On cell phones vs. land lines

30 Jan 2006

Got questions about the environment? Ask Umbra.

Dear Umbra,

In this day and age, when many people seem to be getting rid of their "land lines" in favor of cell phones, I find myself wondering how these two options stack up against one another from an environmental-impact perspective.

Doug Quirk
Eugene, Ore.

Ask Umbra continues below

ADVERTISING POLICY

Dearest Doug,

I have a fairly strong anti-cell-phone bias. I am a cranky lady who believes they are eroding public manners and encouraging various irresponsibilities, some serious and others unimportant. But, as my father once enigmatically said, you can't stop the 5th Fleet. Whatever that means.

Hang up and drive.

Photo: iStockPhoto.

Here is my own cranky opinion as to why cell phones are more environmentally harmful: People can talk in their cars, hence the evil likelihood of sitting in a running car with the heater or air-conditioner pumping while they finish a call or get some privacy. People talk while they drive, which results in more accidents, thus cars are going to wrecking yards at higher rates. Oooh -- also, think of all the times you've had to suddenly brake because of an idiotic maneuver by a cell-phone-talkin' bonehead. We all know that driving at moderate, steady speeds is most efficient; if phoners cause us to brake at higher rates, this means higher gas consumption worldwide. Noise pollution has also increased, what with the ringing of electronic chimes and everyone talking loudly in public about their inane lives. The social environment has degraded, with many of us incredibly annoyed by cell-phone talkers.

And, to be more serious, cell phones have the same trouble as all the computers that I've been fawning and fretting over these last few columns. They must needs be manufactured with toxins and quickly become obsolete. Wireless land-line models with electronic features share these issues to a certain extent, but are less susceptible to death by fashion. It's the cellular phones, disposed of -- at an alarming rate! -- that have us all in a tizzy. The standard non-wireless models with no electronic features are remarkably simple devices with a few wires inside and no computer bits. Energy consumption is the other obvious difference between cell, wireless, and traditional land lines. Cell and wireless phones consume power during use, charging, and standby modes. Even battery chargers pull power if left plugged in to the wall. Cell-phone energy efficiency is increasing, but still canna compare to the tiny power draw of a traditional land line. If you can find one, a non-wireless land line is certainly the best for energy consumption and for "e-waste," as it is charmingly called.

Be responsible, cell-phone owners. Don't be a slave to fashion. Keep your phone as long as you can, don't leave it on when you're not using it, be sure it is reused, and for goodness' sake, stop answering the phone while you're spending time with friends. Drives me nuts.

Crankily,
Umbra

Yours is to wonder why, hers is to answer (or try). Please send Umbra any nagging question pertaining to the environment -- but first check out her FAQs!

The claims made in this column may not reflect the views of this magazine. Neither the magazine nor the author guarantees that any advice contained in this column is wise or safe. Please use this column at your own risk.

Umbra Fisk is Grist Research Associate II, Hardcover and Periodicals Unit, floors 2B-4B.

Comments: (12 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

amen, sister!

and while we're at it, let's hear it for phones with cords. cordless phones require batteries, have energy-sucking LEDs, AND THEY DON'T ALWAYS WORK. i have had the same phone since 1992. it never malfunctions unless squirrels have gnawed through the wires, i never have to say, "hang on a sec... i'm going to change the channel---maybe then i will be able to hear you... is that better? ... how about now? ... sorry, can i call you back?," and if i'm talking to you on the phone you know i'm not puttering around the house or taking a dump or something and am actually talking to you.

another cranky old broad

by mihan at 12:58 PM on 30 Jan 2006

Eco-Cell

I do a lot of fundraising for my local SPCA and we have started collecting cell phones to recycle.

The company we go through is Eco-Cell http://www.eco-cell.org/

They accept all models and accessories for recycling. They only pay for those that can be refurbished.

It's been a great project - so many people hang onto phones and don't know what to do with them. This way they are not only kept out of landfills they can be used to raise money for a good cause.

So, yes cell phones are evil, but so are Twinkies and they aren't going away either.

by puffthunder at 1:30 PM on 30 Jan 2006

Biggest Issues Not Mentioned

Excuse me, but do you even know what you're talking about? The biggest environmental harm from cell phones is that the towers needed for their use kill millions of birds every year in the U.S. alone! No one even knows how many -- it's 5-50 million -- because no one's ever done a study.

The second biggest harm is the radiation they add to our atmosphere. In the U.S. the cell phone companies have bought off the scientists who then released phony results showing that there's no harm from the radiation. However, honest studies done in the U.K. and New Zealand determined otherwise.

Jeff Hoffman

by jdhlax at 12:00 AM on 31 Jan 2006

great rundown! I'd like to ditch my cell too...

