You are here: Home > Participate > Join a Discussion > RIPE Forum
RIPE Forum v1.4.1

Connect Working Group

Threaded
Collapse

[connect-wg] New on RIPE Labs: You’ve Got the Power: Sustainable Procurement and the RIPE Community

User Image

Michael Oghia

2020-08-28 14:25:49 CET

Hi everyone,

I'm happy to share an article that Mirjam and I just published on RIPE Labs
about sustainable procurement practices:

https://labs.ripe.net/Members/michael_oghia/you-ve-got-the-power-sustainable-procurement-and-the-ripe-community

I wanted to post it here because I think it's relevant to this group as
operators, managers, and others. I'm keen to hear your thoughts, and
encourage you to leave comments on the article so we know how to best take
this forward (and also gauge interest).

Have a good weekend,,
-Michael
__________________

Michael J. Oghia | Advocacy & Engagement Manager
Global Forum for Media Development (GFMD )
Belgrade, Serbia (UTC+2) | Twitter  |
LinkedIn 
GPG: E95D 2127 0D45 77D3 4D43 4D5A E3BA 6F23 301D 7082

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Mirjam Kuehne <mir _at_ ripe _dot_ net>
Date: Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 2:15 PM

Dear colleagues,

Buying equipment can have an impact on environmental sustainability.
Michael Oghia writes about issues surrounding sustainable procurement
and how the RIPE community has the potential to make a difference:

https://labs.ripe.net/Members/michael_oghia/you-ve-got-the-power-sustainable-procurement-and-the-ripe-community

Kind regards,
Mirjam Kühne
RIPE NCC

Michael Richardson

2020-08-28 23:33:48 CET

Thank you for this. {resending from subscribed address}

I think that one of the key things to reducing e-waste is to keep devices in
productive use longer.  The smartphone cycle is largely being driven by
planned obsolescence through lack of software updates.  While few of us here
are in the smartphone business, we see the same thing with CPE devices.

No software updates means poor security, which pushes for replacement of the
devices.
More capable devices can sustain more updates, but cost more up-front,
and there still very little relationship between price paid and number of
years of supported software updates.  At least, I believe this anecdotally.
It would be nice if we had survey data to prove or disprove this belief.
Perhaps RIPE along with some of the entities you mentioned might be able to
do a confidential survey of ISPs in order to summarize the results?

EN 303 645 and upcoming UK legislation requires that the support time for
devices to be made clear at point of purchase.  See
https://www.iotsecurityfoundation.org/keep-software-updated/ for many
references. (Yes, I'm the presenter for the webinar, the first of which was
this morning)

While the nic.cz Turris system is well supported, and very capable, I'm not
any influence on big ISP purchasing.
What kind of software support lifespans are ISPs able to contract?
While many RIPE clueful people know about, deploy and contribute to openwrt,
it does not seem to show up in a supported way in devices that I see either
big or small ISPs deploying.  The big ones don't seem to care.  The small
ones can't afford to take a risk.

Years ago, it was the common that an ISP would buy some 12-port switching
device for it's core, and two years later (when it was too slow), would
migrate it from the core to an access aggregator, and then two years later,
it might find a few more years service as internal lab equipment, or being
used for a multi-tenant CPE.   I learnt this as a switch (chip) designer.
Is this still a thing?

In my more recent (2014-era) hands-on ISP experience, this was no longer a
thing, because the devices had all become far too specialized.  Maybe SDN is
changing this?  Are there best practices in making purchase decisions that
support this migration of equipment?
{I'm reminded of: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQjHJKNyoUE }

Michael J. Oghia <mike.oghia _at_ gmail _dot_ com> wrote:
    > I'm happy to share an article that Mirjam and I just published on RIPE Labs
    > about sustainable procurement practices:

    > https://labs.ripe.net/Members/michael_oghia/you-ve-got-the-power-sustainable-procurement-and-the-ripe-community

    > I wanted to post it here because I think it's relevant to this group as
    > operators, managers, and others. I'm keen to hear your thoughts, and
    > encourage you to leave comments on the article so we know how to best take
    > this forward (and also gauge interest).

