Finding the “Payback Time”

When it comes to being sustainable, is it better to use a product until it completely breaks down, or should you upgrade early to a new, energy-saving model?

The answer isn’t simple – it depends entirely on what kind of product you are talking about. The right choice hinges on balancing two main costs:

1. Upfront cost (the “making it” pollution): The environmental damage caused by mining materials, manufacturing, and shipping a new item.
2. Running cost (the “using it” pollution): The energy (and related pollution) used every day the product is switched on.

For electronics (like phones and laptops), the Upfront Cost is massive. Making the device causes most of the pollution, so keeping it for as long as possible is the best strategy^[1]. The energy saved by a “more efficient” new phone is tiny.

For major home appliances (like refrigerators and washing machines), the Running Cost is huge. If a new model uses much less energy, those savings can quickly “pay back” the pollution caused by manufacturing it^[2]. This “payback time” is called the Environmental Break-Even Point (EBEP), and if it’s short, upgrading is the greener choice.

True sustainability means choosing quality. A “cheap” product that breaks quickly wastes the Upfront Cost instantly, making it worse than a high-quality product used for a decade.

The Myth of “Use Until It Dies”

For a long time, the simple rule was: Keep everything until it completely stops working. This idea is good for saving resources and reducing landfill waste.

However, this rule fails when technology changes drastically. If your old appliance is wasting huge amounts of electricity every day, keeping it running means constantly releasing unnecessary pollution into the air^[3].

To truly help the planet, we need to compare the one-time “making” cost of a new item against the continuous energy waste of the old one.

The Full Environmental Check-Up (Life Cycle Assessment)

To solve the puzzle of when to keep and when to replace, scientists use a method called Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), which checks the total environmental footprint of a product “from the cradle to the grave”^[4]. It looks at every step, from digging up the raw materials to final disposal.

Upfront Carbon: The “Making It” Penalty

Upfront Carbon (also known as Embodied Carbon) is all the pollution created before you even plug the product in^[5].

This includes pollution from:

• Mining raw materials (metals, plastics).
• Factory manufacturing and assembly.
• Transportation and final disposal.

For many complex consumer products, especially electronics, the pollution created during this “making” phase is the biggest part of its total lifetime environmental damage. To balance out this huge initial cost, the product must be used for a very long time.

Running Carbon: The “Using It” Cost

Running Carbon (also known as Operational Carbon) is the pollution that comes from the energy the product uses while you are operating it.

For appliances, this is usually the electricity or gas used. The running cost heavily depends on how “dirty” your local power grid is^[6]. If your electricity comes mostly from coal, your running cost is much higher than if it comes from solar or hydro power.

The Key Calculation: The Environmental Break-Even Point (EBEP)

The only way to know if you should replace an old item is to calculate the Environmental Break-Even Point (EBEP).

The EBEP is the amount of time (in years) it takes for the energy you save with the new, efficient product to completely cancel out the pollution that was created when the new product was manufactured (the Upfront Carbon).

• If the EBEP is short (say, 5 years), and the new product will last 12 years, then replacing is the greener choice.
• If the EBEP is very long (say, 20 years), then you should keep using your old item.

The Case for Durability: Keeping Your Electronics Longer

When a product’s main pollution comes from its manufacturing, the best thing you can do is keep using it. This is true for almost all Information and Communication Technology (ICT) devices, like phones, laptops, and tablets.

Production is 80% of the Damage

The vast majority of a smartphone’s environmental impact happens before you even open the box. For example, the production of an iPhone 13 accounted for a staggering 81% of its total lifetime emissions; only 16% came from charging it^[7].

Since charging a phone uses very little power, the energy savings from upgrading to a “more efficient” new model are tiny – they simply don’t justify the huge Upfront Carbon cost of making the new one.

Simple Action: If you usually use your smartphone for two years, extending its life to four years can reduce its annual environmental impact significantly.

Small Appliances: Not Worth the Cost

The same logic applies to small kitchen gadgets. A standard blender might use only 3 kilowatt-hours of electricity in an entire year.

Even if a new blender is twice as efficient, the energy savings are negligible – one or two kilowatt-hours a year – compared to the Upfront Carbon it cost to manufacture, ship, and dispose of the old one. The EBEP for these items is simply too long, so keep using them until they physically break down^[8].

Quality Over “Cheap”

It’s vital to note that the goal is durable longevity, not just “cheap” longevity. A product that is poorly made and breaks after two years wastes its Upfront Carbon quickly. The best choice is a high-quality product designed to be repaired and used for many years.

The Case for Efficiency: Upgrading Major Appliances

In contrast to electronics, large residential appliances like refrigerators, washing machines, and dishwashers are massive energy users and are therefore dominated by the Running Cost (Operational Carbon).

Calculating the Payback Time

When a new appliance offers such huge savings, the Environmental Break-Even Point (EBEP) is often short:

• If making a new fridge costs 500 units of Upfront Carbon, and it saves 100 units of Running Carbon every year, the EBEP is 5 years.
• Since a new fridge typically lasts 12 years or more, replacing a 10-year-old appliance is the better environmental decision because you gain 7 years of pure environmental savings.

Crucially, appliances lose efficiency as they get older due to wear and tear, making the difference even bigger .

The decision is a calculation that depends on the product’s main environmental cost:

General Rule: Maximize durability when the pollution is mostly from manufacturing (Upfront Carbon); prioritize timely replacement when the pollution is mostly from daily energy use (Running Carbon).

The Power of Repair

Regardless of what you own, the best choice for the planet is always to repair it before recycling it. Policies like “Right to Repair” and designing products that are built to last and easy to fix are the foundations of reducing waste and keeping value in our materials. Recycling is good, but repairing is always better because it avoids the need to use new materials entirely^[9].

^[1] https://www.tradebe.com/the-importance-of-energy-efficiency-in-achieving-climate-goals/

^[2] https://blog.ucs.org/john-rogers/recycling-old-appliances/

^[3] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7323597/

^[4] https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/process-life-cycle-assessment

^[5] https://ors.ie/embodied-carbon-what-is-it-and-how-to-reduce-it/

^[6]https://www.kapitalelectric.com/blog/how-much-carbon-pollution-do-your-appliances-and-electronics-emit/#:~:text=For%20a%20few%20examples%2C%20the%20amount%20of,you%20use.%20*%20Efficiency%20of%20your%20furnace.

^[7] https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/products/iphone/iPhone_13_PER_Sept2021.pdf

^[8] https://stanfordmag.org/contents/when-to-replace-household-appliances-nitty-gritty

^[9] https://ecircular.com/repairing-vs-recycling-electronics/