My home systems

Leave a reply

Since I started writing about audio and video technology people have often asked me what I use at home. I’ll try to answer that in my first blog on this, the Rumblefish, platform. I’m not really sure you’ll like it, since the systems I use are somewhat eccentric – a mixture of old and new technology – and specific to my taste and demands. As those who know me will expect, I always try to get the most out of limited budget and this sometimes requires ideosyncratic ways to go about it, involving equally ideosyncratic electronic gadgets. Enough said, here goes.

Actually I use two different systems. One is my ‘Home Cinema’ setup, the other one is my ‘listen to music’ setup. Both profit from a NAS (Network Accessible Storage) on my home LAN.

Listening to music

This is what I use in the largest room of the house and it is mainly totally conventional. As I have stressed many times in previous articles, the most important (and most expensive) thing here is the analogue part and the quality of those components has not been bettered during the last 50 year or so. Although prices have fallen; not that much even for new components, but certainly because people seem to want to get rid of this ‘old gear’and are offering it second hand for very low prioces indeed.

At the heart of my system is a 30 year old Yamaha amplifier; their top-of-the-range model at the time. It’s got a number of s/pdif digital inputs and DAC’s (Digital-to-Analogue Converter) which are still now highly regarded by HiFi enthusiasts. It also has 4 loudspeaker outlets (originally intended for ‘quadrophonic sound’) and simulated surround sound when using 4 speakers.
For loudspeakers I use fairly large boxes as this is, according to conventional wisdom, the only way to get a really good sound. (I know, ideas have changed nowadays – I’ll get to that here below). They are of a design, invented in the 1980’s, the ‘pipe’ design: small footprint and tall (1,2m). I must admit I paid quite a bit for them, some €6000,- for the pair in today’s money. These are passive loudspeakers. (The active models of the same brand came with their own amplifier, the characteristics of which were finely tuned to the characteristics of the loudspeaker boxes. However, a demonstration didn’t really convince me of this advantage and they were far above my budget anyway.)
In addition I have two fairly small speaker boxes in the back. Although despised by connoisseurs, I must admit that for many kinds of music I do like the electronically generated ‘echo’ in the rear boxes; it provides a kind of presence of the music, a sense of actually being in the concert hall or jazz café. Of course, real surround sound would be better – but see below.

As sound-sources I’ve got several. A really good CD-player of course. By the way, almost all DVD-players can play CD’s as well and, provided they have a digital output, the sound quality is just fine, even from the cheapest models. Yet, durability and ease of use for playing CD’s is another matter.
I also have an excellent record player, a Lenco L78, a model introduced some 60 years ago. Bought it in a charity shop for peanuts, out of nostalgia mnore then anything. It was in a deplorable state; a crucial part, the bearing of the arm, was broken and of course everything involving rubber had dried out. To my lasting surprose, however, I found that this old model still boasted devoties, who on their website, solely dedicated to this model, not only pointed me to an address where I could order the new parts I needed, but also provided lots of pratical tips on how to rejuvenate an old specimen. Thus, the record player I had been using up till then (a Sony – OK but not excellent) moved upstairs to the ‘Home Cinema’ room.

Additions for digital music

But now for the modern additions. Streaming sound from internet services is what most people do these days. And I already mentioned the NAS box, which holds my digital music collection. For years I’ve wrestled with the best and most convenient way to play these files, whilke also catering for playing music from streaming services. The number of options seemed dazzling and I spent literally hundred of hours on web-forums (not to mention the money I spent on components which didn’t quite do what I wanted) before daring to choose for the use Google’s ChromeCast ‘dongle’. (Mind you: the original, simple, ChromeCast, now ‘Version III’). It’s a very popular and very cheap device. It’s got a hdmi output and I use a separately bought hdmi sound extractor to extract the digital (s/pdif) sound signal and convert it to an optical feed accepted by the Yamaha amp.
The Chromecast dongle is connected to the home network most often by WiFi, but I’m rather weary of needless wireless connections (as I’m not going to walk around with my big amp and speakers), so I bought a wired ethernet connector for it (available from Google in the US, but only from Asian supplyers in Euroipe).
All these components are very cheap and remember: these are all digital components, and they either work or don’t – sound quality is not an issue.

I wrote a detailed article about the unique way the Chromecast dongle works, but here is the gist of it: I use my smartphone to choose some music from either the internet (Spotify, Youtube, you name it) or from my own music collection on my home NAS. Then I instruct the ChromeCast to fetch these music files (or video’s with music) directly from either the internet or my home NAS and play them. The word ‘directly’ is essential here: e.g. when playing music from my NAS the signal goes directly, by wired connection, to the Chromecast and my audio system. The Chromecast is a popular device; hence there are very many apps supporting it’s peculiar way of working, including most iof not all streaming services.
The number of sound formats the Chromecast can stomach is limited, but it supports all mp3’s, FLAC files up till 24/96 quality and even surround sound when it is encoded in (Dolby) AC3 format. Regrettably, my Yamaha amp doesn’t support true surround sound but as the offerings of music with true surround sound are very limited and offer little extra experience for the kind of music I like I haven’t, so far, replaced the Yamaha nor felt the need to add additional speakers.

Home Cinema (& TV)

In my setup upstairs I aimed for a ‘Home Cinema’ and explore ‘Surround Sound’. I also wanted to watch TV programs the best way, but that is secondary.

The core of this system is a hefty ‘old’ Harman Kardon amplifier which I bought for a ridiculously low price from a guy who inherited it and found it ‘bulky and complicated and old-fashioned’ and din’t seem to realise it was (and is) an excellent piece of hardware, even when I told him so. It has a series of digital inputs (optical as well as coaxial) and supports all current ‘surround sound’ formats (AC3, NTS, etc.). It’s got 5 loudspeaker connections and an additional line-out connecfion for an active sub-woofer.

In previous blogs I explained why the concept of a common sub-woofer for all channels was initially opposed since it required analogue filters, which deteriorated the signal, but was revived in the digital era where, at least in ‘true’surround sound, the lowest frequencies come in a seperate channel. And even when this channel is not available, the lowest frequencies can be filtered off in the digtal stage, which – or so they say – gives less distortion then an analogue filter. I also explained why most sub-woofers have their own amplifier built-in and thus are fed by a line-output.

I purchased, second hand, two small but fairly good Bowes&Wilkes boxes for ‘Front left’ and ‘Front Right’; again for a ridiciously low price (€40,-) since since people seem to intend on ‘getting rid of old stuff’. For the ‘rear’ speakers I got for even less money two decent Philips boxes which could be relied upon to limit the sound range rather then to distort sounds outside it’s range.
Seen the quality of the two B&W boxes and the samll size of the room, I didn’t see the need for a ‘Front-Center’ speaker. On the Harman-Kardon I can indicate this speaker is missing, but I couldn’t truthfully say what the amplifyer does to adjust to this situation. But of course I did add an active sub-woofer (Yamaha again).

For the ‘Home Cinema’ idea I needed a fairly big screen and ended up buying a complete TV for the purpose since it was much cheaper then a monitor without TV-functionality of the same size.

