly used for Life Cycle Assessment. The tool uses a life cycle impact assessment method defined by the EPA’s Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and Other Environmental Impacts (TRACI). To arrive at a single number score, the impacts are normalized and weighed according to guidelines outlined by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The weighing is done to ‘assist in interpretation of the characterization of impacts’ [Sustainable Minds 2010] Results and Discussion: Each of the scenarios outlined in the previous section are evaluated using the Sustainable Minds LCA tool. The assumptions for each of these scenarios are presented and the resulting software ouputs are presented. Due to how results are presented in the software, each set of results shows a Reference, Best Okala Score and Final Concept. These descriptors are arbitrary. The columns presented in the results show the overall environmental impacts with the equivalent CO 2 emissions in pounds in the second column.
5
Sustainable Minds displays results in a single score that aggregates all ecological impacts including climate change impacts. To break out climate change impacts, results are also provided in equivalent CO 2 emissions which are normalized but not weighted values. For this case study, the results will be discussed in ‘aggregated ecological impacts’ to refer to the aggregated score and ‘equivalent CO2 emissions’ to refer to climate change impacts. In both cases, lower values indicate lower impacts. Since Life Cycle Assessments have the most relevance as a relative tool for making comparison, the remainder of the table summarizes how the concepts compare relative to the arbitrary reference. A functional unit of named ‘1-hour of use’ was inputted as a place holder for lifetime. The rightmost column of results is included to show all concepts use the same functional unit. The colors are selected by the software. Red indicates a result worse than the reference concept while green indicates a result better than the reference concept. SCENARIO 1 - 100% primary raw plastic housing versus 100% recycled plastic housing versus 100% bio-polymer The following assumptions are used for this assessment: A ‘candy-bar’ style mobile phone with dimensions of 4.25-in x 1.9-in x 0.6-in with 0.05-inch wall thickness is used as a baseline. The total volume of the housing is calculated as a hollow brick at these dimensions. 3
Using an approximate plastic density of 1.2 g/cm (0.0433 lb/in3) the resulting housing weight is 0.05- lb housing. Exploring all primary and recycled plastics is beyond the scope of this paper. A commonly used engineering plastic, High Density Polyethylene and bottle plastic, Polyethylene Terephthalate is explored. NatureWorks PLA is used because a general bio-polymer is not available. Since end-of-life is considered in a later assessment, only emissions due to production are considered. All parts are blow molded.
6
Figure 1 - Sustainable Minds results for SCENARIO 1
The results shown in Figure 1 show using a recycled plastics decreases aggregated ecological impacts by more than 50% compared its non-recycled counterpart plastic. The reductions in equivalent CO2 emissions for are not as significant. Impacts due to blow molding recycled and non-recycled versions of HDPE and PETE are similar, so this indicates the CO2 emissions are primarily due to the blow molding process. HDPE offers the best scores for both recycled and non-recycled categories. Both the aggregated ecological impacts and equivalent CO2 emissions for NatureWorks PLA are higher than all other options except for 100% primary PETE. A closer look at the actual outputs reveal that the reductions in aggregated ecological impacts is due to reductions in impacts related to Ocean Acidification, Smog and Human Respriatory. Using recycled HDPE results in increases in impacts related to Ecotoxicity, Human Toxicity and Fuel Consumption. SCENARIO 2 – End-of-life of 100% recycled versus 100% incinerated for the entire mobile phone. This evaluation builds on the results of the previous section. The following assumptions are used for this assessment: The housing dimensions, material options and manufacturing options from the previous case are reused. The software does not allow for manufacturing and material extraction to be omitted. Mobile phones weight approximately 0.25-lb. The housing comprises 0.05-lb. The following materials are assumed in the assembly. o
A 1.75-in x 3-in x 0.125-in glass screen weighing 0.06-lb.
7
o
A 1.6-in x 2.5-in x 0.25-in battery made primary of lithium weighing 0.02-lb
o
A 1.75-in x 4-inch x .050-in surface mount, lead-free printed circuit board weighing 0.02-lb
o
The remaining 0.1-lb is divided equally at 0.017-lb each between surface mount electrical components capacitors, resistors, diodes, inductors, copper, and transistors.
Without disassembling a mobile phone, these assumptions are applied as a best effort to create a complete mobile phone. These assumptions are not based on any measurements, but estimated for demonstration purposes. Proper weights and measures should be completed to validate this assumption. The goal is to evaluate end-of-life given all things being equal. Sustainable Minds LCA Tool does not offer end-of-life options for resistors, transistors, printed circuit boards, inductors, diodes or lithium. Only incineration is offered for copper and capacitors. Glass and plastics offer a landfill option, but since the equivalent CO2 emissions are lower for this option, they are not considered. This portion of the evaluation is incomplete without this data, but the equivalent CO2 emissions on processes available are compared here. Sustainable minds LCA Tool treats recycling with zero resulting impacts. The recycling impacts are incorporated in the extraction process.