    > Have a good weekend,,
    > -Michael
    > __________________

    > Michael J. Oghia | Advocacy & Engagement Manager
    > Global Forum for Media Development (GFMD )
    > Belgrade, Serbia (UTC+2) | Twitter  |
    > LinkedIn 
    > GPG: E95D 2127 0D45 77D3 4D43 4D5A E3BA 6F23 301D 7082

    > ---------- Forwarded message ---------
    > From: Mirjam Kuehne <mir _at_ ripe _dot_ net>
    > Date: Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 2:15 PM

    > Dear colleagues,

    > Buying equipment can have an impact on environmental sustainability.
    > Michael Oghia writes about issues surrounding sustainable procurement
    > and how the RIPE community has the potential to make a difference:

    > https://labs.ripe.net/Members/michael_oghia/you-ve-got-the-power-sustainable-procurement-and-the-ripe-community

    > Kind regards,
    > Mirjam Kühne
    > RIPE NCC

    > ----------------------------------------------------
    > Alternatives:

    > ----------------------------------------------------
    > _______________________________________________
    > connect-wg mailing list
    > connect-wg _at_ ripe _dot_ net
    > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/connect-wg

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF _at_ sandelman _dot_ ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-



User Image

Michael Oghia

2020-08-31 18:34:17 CET

Dear Michael,

Thank you very much for your kind words and for this absolutely critical
insight. You're right that the relatively short lifecycle of many devices
is indeed a primary driver of the issue.

These are such great examples as well. If it's not too much trouble for
you, would you be able to add this as a comment on the post itself so that
we can keep such good comments as yours centralised in one place?

I don't have much to add to your comments other than fully agreeing with
you and wondering if the RIPE community can work together to lobby for
changes – assuming that's something we're both able and willing to do.

Best,
-Michael
__________________

Michael J. Oghia | Advocacy & Engagement Manager
Global Forum for Media Development (GFMD )
Belgrade, Serbia (UTC+2) | Twitter  |
LinkedIn 
GPG: E95D 2127 0D45 77D3 4D43 4D5A E3BA 6F23 301D 7082


On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 10:21 PM Michael Richardson <mcr _at_ sandelman _dot_ ca>
wrote:

