BBC NEWS | Technology | Universal phone charger approved (https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8323018.stm)
BBC News (U.K.)
A new mobile phone charger that will work with any handset has been approved by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), a United Nations body.
Industry body the GSMA says that 51,000 tonnes of redundant chargers are generated each year.
Currently most chargers are product or brand specific, so people tend to change them when they upgrade to a new phone.
However, the new energy-efficient chargers can be kept for much longer.
The GSMA also estimates that they will reduce annual greenhouse gas emissions by 13.6m tonnes.
"This is a significant step in reducing the environmental impact of mobile charging," said Malcolm Johnson, director of ITU's Telecommunication Standardisation Bureau.
"Universal chargers are a common-sense solution that I look forward to seeing in other areas."
The charger has a micro-USB port at the connecting end, using similar technology to digital cameras.
It is not compulsory for manufacturers to adopt the new chargers but the ITU says that some have already signed up to it.
"We are planning to launch the universal charger internationally during the first half of 2010," Aldo Liguori, spokesperson for Sony Ericsson told the BBC.
"We will roll it out with new products as they launch.
Sciguy
10-26-2009, 01:04 AM
Thanks Zeno, for posting this article about a simple change in a common device (cell phone chargers) that will eliminate the wastage of an estimated 51,000 tons of electronic garbage a year.
This approach is far superior to the California legislative approach which is to leave all of the unnecessary production in place but collect the still usable, unwanted chargers for destruction and shipment to other countries. This is being done under the rubric of "e-waste", a garbage maximization program.
I don't know if you or other readers realize that the reported change is a typical innovation put forward by Zero Waste theory. It makes a simple use of standardization which is one of the linch pins of the changes in design urged by Zero Waste analysis. There are a number more, all equally powerful in their promise. Note that recycling plays no role whatsoever in this belated "advance" (is the elimination of a design stupidity worthy of being called an advance?). No individual consumer is required to put anything into a purple bin rather than a gray can in order for this to work its intelligence. That is one of the great advantages of Zero Waste. Designs are changed and waste disappears automatically.
There are hundreds of thousands of other products, more or less, that need to be similarly upgraded to eliminate the egregious production of garbage throughout society, not to mention the assault on clean air, soil and water, biodiversity, human labor, energy, capital etc. Somehow it has proven difficult to get a movement behind making common sense changes in the design of social, industrial and commercial products. Instead, 99.999% of attention is wasted on trying to improve recycling.
The brouhaha surrounding the sale of the Sonoma County dump is an example. Much argument swirls around the sale's advisability in relation to its effect on recycling. Yet the infinitely greater impact that Zero Waste changes could make in eliminating the very creation of garbage are ignored. I point them out whenever I can but the next day, the emphasis is once again on recycling, even though that is ineffectual, wasteful and difficult by comparison to Zero Waste innovations. Simply closing the agricultural cycle of nutrients would lead to fantastic soil, energy and other kinds of savings. Changing from breakable to refillable containers would likewise pay off huge dividends. For some reason, even this progressive community seems content to dawdle along, poking the monster a bit here, prodding a bit there, but making sure never to get it to move or roll over. Much of the worldwide environmental program, when you get down to it, consists of no more than eliminating waste all around the planet. We could probably accomplish more, faster, for climate change, with a robust Zero Waste program than we can with a frustrating political program, but the old tried and untrue methods seem to have a hold on the public mentality akin to physical inertia.
Paul Palmer
The Zero Waste Institute (https://www.zerowasteinstitute.org)
BBC NEWS | Technology | Universal phone charger approved (https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8323018.stm)
BBC News (U.K.)
A new mobile phone charger that will work with any handset has been approved by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), a United Nations body.
Industry body the GSMA says that 51,000 tonnes of redundant chargers are generated each year.
Currently most chargers are product or brand specific, so people tend to change them when they upgrade to a new phone.
However, the new energy-efficient chargers can be kept for much longer.
