Telthorst.net

Cast-off handset chargers generate 51,000 tons of waste per year according to the GSM association. However, a consortium of 17 handset makers and wireless operators have agreed to standardize chargers by 2012 for most cellphones made.¹ This will go a long way in reducing the number of cast-off chargers. Cellphones have become a ubiquitous part of industrialized society, and consumers tend to buy new phones on a regular basis. However, there isn’t a compelling reason, from a consumer perspective, to have a new charger for each new phone. However, these $30 accessories can be real money makers for companies. Which is why consumers should put pressure on companies to standardize chargers. That way, phones won’t need to ship with a charger, customers can reuse their existing charger. It will also eliminate the need to buy a new car charger with each new phone.

Another example of how standardization can reduce waste and save costs for consumers is headphones. Many purchasers of portable music devices are repeat customers. I personally have 2-3 pairs of iPod headphones that I will never use. Apple and other consumer electronics companies could allow customers the option of not having headphones shipped with their new iPod, and Apple could knock $5-$10 off the price of the device.

There are undoubtedly numerous other examples of non-value-adding redundancies that could be eliminated in order to reduce waste and save money.

1. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123488469688000141.html [↩]

I’m a fan of alternative energy, but as a recent WSJ Article, “Let’s Get Real About Renewable Energy” points out, even if we double our renewable energy output, and double it again, we’ll still be highly dependent on fossil fuels. In his address to congress President Barrack Obama stated that, “We will double this nation’s supply of renewable energy in the next three years.” First off, if Obama includes Hydroelectric power as renewable, doubling it would mean our energy from renewables would be up to 20%, however, more damns are being destroyed than built, so doubling our hydroelectric power is not going to happen. If Obama does not count hydroelectic power, doubling our renewable energy, which currently only accounts for 2.5% of our energy supply, would only mean that 5% of our energy will come from renewable energy sources. We need to start somewhere, but his energy plan, or lack thereof, has problems.

President Obama has stated his intention to implement a “cap on carbon pollution.” Over 48% of America’s energy comes from coal, 22% comes from natural gas, 2% comes from petroleum, and 19% comes from a combination of nuclear power, hydropower, and lastly, wind and solar power. Coal and oil provide 70% of of our nation’s power supply, and would also be most effected by the cap on carbon pollution. ¹

We do need to start somewhere, and doubling our supply of renewable energy is a fine goal. However, President Obama has also stated that, “Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket.” In other words President Obama is going to create an artificial crisis to accelerate the development of alternative energy.

Is this a good plan? With a depressed economy, and rising unemployment, is this the best time to intentionally make electricity expensive? There must be a way in which we can develop alternatives to fossil fuels in stages, and transition to clean sources of energy smoothly to avoid causing “electricity rates to skyrocket.” To use one of President Obama’s favorite analogies, this is a situation in which need to utilize a scalpel instead of a hatchet to slash at 70% of our energy supply.

1. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat1p1.html#_ftn6 [↩]