>
> Thank you for this.
> I think that one of the key things to reducing e-waste is to keep devices
> in
> productive use longer.  The smartphone cycle is largely being driven by
> planned obsolescence through lack of software updates.  While few of us
> here
> are in the smartphone business, we see the same thing with CPE devices.
>
> No software updates means poor security, which pushes for replacement of
> the
> devices.
> More capable devices can sustain more updates, but cost more up-front,
> and there still very little relationship between price paid and number of
> years of supported software updates.  At least, I believe this anecdotally.
> It would be nice if we had survey data to prove or disprove this belief.
> Perhaps RIPE along with some of the entities you mentioned might be able to
> do a confidential survey of ISPs in order to summarize the results?
>
> EN 303 645 and upcoming UK legislation requires that the support time for
> devices to be made clear at point of purchase.  See
> https://www.iotsecurityfoundation.org/keep-software-updated/ for many
> references. (Yes, I'm the presenter for the webinar, the first of which was
> this morning)
>
> While the nic.cz Turris system is well supported, and very capable, I'm
> not
> any influence on big ISP purchasing.
> What kind of software support lifespans are ISPs able to contract?
> While many RIPE clueful people know about, deploy and contribute to
> openwrt,
> it does not seem to show up in a supported way in devices that I see either
> big or small ISPs deploying.  The big ones don't seem to care.  The small
> ones can't afford to take a risk.
>
> Years ago, it was the common that an ISP would buy some 12-port switching
> device for it's core, and two years later (when it was too slow), would
> migrate it from the core to an access aggregator, and then two years later,
> it might find a few more years service as internal lab equipment, or being
> used for a multi-tenant CPE.   I learnt this as a switch (chip) designer.
> Is this still a thing?
>
> In my more recent (2014-era) hands-on ISP experience, this was no longer a
> thing, because the devices had all become far too specialized.  Maybe SDN
> is
> changing this?  Are there best practices in making purchase decisions that
> support this migration of equipment?
> {I'm reminded of: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQjHJKNyoUE }
>
> Michael J. Oghia <mike.oghia _at_ gmail _dot_ com> wrote:
>     > I'm happy to share an article that Mirjam and I just published on
> RIPE Labs
>     > about sustainable procurement practices:
>
>     >
> https://labs.ripe.net/Members/michael_oghia/you-ve-got-the-power-sustainable-procurement-and-the-ripe-community
>
>     > I wanted to post it here because I think it's relevant to this group
> as
>     > operators, managers, and others. I'm keen to hear your thoughts, and
>     > encourage you to leave comments on the article so we know how to
> best take
>     > this forward (and also gauge interest).
>
>     > Have a good weekend,,
>     > -Michael
>     > __________________
>
>     > Michael J. Oghia | Advocacy & Engagement Manager
>     > Global Forum for Media Development (GFMD )
>     > Belgrade, Serbia (UTC+2) | Twitter <
> https://www.twitter.com/MikeOghia> |
>     > LinkedIn 
>     > GPG: E95D 2127 0D45 77D3 4D43 4D5A E3BA 6F23 301D 7082
>
>     > ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>     > From: Mirjam Kuehne <mir _at_ ripe _dot_ net>
>     > Date: Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 2:15 PM
>
>     > Dear colleagues,
>
>     > Buying equipment can have an impact on environmental sustainability.
>     > Michael Oghia writes about issues surrounding sustainable procurement
>     > and how the RIPE community has the potential to make a difference:
>
>     >
> https://labs.ripe.net/Members/michael_oghia/you-ve-got-the-power-sustainable-procurement-and-the-ripe-community
>
>     > Kind regards,
>     > Mirjam Kühne
>     > RIPE NCC
>
>     > ----------------------------------------------------
>     > Alternatives:
>
>     > ----------------------------------------------------
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > connect-wg mailing list
>     > connect-wg _at_ ripe _dot_ net
>     > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/connect-wg
>
>
> --
> ]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh
> networks [
> ]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT
> architect   [
> ]     mcr _at_ sandelman _dot_ ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on
> rails    [
>
>
>
>
>
>
User Image

J Scott Marcus

2020-08-31 21:47:21 CET

Dear Mirjam and Michael,

You would probably find some useful bits in a recent study of mine on 
behalf of the European Parliament.

J. Scott Marcus (2020), “Promoting product longevity: How can the EU 
product safety and compliance framework help promote product durability 
and tackle planned obsolescence, foster the production of more 
sustainable products, and achieve more transparent supply chains for 
consumers?”, study for the IMCO Committee of the European Parliament.
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2020/648767/IPOL_STU(2020)648767_EN.pdf