8
Figure 2 - Sustainable Minds results for SCENARIO 2
In Figure 2, where the end-of-life is not indicated, recycling is used. Within the categories of recycling and incinerating, the results show similar aggregated ecological impacts for all housing material options. When considering only materials, manufacturing and end-of-life phases, the largest aggregated ecological impacts are due to the electronic components in the assembly. The housing has little impact on either aggregated ecological impacts or the equivalent CO2 emissions when the entire assembly is considered which is also verified by the fact the values for SCENARIO 1 are 1% or less of those in SCENARIO 2. While incineration triples the aggregated ecological impacts over recycling, the equivalent CO2 emissions only increase by 5.9%. This indicates manufacturing the electronics produces the majority of the equivalent CO2 emissions. SCENARIO 3 - 100% primary paper board versus 100% recycled paper board for packaging averaged. This portion of the assessment focuses exclusively on the packaging, so an assessment independent of previous assessments is used. The total mass of paperboard is assumed to be 6.5-oz (0.41 lb). This is the weighed mass of a box provided with a mobile phone. Feedstock of single-walled corrugated board is used since a recycled version and primary version are available in Sustainable Minds. No printing ink is included.
9
Figure 3 - Sustainable Minds results for SCENARIO 3
Figure 3 shows corrugated paperboard has similar aggregated ecological impacts whether a recycled or a non-recycled feedstock is used. However, recycled feedstock does reduce the equivalent CO 2 emissions of the packaging. When comparing landfilling and incinerating, incinerating offers a 75% reduction in aggregated ecological impacts but no reductions in equivalent CO2 emissions. Relative to to SCENARIO 1, packaging has higher CO2 emissions in all cases and higher aggregated ecological impacts in some cases. If recycled feedstock is used and the package is recycled at the endof-life, equivalent CO2 emissions can be reduced by 83% over non-recycled feedstock and landfilled or incinerated end-oflife. SCENARIO 4 - 100% primary paper versus 100% recycled paper for instructions. This portion of the assessment focuses exclusively on the packaging, so an assessment independent of previous assessments is used. The total mass of paper is assumed to be 1.5-oz (0.094-lb). This is the weighed mass of an instruction/user guide book provided with a mobile phone. Single-walled corrugated board is used since a recycled version and primary version are available. Three paper options are considered; supercalendred, recycled with de-inking and recycled without de-inking No printing ink is included.
10
Figure 4 - Sustainable Minds results for SCENARIO 4
Figure 4 shows nine paper options for the user guide and instruction book. Landfilling paper at the end-of-life results the highest aggregated ecological impacts, while incinerating paper at the end of life results in the highest equivalent CO2 emissions. Using recycled paper that is de-inked results in the highest aggregated ecological impacts and no significant reductions in equivalent CO2 emissions for each end-of-life scenario. Recycled paper that is not de-inked offers the lowest overall aggregated ecological impacts and significant reductions equivalent CO2 emissions. The end-of-life changes the aggregated ecological impacts by as much at 98% while the equivalent CO2 emissions are changed by 75%, as in the case of using recycled and not de-inked paper. Relative to SCENARIO 1, the equivalent CO2 emissions for the paper instructions are of higher than those for the housing material and manufacturing except when recycled paper without de-inking is used and recycled at the end-of-life. SCENARIO 5 - Standby power consumption at a rate of 8 hours per day for a 2 year life for 0.35-Watts versus 0.1-Watts.
11
This portion of the assessment revisits the end-of-life assessments presented in Scenario 2. Since SCENARIO 2 demonstrated that once the electronics are considered, the type of material for the plastic housing has little effect on the overall equivalent CO2 emissions of the mobile phone, only 100% Primary HDPE assemblies are considered. To eliminate the end-of-life effects, only a recycling end-of-life is considered. An average US, 120V electricity mix is used for both scenarios.