Sound and video sources

For overall flexibility absolutely nothing can compare to a computer. I use a desktop, as I happened to own a decent one already. It’s got a digital s/pdif output (coaxial) connected to the Harman-Kardon amplifyer and a hdmi output connected to the ‘big screen’. It has a dvd-player of course, and a wired connection to the internet.

I use the excellent (and free!) VLC mediaplayer to play everything digital I have ‘in house’, either on the NAS or on CD or DVD. It’s one of the few players boasting a pass-through mode for sound where the signal is sent straight to the s/pdif output without in any way meddling with it. It’s also one of the very few players which can handle, in a convenient way, multiple language soundtracks and subtitles if available in the video file. It can even handle seperately downloaded subtitle files.
Of course everything from the internet or any cloud service can be played by this desktop (or any computer) as well – and here is where I particularly appreciate the convenience of a decent size screen.

Television

For this I use a Humax TV-receiver with recorder. I watch ‘live TV’ only very occasionally; for decades I’ve been making recordings of TV programs and playing them later. If only for the convenience of being able to ‘fast forward’ through the ubiquitous publicity announcements. Fortunately, a number of options is available even in this digital age where making your own recordings from TV program is discouraged everywhere as using paid online services brings in a lot more money.
I extensively wrote about this subject before; suffice to say here that the Humax does an excellent job for me. We sometimes watch the recording strauight from the Humax, but mostly I periodically transfer the recordings to my NAS for later viewing or viewing in another room.

Surround sound

Like most amplifiers of it’s type, the Harman-Kardon automatically recognizes which encoding is used for the sound signal and switches to it automatically, showing it on the display (e.g. ‘Dolby Digital’). In addition, one of the really neat features of the Harman-Kardon is a small display showing 5+1 loudpeaker boxes with for each box an indication whether or not a seperate channel is available for it in the active source. This, more then anything, made me realize how very rare ‘true surround sound’ really is. Some DVD’s provide it (the majority does not, despite what it says on the cover) and the recordings I bought directly from (small) record companies or from the website of the artist.

Comparison upstairs/downstairs

As I made clear, my downstairs ‘music only’ systen didn’t come cheap, while my upstairs ‘Home Cinema’ system was gobbled together very cheaply, mainly from 2nd hand components. But even allowing for the fact that I greatly profited from the urge to ‘throw out everything big and old-fashioned’, the upstairs system is still fairly cheap comparatively – and I was really amazed at the sound quality. It’s true I still prefer the downstairs system for classical music and jazz; it seems to sound more ‘pure’ somehow. It’s especially noticeable when playing vinyl on the Lenco record player but also with high-quality (24/96) ‘vinyl rips’. Yet the upstairs system just sounds better for many other kinds of music. And for the recordings I bought which were originally mastered for ‘surround sound’ I also prefer the upstairs system: the quality of the sound may be somwhat less, but the ‘listening experience’ is better, I find.

Hans Bloemendal

Politicised virus

Leave a reply

So about this Corona virus: how did WE do and how did THEY do? While scientists agree it is much, much too early to say, politicians the world over are taking the opportunity to claim the supremacy of their country’s approach or even of their ideology.

But it is indeed much too early to claim victory for any approach. At the very least, we’ll have to wait what alleviation of the restrictive measures will bring and if any country will experience a ‘second wave’ of infections once the economy and society have returned back to normal. At the moment, we do not even know if having been ill from this virus confers any immunity from later attacks. We don’t even know whether having been severely ill and hospitalised brings on the same effects as having been only slightly ill – cases which were usually not even diagnosed. Yet on these questions depends much of the effectivity of the various strategies.
There is also the question of when a vaccine will be available. If it arrives in time to prevent a second wave, those opting for the most rigorous clamp-down may be proven right, but if not, it’s a different story: when a vaccine is still a year or so away, it just may turn out that those very rigorous measures only lead to a population which is vulnerable to a second or third wave of attack.
Even when we will know, maybe in a couple of years, what the best strategy would have been, it won’t be easy to draw conclusions for the future since there will be much that worked out better only ‘in hindsight’ and should not be applied as a general rule. For instance, what we know about surviving a viral attack is that it usually alerts the defences of the immune system in a semi-permanent way, that is: you are, to a certain extend, immune for the virus afterwards. Many based their strategies on this: protecting vulnerable people while building up ‘group immunity’ through relaxed constraints for young & healthy people who can survive the virus without too much discomfort. Yet it may be that it doesn’t work like that for this particular virus. Thus, it may be that in this case it turns out that these strategies are proven wrong. But is that a reason to call the ‘group immunity’ strategy ‘wrong’ and to adopt a different strategy in the future? I think not; not by itself, anyway.

The EU

For a very long time there hasn’t been so much bickering within the EU as now over this virus, with countries publicly accusing others (e.g. their neighbours) of ‘weak government’ or even ‘dangerous negligence’. That, in my opinion, is mainly of not wholly political propaganda.
The first thing to point out here is that all scientific advisors stress, time and again, that restrictive measures do not do anything by themselves; it’s all about compliance. And all of them realise that strict enforcement of these measures can’t last for very long – and what will happen afterwards? In other words, it’s all about educating people and getting broad support for any restrictive measures. We, in the EU, have always been staunch supporters of a federal model which leaves plenty of space for the great cultural differences among the member states. And thus, we shouldn’t be surprised at the different messages the leaders bestow upon their populace.
Yes, there are real differences in ‘strategy’, but a lot of the differences the media make a lot of fuss about boils down to adaptations to cultural differences, or even simply differences in wording, while in fact the underlying strategies are not different at all.

Belgium and The Netherlands

The Dutch government has been heavily criticised by the Belgium government for not taking this crisis seriously enough and not doing enough. Belgium completely closed the borders with The Netherlands. Indeed, there are some differences in the advice given by government and the measures taken:

	Belgium	Netherlands
Advice to thoroughly wash hands	Yes	Yes
Obligation to keep 1,5m distance	Yes	Yes
Schools closed	Yes	Yes
Restaurants and pubs closed	Yes	Yes
No groups in public places	Yes	Yes
No public events	Yes	Yes
Appeal to work from home	Yes	Yes
Closing of non-essential shops	Yes	No
Borders closed	Yes	No
Children can’t play together	Yes	No
Can’t sit on a bench in a park	Yes	No
Can’t go out of the house without urgent reason	Yes	No

But now for the statistics. Reliable statistics are hard to come by at the best of times, but in cases like this there are additional factors which make a comparison between countries very difficult. The much talked-about figure of ‘Deaths due to the Covid-9 virus’, for instance, heavily depends on whether or not people were tested for the virus and diagnosed. There are many other problems when comparing figures from different countries and health systems, so I think it is – for the moment at least – a better idea to compare like with like and consider trends rather then numbers.

Number of hospitalisations

Comparing Belgium with The Netherlands, a fairly ‘hard’ figure is the number of people admitted to a hospital, for whatever reasons. Take a look at this graph:

The above graph compares absolute figures; I didn’t make the effort of adjusting the graph to reflect the difference in no of inhabitants (The Netherlands has some 17 million inhabitants, Belgium some 11 million), because our two systems do not function in exactly the same way which could conceivably influence the absolute figures. But what is real and undeniable is the trend. The trend is the same in both countries and continues to be so. Clearly, the ‘laxer’ attitude of the Dutch is not reflected in the statistics. For now.