Cheers,
Scott

On 31/08/2020 18:34, Michael J. Oghia wrote:
> Dear Michael,
>
> Thank you very much for your kind words and for this 
> absolutely critical insight. You're right that the relatively short 
> lifecycle of many devices is indeed a primary driver of the issue.
>
> These are such great examples as well. If it's not too much trouble 
> for you, would you be able to add this as a comment on the post itself 
> so that we can keep such good comments as yours centralised in one place?
>
> I don't have much to add to your comments other than fully agreeing 
> with you and wondering if the RIPE community can work together to 
> lobby for changes – assuming that's something we're both able and 
> willing to do.
>
> Best,
> -Michael
> __________________
>
> Michael J. Oghia | Advocacy & Engagement Manager
> Global Forum for Media Development (GFMD )
> Belgrade, Serbia (UTC+2) | Twitter 
> |LinkedIn 
> 
> GPG: E95D 2127 0D45 77D3 4D43 4D5A E3BA 6F23 301D 7082
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 10:21 PM Michael Richardson <mcr _at_ sandelman _dot_ ca 
> mcr _at_ sandelman _dot_ ca>> wrote:
>
>
>     Thank you for this.
>     I think that one of the key things to reducing e-waste is to keep
>     devices in
>     productive use longer.  The smartphone cycle is largely being
>     driven by
>     planned obsolescence through lack of software updates.  While few
>     of us here
>     are in the smartphone business, we see the same thing with CPE
>     devices.
>
>     No software updates means poor security, which pushes for
>     replacement of the
>     devices.
>     More capable devices can sustain more updates, but cost more up-front,
>     and there still very little relationship between price paid and
>     number of
>     years of supported software updates.  At least, I believe this
>     anecdotally.
>     It would be nice if we had survey data to prove or disprove this
>     belief.
>     Perhaps RIPE along with some of the entities you mentioned might
>     be able to
>     do a confidential survey of ISPs in order to summarize the results?
>
>     EN 303 645 and upcoming UK legislation requires that the support
>     time for
>     devices to be made clear at point of purchase.  See
>     https://www.iotsecurityfoundation.org/keep-software-updated/ for many
>     references. (Yes, I'm the presenter for the webinar, the first of
>     which was
>     this morning)
>
>     While the nic.cz  Turris system is well supported,
>     and very capable, I'm not
>     any influence on big ISP purchasing.
>     What kind of software support lifespans are ISPs able to contract?
>     While many RIPE clueful people know about, deploy and contribute
>     to openwrt,
>     it does not seem to show up in a supported way in devices that I
>     see either
>     big or small ISPs deploying.  The big ones don't seem to care. 
>     The small
>     ones can't afford to take a risk.
>
>     Years ago, it was the common that an ISP would buy some 12-port
>     switching
>     device for it's core, and two years later (when it was too slow),
>     would
>     migrate it from the core to an access aggregator, and then two
>     years later,
>     it might find a few more years service as internal lab equipment,
>     or being
>     used for a multi-tenant CPE.   I learnt this as a switch (chip)
>     designer.
>     Is this still a thing?
>
>     In my more recent (2014-era) hands-on ISP experience, this was no
>     longer a
>     thing, because the devices had all become far too specialized. 
>     Maybe SDN is
>     changing this?  Are there best practices in making purchase
>     decisions that
>     support this migration of equipment?
>     {I'm reminded of: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQjHJKNyoUE }
>
>     Michael J. Oghia <mike.oghia _at_ gmail _dot_ com
>     mike.oghia _at_ gmail _dot_ com>> wrote:
>         > I'm happy to share an article that Mirjam and I just
>     published on RIPE Labs
>         > about sustainable procurement practices:
>
>         >
>     https://labs.ripe.net/Members/michael_oghia/you-ve-got-the-power-sustainable-procurement-and-the-ripe-community
>
>         > I wanted to post it here because I think it's relevant to
>     this group as
>         > operators, managers, and others. I'm keen to hear your
>     thoughts, and
>         > encourage you to leave comments on the article so we know
>     how to best take
>         > this forward (and also gauge interest).
>
>         > Have a good weekend,,
>         > -Michael
>         > __________________
>
>         > Michael J. Oghia | Advocacy & Engagement Manager
>         > Global Forum for Media Development (GFMD )
>         > Belgrade, Serbia (UTC+2) | Twitter
>      |
>         > LinkedIn 
>         > GPG: E95D 2127 0D45 77D3 4D43 4D5A E3BA 6F23 301D 7082
>
>         > ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>         > From: Mirjam Kuehne <mir _at_ ripe _dot_ net mir _at_ ripe _dot_ net>>
>         > Date: Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 2:15 PM
>
>         > Dear colleagues,
>
>         > Buying equipment can have an impact on environmental
>     sustainability.
>         > Michael Oghia writes about issues surrounding sustainable
>     procurement
>         > and how the RIPE community has the potential to make a
>     difference:
>
>         >
>     https://labs.ripe.net/Members/michael_oghia/you-ve-got-the-power-sustainable-procurement-and-the-ripe-community
>
>         > Kind regards,
>         > Mirjam Kühne
>         > RIPE NCC
>
>         > ----------------------------------------------------
>         > Alternatives:
>
>         > ----------------------------------------------------
>         > _______________________________________________
>         > connect-wg mailing list
>         > connect-wg _at_ ripe _dot_ net connect-wg _at_ ripe _dot_ net>
>         > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/connect-wg
>
>
>     --
>     ]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6
>     mesh networks [
>     ]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | IoT
>     architect   [
>     ] mcr _at_ sandelman _dot_ ca mcr _at_ sandelman _dot_ ca>
>     http://www.sandelman.ca/       |   ruby on rails    [
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> connect-wg mailing list
> connect-wg _at_ ripe _dot_ net
> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/connect-wg