The GSMA also estimates that they will reduce annual greenhouse gas emissions by 13.6m tonnes.
"This is a significant step in reducing the environmental impact of mobile charging," said Malcolm Johnson, director of ITU's Telecommunication Standardisation Bureau.
"Universal chargers are a common-sense solution that I look forward to seeing in other areas."
The charger has a micro-USB port at the connecting end, using similar technology to digital cameras.
It is not compulsory for manufacturers to adopt the new chargers but the ITU says that some have already signed up to it.
"We are planning to launch the universal charger internationally during the first half of 2010," Aldo Liguori, spokesperson for Sony Ericsson told the BBC.
"We will roll it out with new products as they launch.
Zeno Swijtink
10-26-2009, 08:23 AM
Thanks Zeno, for posting this article about a simple change in a common device (cell phone chargers) that will eliminate the wastage of an estimated 51,000 tons of electronic garbage a year.
This approach is far superior to the California legislative approach which is to leave all of the unnecessary production in place but collect the still usable, unwanted chargers for destruction and shipment to other countries. This is being done under the rubric of "e-waste", a garbage maximization program.
I don't know if you or other readers realize that the reported change is a typical innovation put forward by Zero Waste theory. <snip>
This is why keeping the land fill and our waste stream on local, public control is so important. See Ben Zolno's posting this morning (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/general-community/59501-movie-made-supervisors-against-landfill-buyout-please-forward-immediately.html#post99991) and the blog of Portia Sinnott, aka the Green Mentor, on the Press Democrat website (https://livinggreen.blogs.pressdemocrat.com/10452/important-landfill-sale-vote-this-tuesday/).
Sciguy
10-26-2009, 07:37 PM
Zeno:
You wrote back to me: "This is why keeping the land fill and our waste stream on local, public control is so important. See Ben Zolno's posting this morning (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/general-community/59501-movie-made-supervisors-against-landfill-buyout-please-forward-immediately.html#post99991) and the blog of Portia Sinnott, aka the Green Mentor, on the Press Democrat website (https://livinggreen.blogs.pressdemocrat.com/10452/important-landfill-sale-vote-this-tuesday/)."
Actually I don't follow your logic. How do you come up with that conclusion? To me, it is important to get the government out of the dumping business. They are already suffused with the easy money, the campaign contributions and the conflicting ethics of running the garbage business (see newspaper article below). Local government needs to get into the business, which is appropriately theirs, of improving society so that garbage is eliminated (a la the phone charger change you posted). They need to be utterly free to do that, instead of worrying about their investments, their loans, their obligations, their contracts for garbage dumping, their struggle with state commissions to allow the dump to operate and all of the other paraphernalia of running a dump. They have no demonstrable expertise in garbage management to point to. Of course there is no room anywhere for put-or-pay provisions or for codicils to guarantee profit for garbage companies. These are disgusting anti-planetary overreaching by a greedy industry that knows how to manipulate elected officials. This - keeping the sale clean - is where activists should be putting their energies, not in the side issue of trying to keep government in the garbage business. Collecting garbage is a planetary abomination, NOT a social service. The public is confused about this. Those recyclers who love to call themselves Zero Waste enthusiasts are promoting garbage and recycling, despite repeatedly claiming to be advocates of Zero Waste. Ken Wells has made his career as a garbage flack, though he seems to see now that his bread may not be buttered in that role. Ken publicly stated in an LTF meeting last year that he has never been able to understand why Zero Waste is any different from recycling, despite having had it explained to him over and over. For the activists to now be putting Ken Wells forward as any kind of spokesman is hypocrisy of the highest order. The Youtube film you pointed to by Ben Zolno is notable for being entirely empty of any meaningful alternative to continued garbage creation. All it promotes is a bureaucratic reshuffling of controls to create a super agency that would likely end up with who as its director? Why Ken Wells of course! When are we going to stop embracing garbage as the natural, organic way to destroy our planet and actually discuss alternatives to garbage creation. Real solutions - not more bureaucracies - are at our fingertips if we would but stop to smell the roses.
