Article

EPE: Nature and Space

1–22
AirPods and the earth: Digital © The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
technologies, planned sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/25148486221076136
obsolescence and the journals.sagepub.com/home/ene

Capitalocene

Sy Taffel
Massey University, New Zealand

Abstract
Apple’s AirPods have helped forge a multibillion-dollar market for true wireless hearable devices.
The article employs media geology and political ecology to argue that AirPods exemplify the
Capitalocene, a time where a planetary sociotechnical system based on ecologically unequal
exchange benefits a privileged minority of humans while inflicting significant harms to humans
and ecosystems that will persist across inhuman temporalities. These harms are inequitably distrib-
uted and are not typically experienced by those who can afford luxury items such as AirPods.
While digital technologies are often mistaken for dematerialised objects that will enable infinite
economic growth on a materially finite planet, examining the flows of energy, matter, labour
and knowledge required for the production and maintenance of these devices comprehensively
refutes these claims. AirPods are designed to function for just eighteen to thirty-six months of
daily use before planned obsolescence renders AirPods as long-lived, toxic, electronic waste.
Pending ‘right to repair’ legislation should prohibit the production of irreparable digital devices
such as AirPods, as the right to repair an irreparable device is effectively meaningless.

Keywords
AirPods, Apple, Capitalocene, planned obsolescence, right to repair

Apple’s AirPods exemplify cutting-edge twenty-first century technology; AirPods are wireless, net-
worked, sensor-filled, digital consumer devices that have helped forge a multibillion-dollar market
for true wireless hearable devices. AirPods have reinforced Apple’s market valuation and reputation
as an innovative corporation that does not just dominate existing microelectronics market sectors

Corresponding author:
Sy Taffel, School of Humanities, Media and Creative Communication, Massey University, Room 4.46, Sir Geoffrey Peren
Building, Tiritea Road, Palmerston North, Manawatū 4410, New Zealand.
Email: s.a.taffel@massey.ac.nz
2 EPE: Nature and Space 0(0)

but creates new ones. However, when we consider the political ecology of AirPods a rather different
story emerges, they are complex and costly material artefacts that are designed to function for a
brief period before becoming toxic trash. This temporal imbalance is illustrative of contemporary
digital capitalism. Digital technologies are advertised as devices that will fulfil our desires, improve
productivity and make us happy, however, the material impacts of this consumption inflict signifi-
cant harms upon human and nonhuman ecologies.
These impacts are not equally distributed. Child labour, water shortages faced by indigenous
communities as a result of corporate mining activities, communities being poisoned by electronic
waste, and many of the worst impacts of longer-term issues surrounding climate change are not
typically experienced by those who can afford luxury commodities such as AirPods. This discrep-
ancy between wealthy consumers and corporations on the one hand, and those who suffer the con-
sequences of unsustainable levels of socially unjust consumption on the other, epitomises the
critique of the ‘Anthropocene’ as a descriptor which problematically indicates that an undifferen-
tiated species is to blame for ecological crises. Consequently, the ‘Capitalocene’ has been suggested
as an alternative term that foregrounds the role of capitalism, and all its attending inequalities and
contradictions, in contemporary ecological crises (Bonneuil and Fressoz, 2016; Moore, 2015).
Building upon existing eco-materialist studies of digital technology (e.g. Caraway, 2018; Cubitt,
2015; Gabrys, 2011; Kinsley, 2014; Maxwell and Miller, 2012; Mezzadra and Neilson, 2019;
Parikka, 2012; Parks and Starosielski, 2015), this article argue that AirPods exemplify the
Capitalocene; they embody a form of novel and luxurious consumption whose benefits are predo-
minantly enjoyed by wealthy global elites, yet which cause significant harms to less privileged
human and nonhuman communities. This dynamic is not inevitable, but for systemic change to
enact social and environmental justice, it is pivotal that the popular, advertising-fuelled rhetoric
that casts digital technologies as magical, dematerialised commodities, which enable infinite eco-
nomic growth on a finite planet because of this supposed dematerialisation is challenged and
replaced with analyses of the material social and ecological impacts of technology. As a new
class of device – true wireless hearables – AirPods require additional material extraction, purifica-
tion, energy (including fossil fuel) use, and labour while generating additional electronic waste. The
article contributes to the emerging transdisciplinary literature that questions whether the ongoing
expansion of digital technologies is compatible with environmental justice (Foth et al., 2020,
Taffel, 2021), arguing that the growth-based imperative for a steady stream of new types of
digital device is incompatible with reducing greenhouse gas emissions and material footprint to sus-
tainable levels, especially when considering that current overconsumption is only enjoyed by a frac-
tion of the human population. Furthermore, AirPods require additional consumption in the near
future due to planned obsolescence (Guiltinan, 2009; Hertz and Parikka, 2012) and irreparability
being features of their current design. This design strategy is fundamentally at odds with
pending legislation surrounding ‘right to repair’ which is being introduced in the EU as part of
the Circular Economy Action Plan (European Commission, 2020), with similar legislation, the
‘Fair Repair Act’ proposed at a Federal level in the US (Kan, 2021); having the right to repair a
device that cannot be repaired is a contradiction in terms. I propose that legislation designed to
enact long-term visions for sustainability should include measures designed to end planned obso-
lescence and the production of irreparable microelectronics.
A further contribution of the article surrounds multiple temporalities, digital devices such as
AirPods and ecological crises. Digital technologies have predominantly been theorised within a
framework of temporal acceleration (Crary, 2013; Kitchin and Fraser, 2020; Stiegler, 2017).
Notable exceptions to digital accelerationism emphasise forms of slowness – from lunchtime
yoga classes to urban sleep pods – that enable embodied humans to adapt to digital speeds,
(Sharma, 2014), and articulate ways that digital technologies alter temporal ontologies, employing
the statistical study of human behaviour through big data and machine learning algorithms that
Taffel 3

