Europe’s Climate Debate on Tech Is Missing the Point

by Kilian Kaminski, on May 18, 2026

Europe loves to talk about recycling rates, collection systems, and waste targets. It’s neat, measurable, and politically convenient. But it also misses the point. Because with electronics, the real problem doesn’t start at the end of a product’s life. It starts the moment we decide to produce it.

E-waste isn’t primarily a waste problem. It’s a production problem. And by treating it as the former, Europe creates a comforting illusion of control while ignoring where most of the damage actually happens.

Kilian Kaminski, co-founder refurbed

The Problem Starts in Production

For electronics, the bulk of environmental impact is locked in long before a device is ever turned on. Lifecycle data is clear on this: roughly 70 to 90 percent of a smartphone’s carbon footprint comes from production (Fraunhofer Austria and refurbed, 2025). Apple’s own figures for the iPhone 16 Pro back this up, with around 80 percent of emissions tied to manufacturing, and less than 1 percent to end-of-life processing (Apple, 2024).

This isn’t surprising when you look at what goes into making these devices. Mining, refining, chip production; these are resource-heavy, energy-intensive processes. A single semiconductor plant can use up to 10 million gallons of ultrapure water a day; roughly equivalent to the daily water consumption of over 130,000 European households (EurEau, 2021; European Environment Agency, 2025; World Economic Forum, 2024). This level of resource intensity is not a side issue. It is where the majority of environmental impact is created.

Yet Europe’s policy focus still sits at the other end of the lifecycle, trying to clean up what has already been produced instead of asking whether it needed to be produced in the first place.

Cutting Impact at Source

This is where refurbishment changes the equation. It doesn’t try to fix emissions after the fact. It avoids them altogether by keeping existing devices in use.

The numbers are hard to ignore: producing a new smartphone generates around 70 kg of CO₂, uses over 25,000 litres of water, and produces 182 grams of e-waste. A refurbished device cuts emissions by 82%, reduces virtual water use by 89%, and avoids e-waste by 83% (Fraunhofer Austria and refurbed, 2024). Even more importantly, it reduces the need for new raw materials, like rare earths, and avoids up to 97% of conflict minerals such as tin, tantalum, tungsten, and gold (Fraunhofer Austria and refurbed, 2025).

These savings highlight a simple point: the most effective way to reduce impact is not to manage waste more efficiently, but to avoid new production altogether.

A Market Built on Replacement

Yet, refurbishment is still swimming against the current, because the system Europe has built continues to incentivise replacement. Devices are designed with short lifespans, limited repairability, and components that are difficult – or impossible – to replace (European Environment Agency, 2025). At the same time, repair can be costly or inconvenient compared to buying new, while constant product updates and pricing structures make replacement the easier choice. Even when consumers want to make better choices, the system nudges them toward buying new.

There’s also a catch: refurbishment only delivers its full environmental benefit if it replaces new purchases (Makov & Font Vivanco, 2018). If it instead makes upgrading cheaper and more frequent, part of that benefit can quickly erode, as lower prices tend to drive higher overall consumption. Ultimately, it forces a broader question: how much do we really need to consume?

The Global End of the Chain

And then there’s what happens beyond Europe’s borders: A significant share of discarded electronics is still exported as “used goods,” often ending up in places without the infrastructure to handle them safely (UNITAR, 2024). In regions such as West Africa, devices are dismantled by hand, cables burned in the open to recover metals, with serious consequences for both health and the environment (WHO, 2024).

This isn’t an unfortunate side effect. It’s part of a system in which Europe consumes and others deal with the consequences. Closing these loops within Europe isn’t protectionism. It’s accountability.

More Data, Same Direction

To be fair, regulation is moving. The EU is introducing measures such as the Right to Repair and Ecodesign requirements, aimed at improving product durability and repairability, and making it easier to keep devices in use for longer. At the same time, reporting frameworks like the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) are increasing transparency across value chains, including Scope 3 emissions (European Commission, 2022; Greenhouse Gas Protocol, 2011).

However, much of the current focus still sits on measurement and end-of-life management rather than reducing the need for new production. At the moment, companies can improve transparency without significantly changing their material footprint. Current ESG frameworks primarily measure risk, disclosure, and process, rather than real-world impact reduction (OECD, 2020).

A similar pattern can be seen in how progress is measured more broadly. Collection rates improve, processes become more efficient, but overall material use does not decline. We are getting better at handling waste, not at producing less of it.

The same goes for circular economy metrics (Eurostat, n.d.). We track recycling rates in detail, but pay far less attention to how long products are used, how much we consume, or how much production we actually avoid. We’re measuring the wrong things, and then wondering why the results don’t change.

Rethinking the Starting Point

For electronics, the conclusion is consistent. Most environmental impact is generated during production, not at the end of life. Addressing this requires shifting attention upstream by extending product lifetimes, improving repairability, and designing products for circular use.

Within this context, refurbishment plays a central role. By keeping devices in use for longer, it directly reduces the need for new production and the associated use of energy, water, and raw materials. If supported by the right policy framework and consumer incentives, it can move beyond a niche solution and become a meaningful lever to lower Europe’s overall material footprint.

A circular economy for electronics will not be achieved through recycling alone, but through approaches that actively avoid new production.

Sources

Share this article
  • Warranty

    30-day trial period and minimum 12-month warranty

  • Great value

    Save up to 40% vs new on your purchase

  • Green

    We support environmental projects for every device sold

Sign up for our newsletter for the first time and save €15!

Never miss an offer again.

Information about the use of personal data can be found in our Privacy policy.