We demolish old buildings even when they are in good condition for the sake of bigger and better structures. But is this justified?
What’s the talk of the town in the lighting sector now? It is replacing old bulbs with LED fixtures in existing buildings. Thanks to government schemes, millions of tube lights, CFLs and incandescent bulbs have been replaced, to save electricity, which is a laudable project.
So too, we have been replacing millions of cell phones, laptops, television sets, washing machines, air conditioners and other gadgets to keep pace with technological upgradation. What about buying a new vehicle every five years? Not a bad idea because maintenance costs go up after few years of driving and anyway there are buyers for used cars. Exchange offers are very attractive, and we feel good about the increased speed, storage and comforts.
Contrastingly, if we think of the past, how often the tube light got changed; house landline phone replaced; new wall clock bought; ceiling fan disposed or any such other household item was exchanged, we realise a major shift in our lifestyle – a lifestyle which embraces products in the name of advantages. Do we compare electricity saved with embodied energy to nature and monetary cost to individual to check if the replacement was judicious?
Thoughtless replacement is not ecologically advantageous on all occasions. We rarely bother about where the disposed item goes and whether it gets responsibly recycled without leftover waste.
Even if we care, what about the additional production we are supporting by buying a new product? What about the resources it is consuming, waste it generates, fossil fuel for transportation and marketing energy?
The tragedy is that we are replacing products while they are still functional with many more years of working life left; unlike in the past when the new entered only when the old became dysfunctional and exited.
Majority of us use fairly recent mobile phones today, which could be the third or sixth one since we purchased our first mobile, say a decade ago. It is a financial burden, but we justify it saying we can afford the cost. The old ones could perform, but we justify claiming the need for updating.
Old buildings are still good, but we demolish them seeking a bigger and better building. But can we justify the ecological cost of replacing, a burden not directly on us, but on the Earth? Can the money we have that buys a new phone solve the problem of the disposed old one? With our own body, do we try to extend our working life as we age or simply stop functioning, letting the new and young take over?
Replacing is required, but not unless the utility of the old product is over. Green living does not revolve around switching over to the latest, every time a new product introduction happens. It revolves around utilising what we have fully, until the end of its functional life.