We are now at the point where everything matters. Industry is responsible for about 21% of GHG emissions globally (more than transportation!)[1]. Reducing that by using simpler technologies is a good thing to look into.

Do you really need to replace your perfectly functional doorbell with a big pile of electronics? Probably not. Would not driving to work every day make a bigger contribution? Yes. Would not doing either be best? Yes.

[1] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emiss...

Using an incandescent light bulb is not “better” than an LED bulb, even though the latter is a “pile of electronics” while an incandescent bulb is just a little tungsten wire. So I really don’t think this is a good rule to follow. Simpler technologies are often far less efficient and often have a far larger ecological impact.

LED bulbs are comically more efficient than incandescent bulbs (by a factor of 5-10), which in turn are comically more efficient (by 10-50 times) than like a candle or oil lamp. “Simple” is actually a terrible heuristic for “low ecological impact.”

Are you really making the claim that a simple doorbell switch has higher environmental impact than a Ring doorbell?

It actually might. If the Ring doorbell allows you to avoid opening your door just once or twice a week, the energy savings could exceed the environmental footprint.

A Ring doorbell has a 22Wh battery that lasts about a month or two per charge.

Having the door open for 10 seconds on a cold winter day can easily waste that much energy. About 10kW of heat loss for 10 seconds is 100kJ, higher than that 22Wh. Likewise, the embodied energy of that 22Wh battery is about 22MJ, and might dominate the embodied energy of the Ring camera. So if it saves you from opening the door 200-300 times in its lifetime, that might be enough to pay for its own embodied emissions.

Plus not having to drive home to pick up a package, etc, etc.

Plus think of other smart devices like smart thermostats that might be part of the whole Ring system. Or perhaps if the Ring device prevents destruction of part of your home from theft.

I don’t even own a Ring doorbell, but I can see how it could actually help. Also, traditional doorbells aren’t that efficient. Especially if they have a little light.

Ring could also replace a window to see who is there, which is a big source of heat leakage.

The argument is that the "simpleness" of the doorbell isn't a good heuristic for the amount of impact.

According to wikipedia [1], the transformer on a standard doorbell can use 2-3 watts of power at all times. That's 1400-2100 watt hours per month — about one hundred times as much as a ring doorbell uses (Less than 20 Wh per month).

The cost and impact of the Ring includes more manufacturing, and I wouldn't be surprised if the Ring ended up having a larger environmental cost, but it's not as clear cut as your incredulity makes it seem.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doorbell

> According to wikipedia [1], the transformer on a standard doorbell can use 2-3 watts of power at all times. That's 1400-2100 watt hours per month — about one hundred times as much as a ring doorbell uses (Less than 20 Wh per month).

Interesting thing to know because here in Brazil we don't route PELV (Protected Extra-low Voltage) to the doorbell. The external switch just carries the full voltage from the mains (127 Vac or 220 Vac, according to the state). Maybe it's not the safest design after all.

However this constant power usage can be safely removed by using a non-rechargeable 12V battery that would power a relay that will trigger the mains-powered bell when the (purely mechanical) external switch is pressed. This removes the constant power usage and such battery should last for years with a typical usage scenario (less than one second per push or so).

>We are now at the point where everything matters

You are missing the point and mischaracterising the problem. Resources are finite. Human attention spans are limited. Emissions from ships in international waters are an absolutely huge problem and addressing that will make a huge impact on future climate.

Funny how no one mentions that but we are all focused on paper straws and smart doorbells.

It is all related, so everything taken together does indeed matter. When we as consumers insist more on buying locally produced, durable, interchangeable, replaceable, repairable (!) components to build things we're actually likely to use for a long time, we can stem the flow of cargo ships and ditto planes shipping "stupid disposable junk" halfway across the world, thereby limiting all the pollution and waste of (fossil fueled) energy that goes with it.

While we're at it, we should demand to put an end to the senseless hoarding of patents and IP, in particular those that hamper interoperability between components, and for information on interfaces to be made public, so no more proprietary connectors, protocols, APIs, no more artificial restrictions on consumables such as printer ink, etcetera.

> You know what requires a lot more metals?

I believe the argument is about the refining process and the chemical waste it creates, which is substantially higher when trying to extract 99.99% pure copper, zinc, gold, silver and other industrial elements which are converted into electronics. I'm a hobbyist fan of silver and know just the basics - refining for 99.99% pure silver looks like making crack to my eyes. :) Breaking Bad level chemicals.

I'm to understand the act of creating and "washing" circuit boards also uses a large amount of caustic chemicals, as does the attempted recycling/recovery (to basically eat away the coatings to expose the reclaimable metals). Refining for purity has a high environmental cost to get it from ore -> 99.99% and to reuse/recycle it, I speculate much higher than iron ore (train tracks, etc.) require/use.

Interesting claim, but to justify a few milligrams of metals is worse than literally tons of metal and cement is going to require a quantitative argument.

99.99%, even if you’re right, only gets us to 10kg equivalent if you start with 1 gram.

(And keep in mind that these processes to make bulk materials themselves use alloying agents and specialty materials in cutting heads, etc, to fabricate them.)

It requires tonnes of ore processed to produce ounces of gold (I read roughly 13 tonnes on average, but it's highly dependent on the quality of the deposit and refinement difficulty), there are metrics and studies: https://www.businessinsider.com/tons-of-rock-for-an-ounce-of...

Edit as I'm curious myself, this study shows it's about 150 tonnes of ore input for one ton of copper output (with other minerals reclaimed during the process): https://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk2/1988/8808/880811.PDF

Keep in mind your conventional car’s catalytic converter contains grams of platinum group metals, worth about $1000 or so now ($3000 for older, larger catalytic converters). Due in large part to the spike in rhodium prices.

Platinum is extracted as a by-product of nickel and copper mining (as are other elements) as it's primary source, unlike gold and copper which are mined for their element directly. Not arguing your point (45% of platinum is used in auto) only that how we get Pt and Pd is already in progress to get at the other elements like Cu, Au and Ag.

But IS it a mere byproduct? If it adds significant revenue, it’s no longer a mere byproduct but now part of the business proposition of the mine. About $30 billion of nickel is mined per year. About $8 billion in platinum mined per year. 30 tons of rhodium are mined per year, which at current >$900/gram prices, means the revenue from rhodium is actually HIGHER than platinum and on par with nickel.

So you could as well argue that nickel is a byproduct of rhodium (and platinum group metal) production.

The USA mints alone use roughly 4,400 tonnes of nickel to produce coins every year (one specific industry with one type of output in one country). Around 133 tonnes of platinum and 1,800 tonnes of gold are mined per year in total for all use globally.

Local odeon stopped using plastic straws in their drinks. Paper ones were awful. Bought some metal straws also awful. Ended up taking 2x500ml bottles instead - far more plastic than was used before.

Yeay?

Stop using straws... completely unnecessary.

Use a reusable water bottle. One can be had for the price of those 2x500ml bottles.

I don’t want water.

Charge me for the plastic for the 6 straws a year I use, which is far far less than the plastic others “waste”.

Put a price in the pollution and let the market sort it out