Mortality

Mortality is another statistic which does not depend on testing for ‘Covid-9’. The numbers reflect ‘the number of deaths per week’; for the EU ‘Momo’ or the European Mortality Monitor (https://www.euromomo.eu/) has been assembling the statistics for decades. The table below compares some countries over the past two quarters. Mind: these figures do not reflect ‘Covid-9 deaths’ but simply deaths due to whatever cause.
There is blue and a green line; the difference is fairly complicated and I won’t go into that since my objective is only to signal overall trends. The red line indicates he base line of normal death rates around this time of year.


Belgium
France
Italy
Netherlands
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
England

Germany (Berlin)
Germany (Hesse)

The source of these figures does not give any interpretation; just the raw figures, but it seems not a far stretch to connect the obvious peak in March/April the Covid-9 virus. It may be obvious that there is not a great deal of difference between who now accuse each other of ‘lack of control’ or worse, while there is a big difference with notably Germany.

For the time being, it would seem Germany’s mortality rates seem to indicate it did a lot better than their neighbours. That’s in the short run, of course; we’ll have to see how it works out over the years. Nevertheless, the difference in death-rate is striking.
The answer as to ‘why’ may take years to answer, but quite obviously it is not in the severity of the ‘lock-down’ measures; they are not more severe than in neighbouring countries; when compared to Belgium or France even less so: the German borders are not closed and neither are parks etc. The border with The Netherlands remains open, although border officials ‘advise’ people to not cross the border. The train Berlin-Amsterdam runs without any special controls.

Hans

Added 21-4: Lots of articles now appear on “Why is Covid-19 death rate so low in Germany?”, e.g. on CNN: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/24/opinions/germany-low-death-rate-for-coronavirus-sepkowitz/index.html
Lots of explanations are given, but they all seem to avoid the really big question: “Why is the death rate so low in Germany?” No, not the “covid-9 death rate” but simply “the death rate”. Not any explanation involving testing for Covid-9 or counting Covid-9 victims in a different way will do to answer the question “Why doesn’t a peak in mortality show up in Germany?”

Send your products, keep your deaths

Leave a reply

A large study by four research groups in China and the US concluded: “International trade is contributing to the globalization of emission and pollution as a result of the production of goods (and their associated emissions) in one region for consumption in another region.”

The research studied worldwide premature deaths caused by one certain type of air polllution and found that of those “about […] 22 per cent were associated with goods and services produced in one region for consumption in another.” and went on to conclude that “the transboundary health impacts of [this type of] pollution associated with international trade are greater than those associated with long-distance atmospheric pollutant transport.” In particular: “consumption in western Europe and the USA is linked to more than 108,600 premature deaths in China.”
(Nature, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v543/n7647/full/nature21712.html).

“When we see pictures of terrible smog in Beijing, we have a tendency to point fingers and say they should clean up their stuff,” says Steven Davis, a scientist at the University of California and co-author of the paper, in an interview with the weekly New Scientist. “But that’s a little unfair because when you and I go to Walmart and buy a lawn chair, it’s a few cents cheaper, and as a result people are dying in China.”

Europe and the US do not come off scot-free, though: each year some 3000 Europeans die as a result of pollution from Chinese factories, while an earlier study found that around a quarter of California’s smog is caused by air-borne pollution from China.

Hans

Energy saving tip 1: give your thermostat an attitude

1 Reply

The book To Save Everything, Click Here: Technology, Solutionism and the Urge to Fix Problems That Don’t Exist by Evgeny Morozov is a warmly advised read for everyone concerned with or about modern technology and technocrats. I’ll say more about it elsewehere, but here I’ll just take inspiration from the last chapter, where Morozov describes some rather hilarious ideas to make us more aware of what we are actually doing whenever we push an ‘on’ button.

“We live in a world that seems firm and permanent only to find out that it isn’t – and that many of the practices we take for granted are harming the planet, or our neighbours, or teenage factory workers in Cambodia, or squirrels in Tajikistan, or some as-yet-unnamed community that is only now beginning to articulate its opposition to our way of life.” writes Morozov as an introduction to some schemes to make us, users, more aware of our footprint. Take for instance the erratic appliances pioneered by Swedish engineers: home appliances that start to behave strangely as energy consumption increases. So your hoover may suddenly decide to take a five minutes timeout, your radio may switch to a different station or your toaster may refuse to go further then a very bleak finish whenever the energy consumption in the appartment rises above certain levels. (I’d think burning the toast to a crisp would be both more hilarious and more effective but as this wastes energy I take it this option is not on the menu.) Thus, the Swedish engineers seek to make people acutely aware
of their energy consumption, while also introducing elements of risk and indeterminacy, elements which are always present but usually hidden from view for the user and thus all too often forgotten.
In Germany, engineers of the Folkwang University of the Arts designed what they called “transformational products” with the aim of furthering the consumer’s energy awareness. Most hilarious I find the ‘catarpillar’ extension cord, which gets thicker when more energy flows through it and even starts to twist and turn, as if tortured, when it has to transport even more power.
I’ll resist the temptation to describe more of these projects here (you can find more info on the web, see for instance https://issuu.com/hassenzahl/docs/create_transformational_products_cr).

I fear that these kind of appliancies may not gain much foothold in even the most eco-aware of households. So I’ll describe a trick, somewhat in the same vein although quite mundane by comparison, which is practical. It’s about your heating system; let’s call it, somewhat grandly, a ‘thermostat with an attitude’.

The idea is very simple, really; it harks back to the old days when electricity and gas were paid through inserting coins in a slot in the gas- and electricity meter. This made the consumers very thrifty and acutely aware of their energy consumption. It even gave a good insight into what appliances and activities consumed the most. Later we got more modern meters and monthly bills, which quickly became yearly bills. This innovation much lessened awareness and the yearly statement of past consumption provides no insights into where all this energy went.

Thermostat with an attitude

We can’t easily bring the old coin system back, but what you can very easily do is this: installing a clock device which shuts off (or reduces) the heating system every hour or every few hours. To re-start, you push a button after wich it goes for another hour or whatever period you choose.
I’ve been using such a device for quite a while now and I can tell you it absolutely does wonders for both our awareness of our real heating needs and our energy bill. For instance, we used to sometimes forget to turn the heating off when leaving the appartment, or think the other would do it or had done it, or leave ‘for a few minutes only’ which then turned into hours. I say this ‘sometimes’ happened but the pernicious thing here is that we had no way of knowing how often this happened as this would require not only alertness but also extensive note-keeping both of which are beyond our mental capabilities.
Also a great advantage is that it is now the acute feeling of chillyness which triggers a push on the start-button. This ensures the button is only pressed when more heating is really desired and quite often the button does not get pushed as we were just about to break up anyway, or engage in activities like hoovering or cooking for which a somewhat lower room temperature is readily acceptable.