Paul Palmer
From Jacksonville Florida
City ethics: Webb's bad call. A morality story for the entire relationship between elected officials and the garbage industry.
City Council member and landfill bidding champion Jack Webb used stunningly bad judgment in taking on potential landfill bidder Republic Services as a client.
Webb, a lawyer, insists he saw no legal or ethical conflicts of interest, largely because the two cases he accepted do not involve the city or its landfill. Yet, he has suffered a damaging loss in the court of public perception.
And, unfortunately, Webb isn't the biggest loser in the case.
City taxpayers are.
Times-Union reporter Tia Mitchell revealed last week that Webb had quietly taken on Republic Services as a client months ago without disclosing it.
In response, Webb resigned as chairman of the Trail Ridge landfill oversight committee in wake of the controversy and could be forced to excuse himself from voting on future landfill matters.
That wipes out Webb's lead role, expertise and credibility on one of the city's biggest running issues.
Now a council member whose smarts, people skills and ideas have propelled him to the top of council leadership just looks like a paid advocate for one side.
The situation should be a reminder to council members and other elected officials that they need to keep a healthy distance between their personal affairs and the public's business.
An epic issue
The political power struggle over the Trail Ridge Landfill's future raged for months.
The issue: Whether the city should extend Waste Management's contract or bid out future operations. Mayor John Peyton wanted to extend the contract and limit legal challenges, and Webb became the council point person for opposing him and advocating bidding.
In fact, Webb accompanied Republic officials and advocates in a meeting with The Times-Union editorial board.
Both sides claimed to offer the best deal for the taxpayers.
Lobbyists for Waste Management and Republic - the nation's No. 1 and No. 2 largest landfill operators - pressed the council from opposite positions. The value of the contract is roughly $750 million, potentially the largest in city history.
Webb and his council colleagues ultimately prevailed. They rejected Peyton's plan and put the landfill contract on a path for an eventual bid.
Council President Richard Clark appointed Webb as head of landfill oversight committee to monitor the progress toward bidding the Trail Ridge contract.
Then came the conflict-of-interest train wreck.
Webb's position: No conflict
Webb says he didn't see a conflict for several reasons. Among them:
- The two collections cases he took didn't involve the Trail Ridge Landfill or the city of Jacksonville.
- He had friends at the company and had first talked with Republic officials about doing some business for them long before the Trail Ridge Landfill issue arose at City Council.
- The work came after the council's Trail Ridge decision to bid had been made. The new landfill oversight committee that Webb chaired had only been involved in making sure the city didn't run out of landfill capacity and could expand. Republic operates landfills, it would not be bidding on any design work.
- Webb would not be representing Republic in any way regarding the Trail Ridge landfill issue and would recuse himself, if necessary, on any related votes.
- He didn't see any reason to disclose the Republic work to his colleagues because he didn't see any legal or ethical conflicts.
How to become a bystander
Webb is a bright guy. But how he failed to anticipate the ethical fire alarms - not to mention the damage it could do to his credibility and his council colleagues as a group - is mind-boggling.
Even though Webb denies doing anything inappropriate, his business ties with Republic are bound to generate skepticism.
Besides stepping down from the oversight committee, Webb is considering severing his business ties with Republic. That would be a positive sign that he is trying to correct his mistake and could restore his credibility on this issue.
Solutions
Public officials in Jacksonville are bound by state and local ethics laws. Webb is convinced he has violated neither.
Regardless, this is a subject the city Ethics Commission should take up at its meeting tomorrow and review carefully.
Ironically, a commission member, attorney Braxton Gillam, works for one of the opposing parties in a case that Republic hired Webb to pursue.
Gillam told The Times-Union he didn't see any conflicts of interest in Webb's situation. Then Gillam needs a vision test.