Figure 5 - Sustainable Minds results for SCENARIO 5
Figure 5 shows two power consumption scenarios. While these results are based on a fictions standby loading of 8 hours per day over 2 years, these results show the power consumption significantly impacts both the aggregated ecological impacts and equivalent CO2 emissions of the mobile phone. While the materials and manufacturing phases of these mobile phones are included, from the results of SCENARIO 2, they make up less than 10% of the 0.1-Watt case and less than 2% of the 0.35-Watt case. This means that the power consumption considered would have to be reduced to less than 1 hour per day to result in the same aggregated ecological impacts. When focusing on equivalent CO2 emissions, the mobile phones modeled in SCENARIO 2 represent 1.7% of the 0.1-Watt case and 0.5% of the 0.35-Watt case. According to a study by Tan referenced in Scharnhorst *2008+, ‘Overall, the impact assessment reveals that the fabrication of IC- and of PWB-components dominate the environmental effects of mobile phones’. Unfortunately, this reference was a thesis and could not be located to evaluate the assessments assumptions. This reference indicates the impacts of SCENARIO 2 should be studied in-depth with assembly and manufacturing details fully scoped. This evalution would require a more comprehensive assessment tool. SCEANRIO 1-5 SUMMARY To easily examine the impacts of a mobile phone, Figure 6 presents aggregated ecological impacts over the whole life cycle including materials, manufacturing, use-phase and end-of-life phase. The processes are included when they are available in the Sustainable Minds software. Figure 6 includes worst-case results for SCENARIOS 1-4 and compares the two cases of SCENARIO 5 side-by-side. Figure 6(a) is the results for aggregate ecological impacts while Figure 6(b) is results for equivalent CO2 emissions.
12
(a)
(b) Figure 6 - Sustainable Minds results aggregated for SCENARIOS 1-5 where (a) aggregated ecological impacts and (b) equivalent CO2 emissions
Figure 6 shows that the use-phase is the largest contributor to both the aggregated ecological impacts and equivalent CO2 emissions. The amount of energy consumed comprises more than 80% of the overall environmental impacts and up to 98% of the CO2 emissions of the mobile phone over its lifetime. Conclusions : Evaluating the aggregated ecological impacts and CO2 emissions of a product with a large number of parts, variables and inputs is a complicated task. This case study aims to examine the aggregated ecological impacts and equivalent CO2 emissions for a complex product and life cycle system, a mobile phone. In order to simplify the task, the evaluation is completed through the lens of ‘eco-friendly’ design practices to determine if these practices have a positive impact on the environment and, more specifically, on climate change. Even with this simplification, the results demonstrate a portion of the complexities associated with this type of evaluation. As shown in Table 1, all of the companies offering ‘eco-friendly’ mobile phones are using either recycled or bio-based plastics for their housing and assemblies. As demonstrated in SCENARIO 1, using a recycled plastic can reduce the
13
aggregated ecological impacts by up to 50%. This is primarily due to reductions in Ocean Acidification. However, this strategy does not result in significant reductions of equivalent CO2 emissions. Interestingly, the use of the bio-based polymer actually increases aggregated ecological impacts and has no significant impact on equivalent CO2 emissions. All of the companies discussed offer a take-back program. While information from the EPA and USGS indicates that only a fraction of consumers are taking advantage of this option, SCENARIO 2 evaluates how much end-of-life options affect aggregated ecological impacts and equivalent CO2 emissions. Sustainable Minds did not offer sufficient manufacturing or end-of-life options for many of the electrical components. It is not possible to conclusively evaluate the impacts of incineration, but it is expected that incineration for all components is higher impact than recycling. Recycling offers significant reductions in aggregated ecological impacts, but not in equivalent CO2 emissions. Relative to SCENARIO 1, a recycling program offers similar reductions in equivalent CO2 emissions over incineration. However, if the incineration of resistors, transistors, printed circuit boards, inductors, diodes or lithium were evaluated, it is suspected that recycling offers much greater reductions than indicated. There are a few caveats to the SCENARIO 2 results. A take back program is is not mutually exclusive to recycling all components. A more expansive study of materials recycling percentages should be completed to fully understand this aspect. Additionally, as suggested by the Scharnhorst study[2008], the values missing for manufacturing and end-of-life may have significant contributions resulting in much larger values for both aggregated ecological impacts as well as equivalent CO2 emissions. A more thorough study of SCENARIO 2 should be used to verify these results. Many of the companies incorporate recycled materials for both their packaging and printed materials. SCENARIO 3 and SCENARIO 4 examine how these programs address climate change. For all scenarios, recycling packaging and printed materials results in reductions in equivalent CO2 emission. These reductions are more significant that than equivalent CO2 emission reductions realized in SCENARIO 1. Using recycled feedstocks for packaging results in further reductions. However, when comparing recycled de-inked