-- 
J. Scott Marcus
Grossenbuschstrasse 56
53229 Bonn
Germany

Rue Royale 97 99, apartment 7G
1000  Brussels
Belgium

+49 173 5175670 (mobile)
+49 228 5349523 (fixed)
+32 2 8330556   (fixed / active only when I am in Brussels))
www.scottmarcus.eu

Michael Richardson

2020-08-31 22:12:57 CET

Michael J. Oghia <mike.oghia _at_ gmail _dot_ com> wrote:
    > These are such great examples as well. If it's not too much trouble for
    > you, would you be able to add this as a comment on the post itself so that
    > we can keep such good comments as yours centralised in one place?

I have reposted as you suggested.

What about this part:

    mcr> It would be nice if we had survey data to prove or disprove this belief.
    mcr> Perhaps RIPE along with some of the entities you mentioned might be able to
    mcr> do a confidential survey of ISPs in order to summarize the results?

Could RIPE do a survey of ISPs?
What is the lifespan of equipment, and what kind of support contracts are
they able to negotiate, particularly for their higher volume devices.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF _at_ sandelman _dot_ ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-



User Image

Michael Oghia

2020-09-01 10:57:09 CET

Hi Michael,

Absolutely! I think that's a great suggestion that I'd definitely be
willing to explore with NCC staff.

Best,
-Michael


On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 10:12 PM Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf _at_ sandelman _dot_ ca>
wrote:

>
> Michael J. Oghia <mike.oghia _at_ gmail _dot_ com> wrote:
>     > These are such great examples as well. If it's not too much trouble
> for
>     > you, would you be able to add this as a comment on the post itself
> so that
>     > we can keep such good comments as yours centralised in one place?
>
> I have reposted as you suggested.
>
> What about this part:
>
>     mcr> It would be nice if we had survey data to prove or disprove this
> belief.
>     mcr> Perhaps RIPE along with some of the entities you mentioned might
> be able to
>     mcr> do a confidential survey of ISPs in order to summarize the
> results?
>
> Could RIPE do a survey of ISPs?
> What is the lifespan of equipment, and what kind of support contracts are
> they able to negotiate, particularly for their higher volume devices.
>
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF _at_ sandelman _dot_ ca>, Sandelman Software Works
>  -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
>
>
>
>
User Image

Michael Oghia

2020-09-02 15:18:31 CET

Good points Michael, and that is also why I argue

the RIPE community should take an explicit stance on the Right to Repair.

