196
C. Dalhammar et al.
mixes, like those in Norway and (to a lesser extent) Sweden. In these contexts,
durability is not a trade-off with energy efficiency to the same extent as in countries
with a higher share of fossil fuels in the energy mix. A further important factor
concerns the rate of technology change and the maturity of the technology: for
technology that is quickly becoming more energy-efficient it makes more sense
to replace a product for a new one. Once a technology becomes mature, which
means that newer products will not be significantly more energy-efficient, it makes
sense to go for long-lasting products as the resource savings do not come at the
expense of energy savings. The implication for policy is that once technologies
become mature, it may be a good idea to enforce durability through policy instruments
such as eco-design requirements.
14.4 Concluding Discussion
The examples explored in this paper highlight the need for more sophisticated policy
mixes that take into account emerging conflicts and trade-offs. In the case of POPs
in recycled plastic, there is a need to separate the horizontally applied regulations
between low-risk products that can make use of the recycled plastic and high-risk
products where use of secondary materials should be avoided.
The case of GPP for reconditioned furniture illustrated the trade-offs between use
of different sustainability criteria and that weighing the criteria against each other may
be necessary, in order to decide what to prioritizes. Further, there is reason to introduce
more flexibility in the GPP process and criteria-setting, allowing procuring parties
to consider the overall lifecycle impacts of new products versus remanufactured in
a synergetic way.
The case of the LED lamps illustrated that there can be trade-offs between environmental impacts which have implications for policies promoting durability. However,
the case also highlights the need to consider the influence of both energy policies
and local contexts, which may require some member states to supplement EU laws
with their own requirements or policies that push for more ambition when that is
desirable in the national context.
The various policies can affect eco-design practices directly and indirectly. The
example of LED lamps illustrates that we need to consider a number of factors—
i.e. LCA studies, expected technological developments, and the costs of new technology—when we consider adopting a mandatory durability requirement at the EU
level. However, the experienced trade-offs are often temporary and will most likely
diminish over time. For LED lamps, we can expect a situation in the near future when
the technology cannot become more energy efficient (when we have 1 W or 2 W
lamps), and the costs of these lamps will also go down. Then, adopting mandatory
durability requirements will not lead to trade-offs.
C. Dalhammar et al.
mixes, like those in Norway and (to a lesser extent) Sweden. In these contexts,
durability is not a trade-off with energy efficiency to the same extent as in countries
with a higher share of fossil fuels in the energy mix. A further important factor
concerns the rate of technology change and the maturity of the technology: for
technology that is quickly becoming more energy-efficient it makes more sense
to replace a product for a new one. Once a technology becomes mature, which
means that newer products will not be significantly more energy-efficient, it makes
sense to go for long-lasting products as the resource savings do not come at the
expense of energy savings. The implication for policy is that once technologies
become mature, it may be a good idea to enforce durability through policy instruments
such as eco-design requirements.
14.4 Concluding Discussion
The examples explored in this paper highlight the need for more sophisticated policy
mixes that take into account emerging conflicts and trade-offs. In the case of POPs
in recycled plastic, there is a need to separate the horizontally applied regulations
between low-risk products that can make use of the recycled plastic and high-risk
products where use of secondary materials should be avoided.
The case of GPP for reconditioned furniture illustrated the trade-offs between use
of different sustainability criteria and that weighing the criteria against each other may
be necessary, in order to decide what to prioritizes. Further, there is reason to introduce
more flexibility in the GPP process and criteria-setting, allowing procuring parties
to consider the overall lifecycle impacts of new products versus remanufactured in
a synergetic way.
The case of the LED lamps illustrated that there can be trade-offs between environmental impacts which have implications for policies promoting durability. However,
the case also highlights the need to consider the influence of both energy policies
and local contexts, which may require some member states to supplement EU laws
with their own requirements or policies that push for more ambition when that is
desirable in the national context.
The various policies can affect eco-design practices directly and indirectly. The
example of LED lamps illustrates that we need to consider a number of factors—
i.e. LCA studies, expected technological developments, and the costs of new technology—when we consider adopting a mandatory durability requirement at the EU
level. However, the experienced trade-offs are often temporary and will most likely
diminish over time. For LED lamps, we can expect a situation in the near future when
the technology cannot become more energy efficient (when we have 1 W or 2 W
lamps), and the costs of these lamps will also go down. Then, adopting mandatory
durability requirements will not lead to trade-offs.