Everyone can devise such a system quite easily. One way is to have a modern thermostat installed; suitable models are available of many makes. The device should a) be programmable with many different programs and b) have a manual ‘start’-button. The trick, then, is quite easy. For daily use, you program a series of on-off sessions. All these sessions are set to ‘on’ at the same time, say 7 a.m. The first program switches off at 7:05, the second starts at 7 and switches off at, say, 9. The third switches on at 7 and off at 11, and so forth. The combined effect is that the heating only once per day switches on automatically for 5 minutes (or half an hour if you prefer to get up in an already heated appartment) and during the rest of the day you have to push the manual override button to get the heating going and it will switch off at the set times.
(Actually, most modern thermostats are even more sophisticated in that they let you switch between a higher ‘day temperature’ and a lower ‘night temperature’. But that doesn’t prevent this trick to work.)

You may already have a suitable thermostat installed! Else you can buy one, of course, but as they are quite expensive you can just as well make do with a very cheap programmable switch. But as this requires some DIY I’ll describe this in a seperate document here: http://www.phlogiston.nl/papers/energy%20saving%20thermostat.pdf

Just to remind us

Wouldn’t it be nice if we could introduce an element of randomness here? The wonderful mind bell app chimes not precisely, but somewhere around every hour – and I don’t doubt that is one of the reasons for it’s popularity. Likewise, our thermostat could switch off every now and then or somewhere around set times. This would not only make the thermostat more interesting and fun, it could also – much like the ‘mind bell’ – give us a tiny reminder that the comfortable temperature of our appartments is not at all self evident. Such an addition would surely be to the liking of those Swedish and German designers I mentioned.
I do hope that this text will be read someday by someone knowledgeable in DIY electronic projects who then decides to make such a device and publish the details.

Hans

COP22 in Marrakech

Leave a reply

COP22 just didn’t stand a chance against Mr. Trump; newsitems about it seem harder to find then the Weapons of Mass Destruction in Saddam’s Iraque. It is true that COP22, that is the 22th Conference Of Parties to the Kyoto Agreement, which was held in Marrakech from 7 to 18 nov., is not nearly as spectacular as COP21, better known as the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. Yet it is not without significance: many details and specifics of the Paris Agreement were left to be negociated later and we all know that the devil is in the details. The fact that the Paris Agreement had come into force on nov. 4th, just days before the start of the Marrakech Conference, lends it even more weight.

As always, the conference brought some progress and some disappointments.

Important is that it was agreed that the UN no later then 2018 will report on what the individual countries did to mitigate climate change and, most importantly, whether or not this is in agreement with what was agreed upon in Paris. As this agreement is now in force, there is no hiding place left for governments or businesses: they will be publicly shamed for any stalling or evading.

Disappointing was, once more, the lack of financial support for poor countries. Few now deny the fact that the consequences of climate change will be harshest for precisely those countries which conributed the least to the problem. On the one hand, poor countries did not and do not consume much energy, evidently. On the other hand, many of the poorest countries are situated in regions where climate change is predicted to have it’s most severe effects, for instance central Afrika. This state of affairs was recognised in principle in the Paris Agreement but without financial backup this comes down to leaving those countries the choice between staying poor or employing the cheapest, that is the most eco-unfriendly, energy sources.
Let us hope that next year’s COP23, in Bonn, will bring more tangible results for those countries.

One more important point on which no agreement was reached was the matter of sanctions for those countries which do not live up to their obligations; for the time being, it will all be left to good manners. It wasn’t that much of disappointment, though: very few had realistically expected proposals for sanctions to make it.
Personally, I don’t set much store by sanctions in this case. It’s a bit like a mariage, I think: mariages were not more happy in times when adultery still carried legal sanctions and have not become less happy because such sanctions were removed. In the same vein, the Paris Agreement will only function when the signatories are fully convinced that cooperation is in their own interest. If that is not the case, sanctions can’t help, I think; at least not in this stage.
This necessary conviction can only come from rationally reviewing the scientific evidence on both the progress of climate change and the impact of the measures taken. Let is hope that all governements, or at least te most important ones, will continue the rational attitude as displayed in Paris a year ago.

Hans

Update 22/11/16

President-elect Donald Trump told The New York Times that he thinks there is “some connectivity” between human activity and climate change. This after many years of not just denying a link between climate change and human activities, but even declaring climate change itself ‘a hoax’. May we still harbour some hope that rational thought will prevail in the end?
How’s this for a chuckle, by the way: Trump’s company managing his private golf course applied for a licence to build a sea-wall around the golf course. As the main reason to build it, the application cites ‘climate change’ and the consequent rise in sea levels and severe storms.
(see: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/donald-trump-climate-change-golf-course-223436)

Climate trumps Trump

Leave a reply

With all the hubbub surrounding the US presidential election there seems to be little room left for news about the climate, however important. Yet, today, november 4th 2016, an important milestone was reached. Today, much sooner then anyone could have hoped for, the Paris Climate Agreement came into force.

Although agreed upon and signed by Heads of State in 2015, this in itself was not legally binding. In most countries, an act of parliament is necessary for that country to ratify the agreement, that is to declare it legally binding and commit to drawing up and enforcing the necessary laws and measures. The agreement stipulated that it would come into force when it was ratified by at least 55 countries, together producing 55% of the total greenhouse gas emissions. It is this state of affairs which was reached today.

So let us bring out the champagne and rejoyce, for once. Whatever its shortcomings, there is virtually noone in the world of scientists and eco-activists who would deny that this agreement is very important and far reaching. The Paris conference was the 21st of the parties to the Kyoto agreement of 1992 and since that date tens of thousands of scientists, civil servants and ngo-members, supported by many millions of concerned citizens, have worked ceaselessly to get to where we are now.
I feel endebted toward all these people and I am very, very grateful.

It is the first time in human history that a treaty was signed by virtually the whole world. (With 197 signatories, there’s not much opposition left.) OK, it took a global threat affecting us all, but ‘we’ did it! Despite differences of opinion, conflicts, outright wars even. Today I allow myself to be boundlessly optimistic and happy.

Hans

Update nov. 10

In fact, the process of ratification of the Paris Agreement is far more complicated then I related above. Over sixty different mandates have to passed by the parliaments or rulers of the 197 signatories. In the unlikely event you are interested in the details of the current state of affairs, I advice the website parisagreement.org, more specifically this page:
https://parisagreement.org/negotiations-progress-tracking/

CETA: TTIP through the back door

3 Replies

Despite the best efforts to keep it a secret, you may know by now about the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). After Greenpeace published leaked documents from the deal, the EU-Parliament voted to renegotiate some important paragraphs and took to publishing drafts more openly. The deal is being frustrated and delayed, not least by the Brexit vote, but it’s not from the table, not at all.

Now another treaty appears to have been secretly negotiated: CETA, the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between the EU and Canada. At first sight it seems far less consequential than TTIP, as Canada is a far smaller economy, but it may have comparable toxic consequences. Among the many similarities with the TTIP deal is the secrecy surrounding the negotiations and the way it is pushed through with scant regard for the democratic process. As it stands, all national parliaments will have to approve the deal but, to speed things up a bit, it will become effective before that time. You may want to read that last sentence again, because it is reflects a really weird interpretation of the word democracy.