paper to supercalendred, the recycled option has only a small reduction in CO2 emissions. The fact that recycled and de-inked papers result in higher impacts than non-recycle papers indicates the issue is more complex. There appears to be a sensitivity to other material, design and manufacturing considerations that should be explored in future studies. SCENARIO 5 provides a glimpse into where mobile phones have the greatest impact on climate change. According to this assessment, the use-phase of the life cycle overshadows all of the aggregated ecological impact and equivalent CO2 emissions of the other four scenarios combined. Even evaluating comparing the worst cases of SCENARIOS 1, 2, 3 and 4 as shown in Figure 6, the amount of energy consumed comprises more than 80% of the overall environmental impacts and up to 98% of the CO2 emissions of the mobile phone over its lifetime. This indicates the ‘eco-friendly’ design strategies have only a marginal impact on climate change. Since the use-phase energy consumption has the largest influence on
14
aggregated ecological impacts and equivalent CO2 emissions as demonstrated in SCENARIO 5, it follows a two-thirds reduction in power consumption results a corresponding reduction of environmental impacts and CO 2 emissions. While it is acknowledged that many of the ‘eco-friendly’ design strategies are not aimed at reducing equivalent CO2 emission, many of the products evaluated do make mention of climate change specifically in their product information and specifications. Interestingly, one product, Motorola’s Renew, incorporates carbon offsets in its product features and they state that these offsets include the use phase. According to this study, this would require offsets equivalent to 1100 lbs of CO2 emissions. In conclusion, this case study indicates the ‘eco-friendly’ strategies being commonly employed in the production of ‘ecofriendly’ mobile phone models are only reducing aggregated ecological impacts and equivalent CO2 emission marginally. If the material, manufacturing and end-of-life phases are only considered, strategies to reduce or eliminate packaging, encourage packaging and material recycling and mobile phone recycling are more effective at addressing climate change than changing the housing materials to recycled or bio-based plastics. However, when the system boundaries are expanded to include the use-phase, these strategies have little impact on reducing equivalent CO2 emission and, thus, climate change. Companies striving for continued reductions in power consumption have the largest impacts on climate change. Every percentage the energy efficiency of a product is improved results in corresponding reductions in climate change impacts and overall environmental impacts.
15
Bibliography: 1. 2. 3. 4.
5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.
13.
14. 15.
Afareen. (24 April 2009). The Life Cycle Assessment of a Cell Phone. AssociatedContent.com. Posted to <http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1662767/the_life_cycle_assessment_of_a_cell.html?cat=15> The World Bank, Population ages 15-64 (% of total). Retrieved on 05-May-2010 <http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.1564.TO.ZS> International Telecommunicatio Union. ITU Corporate Annual Report 2008. Retrieved 5-May-2010. <http://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-s/opb/conf/S-CONF-AREP-2008-E06-PDF-E.pdf> Graham, J. (23 Feb 2010). More than 1.2billion cellphones sold in 2009. Retrieved 5-May-2009. <http://content.usatoday.com/communities/technologylive/post/2010/02/worldwide-cellphone-sales-up-8-but-flatfor-the-year/1> Sullivan, D. (27 July 2006). Recycled Cell Phones-A Treasure Trove of Valuable Metals. From US Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2006-3097. <http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2006/3097/> Environmental Protection Agency. eCycle Cell Phones. Retrieved on 4-May-2010. <http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/partnerships/plugin/cellphone/index.htm> Scharnhorst W (2008): Life Cycle Assessment in the Telecommunication Industry: A Review. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 13 (1) 75–86. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.11.285 Fahrenbacher, Katie. (6-Aug-2009). 8 Green Cell Phones: Who’s got ‘em? Earth2tech.com. Retrieved on 07-March2010 <http://earth2tech.com/2009/08/06/green-phones-whos-got-em/> Choose an Eco-Friendly Cell Phone. Greenyour.com. Retrieved on 07-March-2010 <http://www.greenyour.com/home/electronics/cell-phone/tips/choose-an-eco-friendly-cell-phone> Layton, Julia. (07 July 2009). Top 5 Green Mobile Phones. HowStuffWorks.com. Retrieved on 07-March-2010 <http://science.howstuffworks.com/earth/green-technology/sustainable/home/5-green-mobile-phones.htm> Sony Ericsson Product Specification Greenheart™ Website. Sonyericsson.com Retrieved on 29-March-2010 <http://www.sonyericsson.com/greenheart/home.php?cc=us&lc=en> Motorola Product Specification MOTO™ W233 Renew Website. Motorola.com Retrieved on 29-March-2010 <http://www.motorola.com/staticfiles/Admin%20Content/Resources/Consumers/global/flash_content/microsites/r enew/index.html > Samsung Product Specification Renew™ SPH-m560 Website. Samsung.com Retrieved on 29-March-2010 <http://www.samsung.com/us/consumer/mobile/mobile-phones/sprint-phones/SPHM560BLASPR/index.idx?pagetype=prd_detail&returnurl > Nokia Product Specification 3110 Eco Website. Europe.Nokia.com Retrieved on 29-March-2010 <http://europe.nokia.com/find-products/devices/nokia-3110-evolve> Sustainable Minds LLC. Learning Center Information Retrieved 7 May 2010. <http://www.sustainableminds.com/>
16