Given Gillam's involvement in a case involving Webb and Republic, he should excuse himself from the discussion and let other members of the commission debate the issue if it comes up tomorrow.
Officials have a number of steps they can take to minimize the chances of making a wrong turn when doing business with those who have financial interests with the city.
Before making a decision, they can consult with the city General Counsel's Office, the city's Ethics Officer and the state Ethics Commission.
Perhaps the best feedback will come from their constituents.
We suspect Webb has learned a hard lesson, but it's one his colleagues should heed, as well.
BBC NEWS | Technology | Universal phone charger approved (https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8323018.stm)
BBC News (U.K.)
A new mobile phone charger that will work with any handset has been approved by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), a United Nations body.
Industry body the GSMA says that 51,000 tonnes of redundant chargers are generated each year.
Currently most chargers are product or brand specific, so people tend to change them when they upgrade to a new phone.
However, the new energy-efficient chargers can be kept for much longer.
The GSMA also estimates that they will reduce annual greenhouse gas emissions by 13.6m tonnes.
"This is a significant step in reducing the environmental impact of mobile charging," said Malcolm Johnson, director of ITU's Telecommunication Standardisation Bureau.
"Universal chargers are a common-sense solution that I look forward to seeing in other areas."
Zeno Swijtink
10-27-2009, 08:49 AM
Zeno:
Actually I don't follow your logic. How do you come up with that conclusion? To me, it is important to get the government out of the dumping business. They are already suffused with the easy money, the campaign contributions and the conflicting ethics of running the garbage business (see newspaper article below). Local government needs to get into the business, which is appropriately theirs, of improving society so that garbage is eliminated (a la the phone charger change you posted). They need to be utterly free to do that, instead of worrying about their investments, their loans, their obligations, their contracts for garbage dumping, their struggle with state commissions to allow the dump to operate and all of the other paraphernalia of running a dump. They have no demonstrable expertise in garbage management to point to. Of course there is no room anywhere for put-or-pay provisions or for codicils to guarantee profit for garbage companies. These are disgusting anti-planetary overreaching by a greedy industry that knows how to manipulate elected officials. This - keeping the sale clean - is where activists should be putting their energies, not in the side issue of trying to keep government in the garbage business. Collecting garbage is a planetary abomination, NOT a social service. The public is confused about this. Those recyclers who love to call themselves Zero Waste enthusiasts are promoting garbage and recycling, despite repeatedly claiming to be advocates of Zero Waste. Ken Wells has made his career as a garbage flack, though he seems to see now that his bread may not be buttered in that role. Ken publicly stated in an LTF meeting last year that he has never been able to understand why Zero Waste is any different from recycling, despite having had it explained to him over and over. For the activists to now be putting Ken Wells forward as any kind of spokesman is hypocrisy of the highest order. The Youtube film you pointed to by Ben Zolno is notable for being entirely empty of any meaningful alternative to continued garbage creation. All it promotes is a bureaucratic reshuffling of controls to create a super agency that would likely end up with who as its director? Why Ken Wells of course! When are we going to stop embracing garbage as the natural, organic way to destroy our planet and actually discuss alternatives to garbage creation. Real solutions - not more bureaucracies - are at our fingertips if we would but stop to smell the roses.
Paul Palmer
I am glad we agree that the present proposal is a bad one.
You raise a good question what "business model" is most consistent with moving rapidly to zero waste, and what the roles of private for profit and community/government should be.
Obviously an arrangement where government creates a money flow from waste is not the right incentive.
Equally obvious is that a arrangement where private industry creates a money flow from waste is not the right incentive. Compare PG&E efforts to block Marin's effort to move rapidly to renewable sourcing of its power.
I wonder what you make of the analysis of the landfill issue by the Climate Protection Campaign at
Or possibly a non profit community cooperative that takes care of waste and operates separate from the government who sets upstream constraints of waste to move us to zero waste.