As millions across the world were enjoying their time off for the Christmas holiday, the European Commission had something else in mind. On December 28, which is under two weeks ago, the European Commission announced that a mandate stating that USB-C charger is the standard charger for charging electronic devices in Europe is now in force. The law will cover laptops starting in 2026, whereas it covers such devices as cell phones, tablets, keyboards, mice, and earbuds. This is not exactly news since the European Parliament adopted the law in April 2022.
Why did the Commission implement this law? According to a European Commission report released in June 2022, the two goals were to a) save €250 million ($258 million) on "unnecessary charger purchases" and b) reduce e-waste by 1,000 tonnes annually since proprietary chargers (such as those from Apple) will no longer be legal. In short, the justification of the EU mandate was to benefit consumers and the environment. While this might sound like a lovely win, it forgets one of the basic rules of public policy, mainly that there are not any silver-bullet solutions, only tradeoffs.
The biggest tradeoff of concern is that this mandate would stifle innovation. The reality is that smartphone chargers and ports went through multiple iterations and stages of evolution. In the early stages of smartphones, Apple was using annoying 30-pin chargers for their iPhones. Other companies were using micro- and mini-USB. Companies eventually reached the point of creating the Lightning charger, followed by the USB-C. As Cato Institute fellow Jennifer Huddleston rightfully points out, "a more regulated marketplace might have stopped this development in its tracks, letting bureaucrats who prioritize uniformity over all else decide on a single standard rather than letting the market evolve." It does not make sense to lock a fast-paced, innovative market into a single standard. It would be predictable to see the roll-out of newer technologies delayed, whether that is faster wireless charging or advanced power delivery systems.
There is the environmental cost to transitioning to the USB-C charger. While the Commission anticipates that it will reduce e-waste, I doubt their optimism. The EU's estimate was made based on data from a decade prior when there were 30 chargers in the market (as opposed to the current three, thereby less likely to reduce waste). Many phone makers separate the charging block from the charging cable, thereby creating less waste. Since only 29 percent of phones had USB-C chargers prior to the mandate, this will force many to throw out and replace their existing chargers, thereby offsetting the reductions in e-waste this mandate was meant to generate.
I think the EU is trying to appear like it's addressing e-waste, although a 2020 report from the United Nations, chargers represent 0.1 percent of the 53.6 million tons of tech garbage created each year. It is an example of feel-good environmentalism that does not address the broader issue of electronic waster created by non-recyclable components. And it is not only the environmental aspect that is suspect. While it makes the selection process easier for consumers, it does not help consumers. According to a December 2019 report from Copenhagen Economics, this law would create €1.2 billion in consumer loss, which exceeds the estimated €13 million in environmental benefits.
At least when it comes to chargers, the European market is now at the mercy of bureaucrats to decide that better technology has been developed and the current mandate would no longer be required. I would not hold my breath for bureaucrats to move quick when it comes to innovation. Take Japan as an example. It was in 2022 when Japan's Minister of Digital Affairs finally launched an initiative to eliminate mandates that still require the use of floppy disks and CDs for business filings.
Instead of using heavy-handed regulations to force product harmonization and disincentivize innovation, the EU should encourage voluntary industry-led practices and market-driven standards to reduce e-waste. But the European Commission has developed a habit of watching mostly foreign companies develop innovative products and the Commission stepping in to pass laws that are typically counterproductive. I would hardly consider this the most egregious example of government regulation, but it does serve as another case study as to why regulatory standards lower the quality of our lives.
No comments:
Post a Comment