The environmental impact of technology

Explain in your own words what the life cycle of a product is and put its four stages in order: use, raw material extraction, end of life, and manufacturing. Give an example of what happens in each stage of a T-shirt's life.

The figure shows the life cycle ring of a product, but one of the stages is covered.

Find out which stage is covered (what happens to the product when we stop using it) and describe what can happen to its materials in that stage: the two possible outcomes (landfill or recovery) and why it matters which of the two occurs.

The figure shows a rough diagram of how a mobile phone's environmental footprint is distributed across the stages of its life cycle.

Interpret the graph: which stage accounts for the largest share of a mobile phone's footprint and why (mining and manufacturing), what this means for our choices (what pollutes more: changing mobile phones every year or charging it every day), and which stage we can extend to improve the overall total.

The environmental footprint of a product is everything it "costs" the planet: materials, energy, water, transport, and waste. Explain this idea using the analogy of footprints in the sand (what we leave behind even if we don't see it) and name three invisible footprints left by a simple pencil before it reaches your hand.

A mobile phone contains dozens of different materials: metals such as copper and gold, rare earths, plastics, and glass. Explain what it means that these materials are "extracted" (mining, energy, distant places) and why that makes manufacturing a new mobile phone cost much more to the planet than using it for a year.

Trace the global footprint of a mobile phone: minerals from several continents, component factories in Asia, assembly, transport by ship and lorry to your shop. Explain why this journey is also part of its footprint and how it relates to the price you pay (and to what you do not pay: the environmental costs).

During the use stage, the impact does not stop: appliances consume electricity, water, or consumables. Choose three appliances in your home and describe what each one consumes while in use (and what hidden consumables it has, such as coffee pods or ink cartridges).

Energy labels on household appliances classify their efficiency using letters and colours. Explain what information they provide (how much energy the appliance consumes while operating) and how to use them when shopping: compare two similarly priced washing machines with different energy ratings and reason which one turns out cheaper overall after ten years of use.

At the end of its life, a broken toy can end up in the normal bin, at the recycling centre, or repaired and passed down to your cousin. Compare these three outcomes: what happens to its materials in each case and which of the three truly extends the life of the product.

Compare the life cycle of a reusable steel bottle with that of $200$ single-use small bottles per year: materials and energy used to manufacture each, how many times each is used, and what waste they generate. At what point does the reusable bottle start to "win"? Reason your conclusion.

Repairing extends useful life and avoids manufacturing a new product. Describe three simple repairs that extend the life of items in your house (replacing the battery, sewing on a button, replacing a scooter wheel) and estimate how many extra years of use each achieves compared to throwing the item away.

Eco-design means designing products with their impact in mind right from the start: ensuring they last, can be repaired, taken apart, and recycled. Explain the concept and give two specific eco-designed decisions for a school backpack (materials, replaceable zips, colours, and dyes...).

Evaluate a real product from your home using eco-design criteria: materials (recycled or recyclable?), repairability (does it come apart?, are there spare parts available?), packaging (necessary?, recyclable?) and expected durability. Give it a justified mark for each criterion and propose two design improvements that would raise its mark.

Planned obsolescence is designing a product so that it stops working prematurely (batteries that cannot be replaced, lack of spare parts). Explain the idea with a well-known example and reason out who benefits and who suffers (users, manufacturers, and the planet).

Perceived obsolescence does not break the product: it makes us feel that it is old (fashion, the latest model, this year's colour). Explain the difference between this and planned obsolescence, give an example of each, and analyse what mechanisms advertising and sales use to fuel perceived obsolescence.

A smartphone manufacturer seals the casing and glues the battery with structural adhesive, without selling official spare parts to the public. Facing criticism, the company claims: "It is an essential technical decision to make the phone submersible (IP68 resistance) and achieve a thickness under $8\ \text{mm}$".

1. a) Refute this technical argument by analyzing how other designs resolve this trade-off (for example, the use of watertight rubber gaskets, micro-screws, and clean-release stretch adhesive strips).
2. b) Explain the impact that this design decision has on the product's repairability index and on the generation of electronic waste (WEEE) when the battery degrades after two years of use.
3. c) Within the framework of the "right to repair", design a proposal for technical regulations that obliges manufacturers to guarantee repairability without forcing them to sacrifice water protection.

A lighting company designs an LED light bulb whose capacitors fail after $2000\ \text{hours}$ of use, even though the LED diodes can emit light for $25\,000\ \text{hours}$. The company claims that installing more durable components would raise the bulb's price from $1,50\ \text{€}$ to $2,30\ \text{€}$ and that "consumers prefer to pay less."

1. a) Show with a calculation which option is more cost-effective for a user: buying $1,50\ \text{€}$ bulbs that last $2000\ \text{hours}$ or $2,30\ \text{€}$ bulbs that last $25\,000\ \text{hours}$ to cover a total of $50\,000\ \text{hours}$ of lighting.
2. b) Justify why it is so difficult to prove in court that this design constitutes an intentional case of planned obsolescence rather than a simple cost-reduction decision.
3. c) Design a legislative proposal with two mandatory technical measures (for example, a visible repairability index, warranties proportional to the declared lifespan, or mandatory availability of spare parts) that prevent these practices without the need to internally audit the circuitry of each device.