Best,
-Michael


On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 3:01 PM Michael Richardson <mcr _at_ sandelman _dot_ ca> wrote:

>
> J Scott Marcus <scott _at_ scottmarcus _dot_ com> wrote:
>     > You would probably find some useful bits in a recent study of mine
> on behalf
>     > of the European Parliament.
>
>     > J. Scott Marcus (2020), “Promoting product longevity: How can the EU
> product
>     > safety and compliance framework help promote product durability and
> tackle
>     > planned obsolescence, foster the production of more sustainable
> products, and
>     > achieve more transparent supply chains for consumers?”, study for
> the IMCO
>     > Committee of the European Parliament.
>     >
> https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2020/648767/IPOL_STU(2020)648767_EN.pdf
>
> For the rest who did not read it yet:
>
> "Some users always want to have the latest technology, but there is good
> reason to believe that a great manyof these mobile devices are replaced (1)
> because the battery has died, and cannot be replaced by the user; or (2)
> because the screen has cracked, and cannot be replaced by the user, or (3)
> because the manufacturer no longer is willing or able to support the
> software. "
>
> with the caution that:
>
> "These same considerations hint at reasons why any prolongation of product
> lifetime for passenger vehicles – a potential initiative which,
> interestingly, is not visible in the Circular Economy Action Plan – might
> prove to be counter-productive at this particular point in time. Any
> prolongation of the lifetime of existing vehicles risks a slight delay in
> the
> take-up of new electric vehicles and self-driving vehicles, thus potential
> delaying a technology evolution that produces benefits of its own. "
>
> --
> ]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh
> networks [
> ]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT
> architect   [
> ]     mcr _at_ sandelman _dot_ ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on
> rails    [
>
>
User Image

J Scott Marcus

2020-09-02 17:55:49 CET

Thanks to both of you for a careful and thoughtful read! Indeed, those 
two paragraphs capture some of the most important points that I would 
most want to highlight to RIPE.

I have to say, when I started to look at the problem, I was surprised to 
find that it entailed trade-offs far more complex than I would have guessed.

I would also offer these bits:

> When one considers product sustainability, one must reflect on effects 
> over the entire lifetime of the product: not only over its period of 
> usage (the part that we mainly see as consumers), but also over its 
> period of production, and its end of life period (typical 
> characterised by disposal or by some form of recycling or re-use), as 
> depicted in Figure 2.
> Figure 2: The typical product life cycle
> Source: Bruegel
> When a product wears out or is discarded for some other reason ..., it 
> typically needs to be replaced. Extending the lifetime of a product 
> tends to reduce the frequency with which goods of a given class need 
> to be replaced. This results in reduced consumption of materials and 
> energy that would otherwise go into production, which is 
> environmentally positive.
> If goods last longer, then they are less often disposed of, which 
> likewise tends to be positive. There are various forms of recycling, 
> remanufacturing and re-use that can serve to mitigate the cost of end 
> of life, but reducing the frequency with which products go to end of 
> life tends to be even better. Extending product lifetimes consequently 
> tends to be positive for the environment in the end of life phase as well.
> The impact of extended lifetimes during the usage phase is not 
> necessarily environmentally positive – in fact, it can often be 
> negative for the environment. Products such as automobiles and washing 
> machines are becoming more efficient over time. Driving a given number 
> of kilometres with a newer, more fuel-efficient vehicle generates less 
> greenhouse gas (GHG) than driving the same number of kilometres with 
> an older, less fuel-efficient vehicle. When we extend the lifetime of 
> these products, it means that older, less efficient products stay in 
> service longer, consuming more energy and therefore generating more GHGs.
> Practical assessments as to whether there is a public policy rationale 
> for prolonging product lifetime consequently need to carefully weigh a 
> trade-off: Do the environmental gains during the production and end of 
> life phases outweigh possible environmental costs during the usage 
> phase for this particular product at this point in time?

