I can't find much to disagree with in this article. I think the most pertinent part is:

"The zero waste ethos is a big call, radical in its ramifications, and it requires more than a top-down, government-imposed approach. To be successful, zero waste needs to be embraced and implemented by citizens and community groups, business and industry."

We can't wait for governments to something about it. How many climate summits do they need to get something done? Unless we make sustainable decisions on an individual and community level nothing will change.

We need to completely rethink our values and move away from materialism, consumerism and greed (which has now been re-branded as 'aspiration'). Personally, Personally I'm pessimistic about this occurring in time to make a difference.

You asked the question, 'Why are electronics breaking so fast and why are they cheaper to replace than repair?' I have been in electronics since working on the radar set on the HMAS Parramatta way back in 1977 at Williamstown Dockyard and can offer an explanation.

The latest electronic devices are now almost totally silicon chip based. Super powerful microprocessor and memory chips have replaced mechanical and basic electronic components to such an extent that a service technician can no longer repair the devices at all, let alone economically.

In the 1960's video cameras and recorders used vacuum valves and discrete electronic components. Armed with a circuit diagram, an electronics technician could solve most problems in few hours.

In 2012, the video recorder uses a massive CCD (charge coupled device) sensor which sits on a super powerful microprocessor/memory chip with massive computing power (historically speaking). There are no moving parts to look at, no meaningful circuit diagrams to consult and no way of changing the chips over.

The 1960's video recorder cost as much as a small house, the 2012 model costs less than A$100. That is why modern electronic devices cannot be repaired for less than they are made.

If you legislate to make it so, we either have to go back to the 'good old days' where only the rich could buy such things as video recorders, or freeze the current technology level and ban innovation.

Furthermore, modern electronic devices contain virtually no components that can be reused. They also contain tiny amounts of a lot of chemicals, plastics and metals which makes recycling only economical if the carcasses are sent to third world countries where wages are next to zero.

Whether you like it or not, humans like the new devices that make the internet possible. It gives us a window into the world where I can The Conversation nightly.

I don't want to go back to the good old days.

Gerard Dean

Zero injuries and zero waste should be a part of the policies of every company.

Unfortunately it is very difficult to achieve, and most process will produce injuries and waste.

As for cities in Australia, the question should be asked “why are they needed, other than consuming so much, increasing the population (mainly through immigration), and producing so much waste”

A grossly underrated issue.

Urban "planning" starts not with quality of design but the political and the development lobby with its powerful and focussed lobbying efforts on governments for quick approvals. One example of the absurdity of building cities that property developers and politicians can be proud of, is the heat they trap. Another, the waste they produce.

Obviously doing better will clash with the agendas of the profit-seekers and the politicians and councils that they own. Profit-seekers’ generally ferocious opposition to action on global warming is for exactly that reason.

Recall for instance now ex-NSW Premier Ms Keneally’s takeover of responsibility from the Planning Minister, Tony Kelly, for the $6 billion redevelopment at Barangaroo "to ensure it was not derailed by a small group in the community". Or how a new harbourside "cultural precinct" of parklands and public recreation areas changed the very next day into a Packer casino-hotel, notwithstanding planning laws, or that the one casino licence was taken; after all, Alan Jones and Premier O’Farrell are on message.

I think the following quote explains some confusion in Steffen Lehmann's thinking:

"This change of focus makes the concept of zero waste both powerful and controversial. From a purely economic point of view, producing waste is unproductive. But reversing the existing, wasteful business system and manufacturing practices is not a fast, easy or cheap process."

Producing waste is NOT unproductive from a purely economic point of view. For an economist, waste is only unproductive if the cost of NOT producing it is less than the cost of producing it. But, as Professor Lehmann notes: "reversing the existing, wasteful business system and manufacturing practices is not a fast, easy or cheap process."

For economic reasons, zero waste is probably unattainable - the costs of avoidance or recycling is probably greater than the benefits for at least some wastes.

Zero waste is a nice slogan, but a foolish goal. As with most human systems, there are diminishing returns in waste management, so eliminating the last 1% of waste would be ruinously expensive. That is nothing to do with profits, GDP, or other capitalist conspiracies - it means it would use more resources to do that it saves. Actually, waste management companies make money from moving waste around for no environmental gain at the moment. Also, we aren't facing an imminent shortage of metals - increasing prices (due to China's industrialisation) have led to increased production of virtually all metals - much as economics 101 would suggest.

What we need is a sensible mix of recycling, reuse & disposal. This probably includes burning plastics for their calorific value, and composting food at home or distributed centres. Designing electronics for easier recycling does make sense, but its innovation, not an obsolescence conspiracy that ends their useful life.

I design and produce bicycles. I take special care to address their durability. I do so because I just happen to be obsessed about that. But people buy my bikes for a range of reasons (good value, fit for purpose, good looking, ...) and I think not because of their specific durability. I think people are so accustomed to consuming new things and getting kicks from doing it that they are not mindful of how long things will last. And it is not easy to ascertain. Don't expect a retailer to know or care. Don't expect it to be addressed in advertising.
Of interest on this topic are countries where the waste generation issue seems to be addressed better than here in Au. For example in Germany. There is less junk there. They seem more aware of quality and design. Why?

In many cases, plastic is the most benign, durable and least harmful option. Many alternatives generate higher emissions and potentially higher environmental impacts.

Sure, we should be reducing plastic waste, and we should dispose of plastic appropriately, but why is plastic a 'ticking time bomb'?