...but instead ditched my landline. Yipes. If you're a slave to your cell but want a greener one, here's an anal-retentive chart that I made comparing plans from major carriers against those from Earth Tones and Working Assets:
http://greenerside.typepad.com/my_weblog/2005/11/_if_your_cellul.html

As mihan mentions, Eco-Cell is good option for getting rid of your old model...though it's best for the environment to just hang onto the old phone instead of buying the latest handset and feeding the industry's relentless product release cycle.

by Elsa Mary at 12:14 AM on 31 Jan 2006

but

Think of the miles and miles of copper and fiber optic cable that developing countries avoid mining, extracting, manufacturing, and installing (activities all typically using plenty of fossil fuels) by putting up cell towers instead of traditional "wired" infrastructure. Think of the maintenance and traffic disruptions that industrialized countries will avoid once the wired infrastructure becomes obsolete. And, on a less environmental note, think of how cell phones actually allow people to stay in touch with the people they most care about. I venture that the stronger relationships this fosters is good for us all.

by fkaser at 7:41 AM on 31 Jan 2006

Universal wireless internet.

Universal wureless internet carried on the utility power lines and broadcast from utility wires would not add any extra infrastructure.

Then VOIP phones operating through wireless modems would replace cell phones.

If local and refional energy cooperatives owned the power utilities this system would replace cable tv, phone lines, cell phones,and broadcasting.

The efficiency gained in the use of the public airwaves and public right of way (for cables and phone lines) would boost productibity enormously.

When the internet bubble burst, these productive changes were sidelined in favor of old phone and cable company monopoly gaming.

Does anyone remember the old tv show "Star Trek" episode where The Enterprise approaches that planet that turned nazi vecause it was infected by the ideas of Hitler?

Spock says, captain I am detecting a signal. It's an antiquated form of analog broadcasting called television.

When will analog communication become obsolete and be replaced with universal wireless internet.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

by amazingdrx at 9:01 AM on 31 Jan 2006
[ Parent ]

Cutting the Cord

What about space junk? I think the craziest reason to use cell phones is that they rely on satellites orbiting the planet. How smart is it for us to rely on infrastructure that requires us sending satellites out into space and then having to find ways to retrieve them as they orbit the planet at 3,000 miles an hour. Do I need to say that space ships rip a hole in the sky far beyond the damage a bunch of telephone trucks driving around the planet inflicts? And at least with trucks there's the option of going to "greener" vehicles. I like to keep my messes where I can see them, and can clean them up. Given the choice between the power line grid and satellites, I'll take power lines any day.

by But What Do I Know at 11:39 AM on 31 Jan 2006

Tower Kills

Jeff,

There have been many studies done with respect to tower kill rates in the United States. The FWS estimates the annual level of kills at 4-5 million (http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/communicationtowers.htm). The vast majority of the kills come from nocturnal migratory birds. When these birds come upon a tall lighted guyed tower in overcast conditions, the birds become drawn to the tower lights in the absence of starlight and will circle the tower until striking a guy wire. Poorly placed towers, such as on ridgetops in migratory flyways (the large towers along the bluffs in Duluth MN are a good example), are a serious problem. However, shorter (< 200') self-support or pole towers have a much smaller effect on migratory birds.

The FWS currently has a voluntary set of tower guidelines (http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/issues/towers/comtow.html)and is in the process of looking into further regulations based upon the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918.

Not to diminish the role of towers in avian mortality, but free-ranging domestic cats kill many more birds (http://wildlife.wisc.edu/extension/catfly3.htm) than towers. Maybe instead of ditching cell phones people should get rid of Fluffy?

by wallrock at 12:55 PM on 31 Jan 2006
[ Parent ]

To Wallrock

"Maybe instead of ditching cell phones people should get rid of Fluffy?"

How about doing both?

Jeff Hoffman

by jdhlax at 11:49 PM on 31 Jan 2006

Doing Both

Jeff,

I don't know which would be harder, telling people to get rid of their cell phones or their cats. When the Conservation Congress here in Wisconsin attempted to classify feral cats as an unprotected species there was national beat-down in the press, and all these cat groups were all over the place. That proposal was dropped as fast as possible.

by wallrock at 8:25 AM on 01 Feb 2006
[ Parent ]

Cell Phones

In december of 2004, my 4,000-pound Nissan pickup truck was totaled by a Morally Objectional Retarded Obnoxious Nit-brain who thought that a cell phone conversation was more important than a red light. Since I owed money on the vehicle, and I am a student, I ended up with a 2,200-pound Mitsubishi 2-door. Wrecking yards aside (the best place for parts, BTW, without causing further manufacturing impacts on the environment), in this case, a cell phone did reduce my personal rate of oil addiction. Now, if i could just get the insurance company of said Morally--etc. etc. to pay my medical bills...

by dbabson at 11:08 AM on 01 Feb 2006

Protected Species

Wallrock, I'm not sure what you mean about trying to classify feral cats as a protected species. Do you mean that they'd get Endangered Species Act protection? That would be horrible, considering that they're not a native species and already do massive harm by killing birds and other natives. I would certainly oppose such a proposition.

Jeff Hoffman

by jdhlax at 5:18 PM on 01 Feb 2006

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?