The concept of 'planned obsolescence' has long been a cornerstone of consumer electronics manufacturing, yet its environmental ramifications are increasingly under scrutiny. While manufacturers argue that regular upgrades drive innovation and economic growth, critics contend that the practice encourages a disposable culture, exacerbating e-waste and resource depletion. A recent study by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation suggests that extending the average lifespan of electronic devices by just one year could reduce carbon emissions by the equivalent of taking 2 million cars off the road annually. However, proponents of rapid technological cycles counter that such measures might stifle progress in energy-efficient designs, which often require newer hardware to function optimally. This tension highlights a fundamental conflict between economic imperatives and sustainability goals, prompting policymakers to consider legislative measures that mandate repairability and modular design, though implementation remains fraught with industry resistance and consumer apathy.
❓ According to the passage, what is a key argument made by supporters of rapid technological cycles?
A. They believe that extending device lifespan would significantly harm consumer choice.
B. They argue that newer hardware is often necessary for achieving energy-efficient innovations.
C. They claim that planned obsolescence has no negative environmental impact.
D. They suggest that legislative measures are unnecessary due to industry self-regulation.
✅ Correct Answer
B. B. They argue that newer hardware is often necessary for achieving energy-efficient innovations.