I invite you to take a look around to learn more about the deal; then go to https://stop-ttip.org/about-cetacheck/ where you can do something: the website tries to bundle citizen’s protests against the deal and more specifically against the undemocratic process with which the deal is pushed through. Doing ‘The CETA-check’ consists of putting 15 questions to your representatives in the EU-Parliament and/or your government. This seems a very effective way of letting them know you care; remember that it’s only leaked documents and citizens protests which hindered the premature acceptance of the TTIP deal. (Tip: the relevant part of the website functions technically a bit clumsy: you have to choose your country and a fraction of the EU-parliament before you see the names of representatives you can send any or all of the 15 questions to.)

Some musings about TTIP and CETA

I’ve been wondering why I am so furiously opposed to TTIP and CETA. Sure, a lot of articles have painted a very negative picture of the consequencies; see for example http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/what-is-ttip-and-six-reasons-why-the-answer-should-scare-you-9779688.html and even a cursory search of the web will point you to many more comments in the same vein. On the other hand, the EU-website (http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ttip/) provides lots very rationially sounding arguments pro as well as lots of reassurances about the perceived dangers. The protesters are scare-mongers who did not take the trouble to actually read the text of the treaty very well – that is the message conveyed to me from those pages. It could well be true, that’s my worry.

Let’s take an example. The article in the newspaper The Independent to which I provided a link hereabove mentions the British national Health Service (NHS) as one of the bodies who should be ‘very scared’ of the TTIP deal. Apparently the NHS heeded that advice and asked questions, which EU Commissioner Malmström addresses in a letter (http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2016/june/tradoc_154617.pdf). “You obviously can’t read nor think” she says to the NHS, although not in those exact words. “You have absolutely nothing to worry about” is the gist of her letter, before going into specific legal details.
Having had no education in legal matters, I can’t judge her arguments but they sound convincing enough.

So why am i not convinced? Why, in fact, does her letter give me the chills?

I’ll make an effort to explain. I know and suppose we all know that laws, even the most carefully worded ones, have holes in them and may have unforeseen consequencies. Lawyers will find loopholes; business as well as citizens will react in unforeseen ways. This is an inevitable fact of life.
In the balanced democratic process as developed over several centuries, this is at most annoying but not a big problem. For starters, our independent judges have quite some leeway in interpreting laws according to the intention of the law rather than it’s specific wording. This intention, therefore, is explicitly layed down as part of the law-making process. In the anglosaxon tradition the unwritten law, that is the body of all court decisions, even stands on equal footing with the laws as passed by parliament or congress. But it plays an important role in all Western democracies. If this leeway is not enough, we simply revise the law, plug the holes and take away the unforeseen incentives for unwanted behaviour.
Thus, by constantly adjusting the sails, our boat by and large keeps to the course we want it to.

Now think of a legal agreement, a contract. That’s a different matter altogether: if it has holes or unforeseen consequences – tough luck! You can’t one-sidedly revise an agreement on those grounds; you’re simply stuck with it. And arguing before a judge that certain interpretatons are against the intention of the contract is very, very hard indeed.
Therefore almost all contracts contain at least these two provisions:

1. A limited timespan;

2. A body, acceptable to both parties, which will settle any disputes and can be relied upon to be impartial and desinterested.

Very few contracts are drawn up without these two provisions and rivers of tears have been shed by those who forgot about them. Yet, contracts between individuals have at least a naturally limited lifespan and enjoy the protection of the wider provisions of State Law.

A treaty is mightier than the law

An International Treaty between countries has one important similarity with a civil contract. In contrast with a law, it can not be revised – at least not one-sidedly. (Sure, Donald Trump, these days, promises to do just that: one-sidedly end some trade agreements he doesn’t like. Well, it just may be that the president of the US can do that, but we sure as hell can not – especially not when the trade agreement is with the US!)

So, if the treaty lacks a period for which the agreement holds (like TTIP and CETA) we are stuck with it forever as International law takes precedence over national law.
We may discover loopholes and unintended consequences (in fact, we are bound to) and we may want to adjust and change our laws accordingly; we may even completely change our thinking about economics and economic growth, giving increased priority to living a good life for instance – all this will not affect our obligations under the treaty which, in the case of TTIP and CETA, effectively prohibit such changes.
Theoretically, the treaty could be revised once all parties agree but I think it is unrealistic to expect such an agreement to arise at the same time and in the same form everywhere. In addition, powerful forces will oppose everything which threatens sales and profit. Thus, I can readily see the treaty becoming a millstone round the neck of all parties concerned; a deadly lock-in from which only a small elite of people profit and will be profiting ’till the end of time’.

In addition, an impartial body to decide about disputes is hard to come by. This point is, very rightly I think, one of the main points in the discussion within the EU-parliament, as the proposed bodies (called ISDS for ‘Investor to State Dispute Settlement’) seem to be composed in a way which makes it hard to believe in their impartiallity. A web search on the keywords ‘ISDS impartiality’ reveals a host of articles on the matter, where the issues are hotly debated. Even venerable academics take part, using unusually harsh wordings for the contributions of their disagreeing peers. A host of possible adjustments for the ISDS idea are proposed as well as alternatives. Yet the Dutch Advisory Council on International Affairs concludes these would not provide better protection for states’ right to regulate. “These issues must be resolved by better drafting of the substantive provisions of Investor Protection Agreements” it says.
Right! We must have a wording without any loopholes which cannot possibly lead to unforeseen consequences.

Malmström’s letter

Now back to Comissioner Malmström’s letter to the NHS: why did it anger me so much?

I can see that more clearly now: here we have a letter from a politician assuring us that a legal text is full-proof, contains no loopholes and wil never have unintended consequences. In the face of history of the past centuries this is a completely ridiculous assurance and an insult to my intelligence.
Sure, if she were talking about a new law which could be adjusted at any time I could understand and even appreciate her arguments.
But she is not talking about laws which can be adjusted; she is talking about contract as we have not met before; a contract above the law which is set in stone and can not be revised or adjusted when holes and unforeseen consequences come to light.

And they will come to light – of course they will, as they’ve always done.

Commissioner Malmström’s letter testifies of great arrogance in that it promises us the text of the ITTP-treaty is better written than any legal text in history in that it is without loopholes and will not entail unforeseen consequences. Moreover, there is no mention of those two provisions which limit the possible damage of any contract: a limited timespan and an impartial body to settle disputes.
Most importantly: the agreements she wants us to sign is one which is set in stone and will leave future generations to battle with the possible negative consequences.
If we rely on assurances like Malmström’s, we build on ground which has a proven record of being very shaky.

A final contemplation on TTIP and CETA

What’s bugging me about TTIP and CETA is certainly the content of the treaty, which in my opinion is objectionable. Maybe more about that later. But far more am I worried, like obviously so many others, about such International Treaties undermining the democratic right of citizens to change their mind in the face of new developments or insights or whatever, for fear of getting sued by companies for hundreds of millions of euro’s.