And this:

> It is easy to say that all batteries (and screens) should be 
> replaceable, but there are legitimate reasons to prefer 
> non-replaceable components, some of which also indirectly benefit 
> consumers. User-replaceable batteries are not the only way to ensure 
> that the phone can be used for its full potential lifetime. Other 
> solutions are possible, and are to some extent being implemented.
With best regards,
Scott


On 02/09/2020 15:18, Michael J. Oghia wrote:
> Good points Michael, and that is also why I argue 
>  
> the RIPE community should take an explicit stance on the Right to Repair.
>
> Best,
> -Michael
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 3:01 PM Michael Richardson <mcr _at_ sandelman _dot_ ca 
> mcr _at_ sandelman _dot_ ca>> wrote:
>
>
>     J Scott Marcus <scott _at_ scottmarcus _dot_ com
>     scott _at_ scottmarcus _dot_ com>> wrote:
>         > You would probably find some useful bits in a recent study
>     of mine on behalf
>         > of the European Parliament.
>
>         > J. Scott Marcus (2020), “Promoting product longevity: How
>     can the EU product
>         > safety and compliance framework help promote product
>     durability and tackle
>         > planned obsolescence, foster the production of more
>     sustainable products, and
>         > achieve more transparent supply chains for consumers?”,
>     study for the IMCO
>         > Committee of the European Parliament.
>         >
>     https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2020/648767/IPOL_STU(2020)648767_EN.pdf
>
>     For the rest who did not read it yet:
>
>     "Some users always want to have the latest technology, but there
>     is good
>     reason to believe that a great manyof these mobile devices are
>     replaced (1)
>     because the battery has died, and cannot be replaced by the user;
>     or (2)
>     because the screen has cracked, and cannot be replaced by the
>     user, or (3)
>     because the manufacturer no longer is willing or able to support the
>     software. "
>
>     with the caution that:
>
>     "These same considerations hint at reasons why any prolongation of
>     product
>     lifetime for passenger vehicles – a potential initiative which,
>     interestingly, is not visible in the Circular Economy Action Plan
>     – might
>     prove to be counter-productive at this particular point in time. Any
>     prolongation of the lifetime of existing vehicles risks a slight
>     delay in the
>     take-up of new electric vehicles and self-driving vehicles, thus
>     potential
>     delaying a technology evolution that produces benefits of its own. "
>
>     --
>     ]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6
>     mesh networks [
>     ]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | IoT
>     architect   [
>     ] mcr _at_ sandelman _dot_ ca mcr _at_ sandelman _dot_ ca>
>     http://www.sandelman.ca/       |   ruby on rails    [
>
User Image

Michael Oghia

2020-09-02 18:43:40 CET

Scott, you're absolutely right. I've been writing about this for years, so
it's great to see you so passionate about it as well! I think a RIPE Labs
post on these issues + the document you produced
would be quite beneficial to the community.

Best,
-Michael



On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 5:55 PM J Scott Marcus <scott _at_ scottmarcus _dot_ com> wrote:

