Relevant from the IT point of view mainly for a reason, it prove the dysfunctional unsustainable state of current economical ruling.
Essentially the report admit that "fast tech" (crappy devices sold and dump quickly) are an increasingly big issue, as well they measure that a "mean life span" of a desktop computer is just 5 years, IMVHO simply because they count the mass of assembled towers with too big CPU for most users, too little ram for all and bad storage choices and the mass of big-names towers with non-ATX standard components explicitly done to avoid customers personal upgrades. IME a well configured desktop last 8 years for most common professional use, 10 years for common family-and-office usage. Of course not valid for a heavy gamer, someone who work/play with ML tools, virtual machines etc, but very valid for most common usages.
Not only, try to imaging a very possible fictional society where we live spread in wood-frame based homes and sparse sheds for most of the population, so relatively renewable (wood, glass, the biggest slice of raw materials needed), insulated and electrified for all climate (the same design actually work from polar to tropical regions, just changing some thickness and protrusions) where we commute MUCH less because there are no suburbs, but mixing living where a dentist have home and cabinet in a single piece of land, where office workers works from remote, where MOST activities are still nearby and the rest is just goods logistics. In such fictional but very possible society mobile "fast tech" crap essentially does not exists simply because most people works from home or in fixed locations without the need of mobile status symbols and long commuting on public transports, since IT is very centered in the society people do not buy crappy desktops and so they buy something lasting 8-10 years at least, there is next to zero needs for laptops as well, only a small slice of the population buy them. We would use MUCH LESS raw materials than today and we use much less single-use stuff, from ready-made food packages simply because we eat at home, not on the go downtown, we stock food at home instead of buying single slices of this, mini-bottles of that etc, there is MUCH LESS fast fashion because without the downtown model people are much less interesting in showing someone else a different outfit per day and so on.
What the report suggest instead? Doing the very opposite because they are economist, reasoning just on data without knowing the origin, reasons behind them and definitively not interesting in going against managerial-driven financial capitalism. They push more toward mobile, so cloud, so fast-tech "but hey, cheaper [and crappier] one" increasing the problem they state we have to reduce.
Try seriously to imaging a possible future in 10-20-30 years for the humanity and I bet you'll realize the same.
Essentially the report admit that "fast tech" (crappy devices sold and dump quickly) are an increasingly big issue, as well they measure that a "mean life span" of a desktop computer is just 5 years, IMVHO simply because they count the mass of assembled towers with too big CPU for most users, too little ram for all and bad storage choices and the mass of big-names towers with non-ATX standard components explicitly done to avoid customers personal upgrades. IME a well configured desktop last 8 years for most common professional use, 10 years for common family-and-office usage. Of course not valid for a heavy gamer, someone who work/play with ML tools, virtual machines etc, but very valid for most common usages.
Not only, try to imaging a very possible fictional society where we live spread in wood-frame based homes and sparse sheds for most of the population, so relatively renewable (wood, glass, the biggest slice of raw materials needed), insulated and electrified for all climate (the same design actually work from polar to tropical regions, just changing some thickness and protrusions) where we commute MUCH less because there are no suburbs, but mixing living where a dentist have home and cabinet in a single piece of land, where office workers works from remote, where MOST activities are still nearby and the rest is just goods logistics. In such fictional but very possible society mobile "fast tech" crap essentially does not exists simply because most people works from home or in fixed locations without the need of mobile status symbols and long commuting on public transports, since IT is very centered in the society people do not buy crappy desktops and so they buy something lasting 8-10 years at least, there is next to zero needs for laptops as well, only a small slice of the population buy them. We would use MUCH LESS raw materials than today and we use much less single-use stuff, from ready-made food packages simply because we eat at home, not on the go downtown, we stock food at home instead of buying single slices of this, mini-bottles of that etc, there is MUCH LESS fast fashion because without the downtown model people are much less interesting in showing someone else a different outfit per day and so on.
What the report suggest instead? Doing the very opposite because they are economist, reasoning just on data without knowing the origin, reasons behind them and definitively not interesting in going against managerial-driven financial capitalism. They push more toward mobile, so cloud, so fast-tech "but hey, cheaper [and crappier] one" increasing the problem they state we have to reduce.
Try seriously to imaging a possible future in 10-20-30 years for the humanity and I bet you'll realize the same.