I freely admit to being one of those who want to change the world; one of an increasing number who thinks that rampant consumerism, the plundering of scarce natural resources, global warming and the widening gap between the have’s and have-not’s will eventually come back to haunt us, or rather the generations after us.
I also admit to being deeply influenced by the Happiness movement among economists, which isn’t a movement at all but rather a core of thinking which questions the belief that more economic growth and maximisation of personal income are what makes us, the citizens of the rich part of the world, happy.

It may be just a pipe-dream, but I can imagine a future where not just a few but a majority will care about the environment and our heritage to future generations and will want to drastically re-draw the lines on the court-yard on which our economic games are played.
But even if you do not believe that is possible, you may agree that we should leave this to our children and not agree to treaties which will bind them for an indefinite period to our current way of doing business.

Added 30 oct 2016

The CETA treaty between Canda and the EEC was signed 30 oct.2016

An appeal to Apple users

1 Reply

You may already know that Apple’s track record on ‘socially responsible entrepreneurship’ is not very good. I’ll bore you with some facts later, but first I want to let you know what I am not going to do: I am not going to advice you to throw away your Apples. Not just because this may be inconvenient or too expensive for you, but mainly because I do not think it would be the best way to protest against Apple’s a-social policies. What with Apple’s booming success, a few customers switching to other brands will hardly be noticed. Furthermore, the divide between Apple users and the rest is such that any criticims from ‘those who can’t afford the Real Thing’ is usually rejected without argument.
Therefore, if there is to be any change, the driving force must come from within the ‘Apple community’.

Those of us who love their Apple devices and have done so for many years: stand up and be counted. Let’s make it clear to Apple that not everyone is so blinded by the genius of their devices that they can’t see the human and environmental cost of their manufacturing. Let us ‘like’ critical facebook pages, write letters, sign petitions (see hereunder); at least let’s do something to let Apple know we do not appreciate their unethical policies.

Summary

Apple devices are mainly produced in China, a dictatorially governed state where laws on working conditions and safety seem to mainly serve the consience of Western consumers; they are not at all respected in practice.
Apple’s release policy is unique and enormously successful. It implies unsurpassed numbers of sales within days of the introduction of a new model. This puts an enormous peak pressure on the labour force. Laws which are supposed to protect workers are not enforced; workers who dare to protest meet with physical abuse or even torture and threats to their families.
Suicide rates among workers in the factories where Apple devices are made are appalling. In response, Apple commends it’s subcontractor for measures like placing nets to prevent people committing suicide by jumping out of a window.
With working hours not just now-and-then but usually twice what is allowed by law, and workers living often hundreds of kilometers from their families, social life is severely disrupted.
Apple devices are increasingly made to not last; they are soldered and glued together and increasingly hard to repair. Replacement parts are either not available or inordinately expensive.
Software upgrades of Apple’s operating system make older devices function less well, thus enticing users to buy the latest model and throw the old one away. A very eco-unfriendly and totally unneccessary practice, as is demonstrated by the competition.
Sign one (or both) of these petitions:
https://actions.sumofus.org/a/planned-obsolescence-is-why-apple-isn-t-a-green-company
https://www.change.org/p/apple-protect-workers-making-iphones-in-chinese-factories-3

Some facts about the manufacturing of Apple devices

Working conditions and social life in China

Apple stands for innovation and that is sure true for their famous and original ‘trick’ of building up a PR campaign before the introduction of a new model and subsequently selling huge numbers right from the start – with people literally camping on the sidewalk during the night to get their hands on the new device. The iPod sold 1 million in two years; by it’s introduction in 2012 the iPhone5 sold 5 million in the first weekend.
I find it sad that this groupy-behaviour is almost invariably hailed as something wholely positive. For the Apple-adept it is proof of Apple’s genius; for the competition it is an enviable state of affairs. Few people seem to realise at what cost such spectacular launches are realised.

Apple’s hugely successful release policy puts an enormous, and still increasing, pressure on their supplyers. The bulk of Apple devices are manufactured by the Chinese company Foxconn, the world’s largest electronics manufacturer. Working conditions in Foxconn’s factories are appalling, as are the long working hours. In response to Apple’s demands, working hours increased to far beyond the legal limit, deadlines were continuously shifted forward; target-numbers were continuously raised to breaking point.
The number of suicides among Foxconn’s labour force rose to heights which even drew international attention. In response, and only after pressure from Western social activists, Foxconn took some measures and Apple was quick to applaud them; the press release said:
“The team commended Foxconn for taking quick action on several fronts simultaneously, including hiring a large number of psychological counselors, establishing a 24-hour care center, and even attaching large nets to the factory buildings to prevent impulsive suicides.”

Yes indeed: not one word about the reasons behind these staggering suicide rates!

“It can’t be that bad; why else would they go work for this company” you may well think. Even though we may harbour a grudging respect for China’s impressive economic achievements, let’s not forget that China is not a democracy and that the word ‘law’ has not the same meaning we attach to it. Many laws seem to be adopted mainly to appease the conscience of Western consumers; in practice they are ignored as a matter of policy. Reports about forcing workers into obedience by simply beating them up and/or threats to their families are rife. There are no labour unions; taking part in any gathering of labourers is a dangerous undertaking for which the participants more often than not pay a heavy toll.
The safety conditions, meanwhile, are not much better than ours were in the 19th century.

The most damaging effect of Foxconn’s factories and Apple’s demands may be the destruction of social life. The vast majority of factory workers come from rural communities, far away from the factory. Not being able to afford adequate housing for their familily near the factory, the workers travel hundreds of kilometers up and down – or do so if and when they have the time and means, which isn’t too often. That is why a working week of 70hrs, as is common in the factories making Apple devices and which we, at a pinch , might even find acceptable for a young man, becomes a destructor of social life in China. No more need for the ‘one-child-policy’; Foxconn sees to it that husbands and wives are rigidly detained at hundreds of kilometers from each other and rarely meet. What this means for birth figures and for infants growing up with an absent father or mother and for social relationships in general is not hard to guess.

See a report here: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/14649373.2016.1170961 (with thanks to www.goodelectronic.org).
Note: Reliable information on this subject is hard to come by for obvious reasons and the process of composing an overview that is based on facts is a slow one; that is why the facts mentioned here are already old (up to 2012) but I can’t see any indication that things have lightened up since then.

Planned obsolescence

In 2013 columnist Catherine Rampell at the New York Times wondered whether her iPhone, which became much less usable after she upgraded to iOS7, was being deliberately sabotaged by Apple, to encourage her to buy a new iPhone. This started a heated debate in all media about what has become to be known as ‘planned obsolescence’. The debate centered on the words ‘deliberate’ and ‘sabotage’: some maintained the upgrade deliberately targetted older devices to run slower while others pointed out that the slowness of older devices, although real, was but a side-effect of the added functionality.
In my opinion, putting the question in this form rendered most of this debate irrelevant. Whether deliberate or not, fact is that the upgrade, which was forced upon users, did make older devices less useable and did lead to many perfectly good phones being thrown away.