>
> Thanks to both of you for a careful and thoughtful read! Indeed, those two
> paragraphs capture some of the most important points that I would most want
> to highlight to RIPE.
>
> I have to say, when I started to look at the problem, I was surprised to
> find that it entailed trade-offs far more complex than I would have guessed.
>
> I would also offer these bits:
>
> When one considers product sustainability, one must reflect on effects
> over the entire lifetime of the product: not only over its period of usage
> (the part that we mainly see as consumers), but also over its period of
> production, and its end of life period (typical characterised by disposal
> or by some form of recycling or re-use), as depicted in Figure 2.
> Figure 2: The typical product life cycle
>
> Source: Bruegel
> When a product wears out or is discarded for some other reason ..., it
> typically needs to be replaced. Extending the lifetime of a product tends
> to reduce the frequency with which goods of a given class need to be
> replaced. This results in reduced consumption of materials and energy that
> would otherwise go into production, which is environmentally positive.
> If goods last longer, then they are less often disposed of, which likewise
> tends to be positive. There are various forms of recycling, remanufacturing
> and re-use that can serve to mitigate the cost of end of life, but reducing
> the frequency with which products go to end of life tends to be even
> better. Extending product lifetimes consequently tends to be positive for
> the environment in the end of life phase as well.
> The impact of extended lifetimes during the usage phase is not necessarily
> environmentally positive – in fact, it can often be negative for the
> environment. Products such as automobiles and washing machines are becoming
> more efficient over time. Driving a given number of kilometres with a
> newer, more fuel-efficient vehicle generates less greenhouse gas (GHG) than
> driving the same number of kilometres with an older, less fuel-efficient
> vehicle. When we extend the lifetime of these products, it means that
> older, less efficient products stay in service longer, consuming more
> energy and therefore generating more GHGs.
> Practical assessments as to whether there is a public policy rationale for
> prolonging product lifetime consequently need to carefully weigh a
> trade-off: Do the environmental gains during the production and end of life
> phases outweigh possible environmental costs during the usage phase for
> this particular product at this point in time?
>
>
> And this:
>
> It is easy to say that all batteries (and screens) should be replaceable,
> but there are legitimate reasons to prefer non-replaceable components, some
> of which also indirectly benefit consumers. User-replaceable batteries are
> not the only way to ensure that the phone can be used for its full
> potential lifetime. Other solutions are possible, and are to some extent
> being implemented.
>
> With best regards,
> Scott
>
>
> On 02/09/2020 15:18, Michael J. Oghia wrote:
>
> Good points Michael, and that is also why I argue
> 
> the RIPE community should take an explicit stance on the Right to Repair.
>
> Best,
> -Michael
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 3:01 PM Michael Richardson <mcr _at_ sandelman _dot_ ca>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> J Scott Marcus <scott _at_ scottmarcus _dot_ com> wrote:
>>     > You would probably find some useful bits in a recent study of mine
>> on behalf
>>     > of the European Parliament.
>>
>>     > J. Scott Marcus (2020), “Promoting product longevity: How can the
>> EU product
>>     > safety and compliance framework help promote product durability and
>> tackle
>>     > planned obsolescence, foster the production of more sustainable
>> products, and
>>     > achieve more transparent supply chains for consumers?”, study for
>> the IMCO
>>     > Committee of the European Parliament.
>>     >
>> https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2020/648767/IPOL_STU(2020)648767_EN.pdf
>>
>> For the rest who did not read it yet:
>>
>> "Some users always want to have the latest technology, but there is good
>> reason to believe that a great manyof these mobile devices are replaced
>> (1)
>> because the battery has died, and cannot be replaced by the user; or (2)
>> because the screen has cracked, and cannot be replaced by the user, or (3)
>> because the manufacturer no longer is willing or able to support the
>> software. "
>>
>> with the caution that:
>>
>> "These same considerations hint at reasons why any prolongation of product
>> lifetime for passenger vehicles – a potential initiative which,
>> interestingly, is not visible in the Circular Economy Action Plan – might
>> prove to be counter-productive at this particular point in time. Any
>> prolongation of the lifetime of existing vehicles risks a slight delay in
>> the
>> take-up of new electric vehicles and self-driving vehicles, thus potential
>> delaying a technology evolution that produces benefits of its own. "
>>
>> --
>> ]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh
>> networks [
>> ]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT
>> architect   [
>> ]     mcr _at_ sandelman _dot_ ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on
>> rails    [
>>
>>
User Image

Vesna Manojlovic

2020-09-03 14:21:50 CET

RIPE NCC staff member

Dear Michael & Michael & all,

On 31/08/2020 22:12, Michael Richardson wrote:
>     mcr> It would be nice if we had survey data to prove or disprove this belief.
>     mcr> Perhaps RIPE along with some of the entities you mentioned might be able to
>     mcr> do a confidential survey of ISPs in order to summarize the results?
> 
> Could RIPE do a survey of ISPs?

I am taking this as a request to the RIPE NCC, and I will take it to my
colleagues for consideration. We will get back to you within a few weeks
with a reply.

Regards,
Vesna