Occasionally we've had discussions, usually in the "Everything Else" forums, about various environmental issues and strategies to reduce pollution.
The basic tenets (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle) are well known; I have often argued with some others that it is always better to choose an appropriate product and to maintain it in good working condition than to settle for a compromise that must be soon replaced once our budgets catch up with our needs, or the replacement of good products with incrementally "better" ones, such as a new car with slightly better gas mileage, in the misguided belief that there is a net benefit to the environment.
Many people have been convinced convinced that we should purchase new, more efficient versions and to encourage recycling of such items as aluminum cans. Certainly that is Business's take on the whole manner, and that's what their advertising tends to promote, especially in ads touting themselves as caring, cooperative, environmentally friendly corporate citizens.
A new report by the United Nations suggests flaws with that strategy; it supports a compelling argument that perhaps it's better to assess your needs to see if a product is truly needed, and secondly to make maximum use of that product for as long as possible in order to "amortize" the impact inherent in it's manufacture over a longer period of time.
Recycling is a last resort, often the least "clean" option, but also the one touted as something consumers "can do", mostly by companies who have an interest in out continued consumption. I suggest "we can" smarten up and insist on quality products, perhaps even at higher prices, that will do the job and do it longer, saving both money and the environment we live in.
The article refers specifically to the manufacture of computers, hence it's spot in the "Anything Mac" category.