In contrast, Microsoft’s 2015 Operating System (Windows 10) performs even faster then Windows Vista from 2007, while still offering a host of extra functionality. Nor have any users ofAndroid, by far the most used OS for smartphones, ever complained about an update rendering their device slower.
Where every other company adheres to standards like ‘USB’ to inter-connect and/or charge-up devices, Apples come with their own specific and patented connectors, making it impossible for any 3rd party manufacturer to even make a connection cable without their consent. By thus controlling what connections can be made, they also effectively control the lifespan of their devices.
In the market of smartphones, tablets and computers, Apple is unique in that it makes both the hardware and the software, which are inseparably linked. On both they keep a very tight grip, constantly seeking the limits of what patent and copyright law allows. This gives them the opportunity to effectively control when a new update will make certain older devices obsolete.

So, it may well be that Microsoft or Samsung or Google are not better in any moral sense; it may be they just do not have the same opportunity for profiting from rendering devices obsolete Apple has. But who cares? The point is that Apple has an interest in pushing updates which render older devices obsolete. The updates and upgrades of the competition, on the other hand, are severely judged by a host of reviewers, precisely on their performance on older devices.

‘Throw-away’ devices

Meanwhile, there is quite some evidence that Apple is not in the business of producing durable goods but instead is all for ‘throw-away’ devices.
In a by now (in)famous press presentation on March 22, 2016, Apple’s Phil Schiller mentions an “amazing statistic”: there are more than 600 million PCs in use that are over five years old. He repeatedly calls this state of affairs “really sad” and continues: “These people could really benefit from an iPad Pro”. (see: http://www.apple.com/apple-events/march-2016/ at around 46:17)

Now let us assume these 600 million PC’s still perform to their users’ satisfaction. In that case I think it is Phil’s flagrant appeal to throw-away consumerism which is ‘really sad’. If, on the other hand, these PC’s are are only still in use because their owners can’t afford a new computer, his words are even more despicable. Quite a lot of commentators pointed out that it is a fact, not even denied by Apple, that Apple’s devices are quite a lot more expensive than comparably performing PC’s and that Apple has nothing to offer in the middle-to-bottom end of the market anyway. Like one commenter put it: “Stating that people who can’t afford a new computer could ‘really benefit from an iPad Pro’ is like pointing to the thread-bare sandals of a desert nomad and saying he ‘could really profit from some Gucci’s'”.
How about the term planned dissatisfaction?

Keeping Apple devices going was never easy but has become increasingly difficult in the past decade or so.
A desktop-PC or even a Windows or Android notebook is composed of parts, which can be replaced or upgraded. Apple, at an early stage, took to soldering many parts together (the memory chips, for example) which is cheaper but makes it virtually impossible
to repair them or upgrade them. Since about 2010, increasingly Apple devices are not held together by screws but by glue, making it impossible to even gain access without damaging them. Some parts in a computer (like the harddisk, battery, cooling fan) simply wear down and have to be replaced after a while. Yet, with Apples, even these components are increasingly soldered and/or inaccessible.
Now who cares if this is planned obsolescence or simply the consequence of the very cheapest production techniques available?

The website of the iFixit organisation (www.ifixit.com, which can’t be praised enough i.m.o.) shows it all: just look for the repair manuals and replacement parts available for any non-Apple smartphone, tablet or laptop. Then take a look at the sorry small chapter on Apples.

Unfair Trade – supporting murderous militia’s and child labour

Our electronics devices incorporate some rare elements which are found in exploitable quantities only in a few places. Almost nowhere in the world did this sudden demand for these materials lead to increased welfare for the people who traditionally lived on and owned the land. Vast areas of land were bought by large companies from people who did not know what they were selling as they did not realise the value of the materials and – more importantly – did not share our Western ideas about ‘land propery’. To make matters worse, criminal groups were quick to realise the value of these recources and by force took hold of the areas where they could be mined. By now, most of us may know about ‘blood diamonds’: diamonds mined by militia’s under forced labour conditions and sold to the US and Europe, thus supporting the might of a few and the oppression of millions. Nowadays there are other materials which proved to be just as valuable, like gold, tungsten, cobalt, palladium, lithium etc. These rare materials are mined by what can only be called ‘slave labour’ under supervision of either global corporations or local militia’s, supported by the continuous demand from electonics manufacturers who on our behalf insist on productivity even if it involves children mining 12 hrs a day in dangerous shafts too low for an adult to stand upright and unprotected from dangerous gasses or lack of oxygen. The profits are then used to buy arms and increase the pressure on local communities.

Apple is not alone here: all electronics manufacturers (with the exception of one, see hereunder) take part in this ruthless exploitation of the poor and vulnerable to some extent. It will continue for as long as we allow it to continue. Only the loud protest of an informed public which threatens sales and brings legislators to action can stop this.
Without the continuous hard work by activists, the following would never have been achieved:

– In 2010, in the wake of the ‘Great Crisis’, the US passed the Dodd-Frank act, a package of laws to reform the financial sector. It may surprise many that it contains a number of paragraphs on the obligation of manufacturers to track and disclose their involvement with so called ‘conflict minerals’ from the Congo Republic and neighbouring areas. (Notably tin, tantalum, tungsten and gold.)

– In 2012 the OECD published guidelines on the subject.

– The European Parliament passed legislation on this subject in 2015; negotiations are currently underway among member states as to specific wording details. On 16th June 2016 the European Parliament confirmed that “mandatory due diligence” would be required for “EU firms importing tin, tungsten, tantalum, gold and their ores”.
(see: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/20150513IPR55318/Conflict-minerals-MEPs-ask-for-mandatory-certification-of-EU-importers)

These measures, mind you, are concerned with openness and disclosure; no changes in policy are demanded. It is up to activists to spread the disclosed information and it’s up to us to act on it.

But even these limited measures are in disarray and in need of our support.
The US body that is overseeing the implementation of the Dodd-Frank act had to conclude after a few years that manufacturers mainly just don’t know where the minerals they use in their products come from. The whole production chain, as it functions now, is just too complicated to oversee, they point out. Moreover, in 2015 a US court ruled several requirements unconstitunional. What all this will mean for the implementation of the Dodd-Frank act is not yet fully clear.
In addition a 2016 report by Amnesty (http://www.amnestyusa.org/sites/default/files/this_what_we_die_for_-_report.pdf) attacks all major brands for making use of child labour in mining cobalt. And this report from Friends of the Earth (https://www.foe.co.uk/sites/default/files/downloads/tin_mining.pdf) puts the spotlight on the real social and environmental cost of mining the tin used for our devices. So we have to add cobalt and tin to the list of ‘suspect minerals’.
Meanwhile, the EU parliament is powerless while negotiations with the member states continue.

And that’s only describing the troubles for the current generation. Mining and using these rare materials like there’s no tomorrow leaves future to cope with the ensuing problems. The rare and valuable minerals in smartphones could be recycled almost fully, but instead every smartphone consists for over 98% of new materials.

I think it grossly unfair to depict Apple users as just ‘dedicated followers of fashion’; please let that be known to Apple that we are not, at least not all of us. Write a letter, sign a petition. Here, for example:
https://actions.sumofus.org/a/planned-obsolescence-is-why-apple-isn-t-a-green-company and/or:
https://www.change.org/p/apple-protect-workers-making-iphones-in-chinese-factories-3

Read some more here, if you want:
http://www.resourcesforlife.com/apple/ethics
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/fran-hawthorne/apples-appalling-ethics_b_1651264.html
https://mic.com/articles/7868/apple-icheat-how-the-world-s-biggest-company-also-became-the-most-unethical

Hans

Against throwaway goods

Leave a reply

Today, I learned that on of my favourite NGO’s will start a campaign against ‘throw-away’ manufacturing of goods. More and more goods are produced in a way which makes it impossible to repair them when even the tinyest component gives out; you can’t even open them anymore – the casing is held together by glue rather then screws. And if you can open them, the components turn out to be soldered in place and you can’t get replacement components anyway.

Consumers are thus forced to buy a whole new device or machine, even when a more eco-friendly design would have made repairing a cinch. The (Dutch) NGO campaign demands legislation to curb such wasteful designs.

I feel elated that, finally, someone stands up and says “We can’t go on like this; this is shear nonsense. We all agree, the public, the politicians and the businessmen, that we should work toward a more sustainable way of producing our goods. Our representatives voted, in our name, for committments to that effect. But at the same time we would allow this trend toward more-and-more ‘throw-away’ devices to go on? Come on! We’ve got to do something about that!”

I wholeheartedly agree and will support this campaign where I can.

Yet, I’m a bit sad too. For I’m a bit weary of waiting for political solution and legislation. For starters: it will take many, many years to get this legislation accepted. And it will never make a chance to be accepted if ‘the public’ doesn’t ask for it and so far only few of them do. In some areas, like mobile phones and tablets, the trend seems to go rather the opposite way. But let’s not be pessimistic: phones are one thing, but washing machines, coffee makers and electric drills are quite another; I think that we would like these to last, as we would like most of what we buy to last.

So, the alternative to legislation is simple: we buy, preferably, goods that are well made and last for a liong time. Goods from manufacturers who produce and keep a stock of replacement parts. There’s just one thing wrong with this simple idea: how do we know what devices to buy? As durability is clearly in the interest of consumers, one would expect consumer organisations to provide this kind of information and make it count heavily in the comparison charts. That is where I am mightily disappointed. Only now and then any attention is given to this aspect and even in those rare cases where goods are tested for sturdiness, usually no attention at all is paid to the availability of replacement parts of the ease with which a device can be repaired. Which, of course, detemines the cost of the repair.

So, yes let’s support this campaign to get some long overdue legislation in place. But also: let’s write letters to our consumer organisation, again and again pointing out where they have, once more, failed to take ‘durability’ into account.

Action strategies for sustainability and a fairer world

Leave a reply

This is about what you and I can do. “Very little” you may well say, “the really important changes should come from governments”. Or from companies, or big investors, or others. I do not deny it, but where it comes to such matters, I want to focus on what we can do to influence the decisions of governments and the choices made by companies. Simply stating “They should stop doing this or that” is, in my opinion, both frustrating and useless.
Evidently, getting ‘the general public’ to be more aware of these issues is a condition for success, but not everyone is prepared or able to seek media attention or whip up demonstrations. And anyway, I, for one, firmly believe in the power of these two strategies:

– voting with your feet and
– convincing by example.

Which can be summed up as ‘putting your money where your mouth is’. I’ll explain.

Your own lifestyle.

It all begins at home. Many choices we make as consumers do have an influence. Sure, it is disheartening to realise that my personal choices only have an infinitesimal small impact, so I don’t think about it

Personal lifestyle choices have an impact in at least two ways (three, in fact, but I’ll come to that later).

First, every time I make a choice for something more sustainable or more ‘fair trade’, I contribute directly. Of course, making the right choices demands a lot of knowledge, which is not at all easy to come by. I plan to provide a lot of advice and links which enable one to ‘make the right choice’ but even so, many choices are by no means straightforward.

Therefore, it is important to realise that there is a second benefit: with every choice I make I give off a signal, the signal that I do care. A signal which can be and and in fact is picked up by companies and governments. And, let’s not forget, by idealistic groups, who feel strengthened and supported by even small changes in the behaviour of ‘the public’.
For this signal function it is not even necessary that my choice actually is the environmentally right one; at least I let it be known that I do care and am willing to put my money where my mouth is.

Beyond the personal – ‘Talk to your friends’

Personally, I have some rather negative experience with a direct approach of ‘spreading the message’ among my friends, and so have many others, I fear. Chances are, you’ll soon be seen as a preacher or doomsday-prophet and friends may start shunning conversations about ‘climate change’ or even ‘fair trade’ with you. I admit I was late in heeding the millennia-old advice of reformist souls: be an example, but nowadays I learned to refrain from preaching; instead I just do my best to make my choices in accordance with my principles, while trying to take care I do not offend others. Eventually – and this may take many years – my choices will find a natural place in conversations and friends will start asking questions. Of course, I am willing to explain, when asked. Of course I am willing to furnish further information, when asked.

This is a third reason why I maintain ‘it all begins at home’ and why I set out to supply a list of links which can guide one toward ‘more responsible’ choices as a consumer.

Politics

Big companies are often seen as the main culprits; “they just care about money, not about the environment nor about people”. In so far as this leads to the conclusion “it’s not our responsibility and we can’t do anything about it” I strongly disagree. My reasons:

In the world of today, the profit companies make is greatly determined by laws. Lots of laws; I just mention laws about taxes and tax-exemptions and laws determining what a company can legally do, which comprises regulations about the environment and about the social conditions of employees. It’s the company which does best within the legal framework which will make the most profit – and in a democracy it is we who are responsible for that legal framework.

Let me put it another way: I think the invention of money is a wondeful accomplishment; it allows us to compare things that would otherwise be uncomparable and put them on a scale of values and priorities. If we think our earth’s resources and the future of our children are of low value, then of course companies will plunder the earth. But if we think these are of value then it is up to us to put a price on them and show ourselves to be willing to pay that price. Yes, this may mean voting for higher taxes on energy, for instance, or for legislation to curb emissions of CO2 – but I don’t want to go into specifics here; we can, and hopefully will, discuss that elsewhere; my point here is just that todays economics reflect our priorities and values and if we find them to be lacking in appreciation of values we hold high, we should should make that clear. By our vote and/or by taking other political action. And, of course, by our choices as consumers.

Big companies

The behaviour of companies is determined by profit, and this greatly depends on the laws and regulations we all voted for – although, I’m sure, mostly not consciously but by tacitly through lack of interest or comprehension.
However, the main factor is simply sales: the more sales the more success and the more profit. The most effective way of changing the behaviour of companies, therefore, is by action which threatens sales.

Even the largest companies are far more vulnerable then we tend to think; a very small dent in sales figures or the slightest slurr in the public image of the company will be of great consequence. This is where our actions can count. Several ways are open to us:

Boycotting their product;
Speaking ill of them to friends;
Supporting the actions of others by means of donations;
Joining those others in action against them.