‘capture the future through the past and impose it on the present’ (Hui, 2021, see also Amoore,
2020; Andrejevic, 2020). However, these accounts largely neglect the ecological and geological
temporalities associated with producing digital technologies and infrastructures. There exists a
massive temporal imbalance between the millennia it took for the materials employed in
AirPods to form, the decades or centuries they will adversely affect communities and environments
and the eighteen to thirty-six months for which they are functional digital devices. This disparity
between the speeds of digital capitalism and the adaptive capacities of Earth’s ecological
systems is at the heart of the metabolic rift (Foster et al., 2011) which produces contemporary eco-
logical crises. Homologous to the role of single-use plastic bags and the global plastics crisis, resol-
ving specific issues surrounding AirPods and planned obsolescence is relatively trivial in
comparison to addressing the systemic and infrastructural issues surrounding digital technology,
exploitation and inequality within an extractivist planetary assemblage predicated upon infinite,
ever-accelerating economic growth on a finite planet.
Methodologically the article combines media geology (Parikka, 2015), with political ecology
(Hornborg, 2015; Robbins, 2011). Media geology focuses on the materiality of media through a
temporal framework that is attentive to multiple temporalities, ranging from the geological dura-
tions over which the materials used within digital technologies were formed, to the microtemporal
durations at which contemporary computation function. Conversely, political ecology examines
how unequal relations of power and economic exchange shape ecological crises, productively com-
plementing the temporal focus of media geology. These approaches share a focus on flows of matter
and energy, and a concern with how power permeates these dynamics. However, where these two
approaches are not always in agreement surrounds the agency of nonhumans. Media geology’s the-
oretical lens is indebted to Deleuze and Guattari’s (1987) geophilosophy and specifically seeks to
ground nonhuman agency within the ecological politics of mining and energy systems, whereas
political ecology has recently seen significant debate surrounding whether nonhuman agency pro-
ductively augments ecological politics (White et al., 2017) or fetishises an illusionary autonomy of
artefacts that actively inhibits ecological action (Foster, 2016; Hornborg, 2016). Noting that critics
of nonhuman agency largely foreground Bruno Latour’s (2004) politically conservative actor-
network theory rather than Guattari’s (2008) radical ecology, my position here aligns with recent
work in political ecology that emphasises the political diversity of nonhuman critique (Büscher,
2021). This is not to suggest that no differences exist between the agential capacities of humans,
animals, and machines (especially decision-making digital machines), but that grasping how differ-
entiated agencies coalesce within assemblages and contribute to systems and asymmetries of power
is an important precursor to taking effective ecological action.
In terms of concrete methods, the paper combines follow the thing analysis (Cook, 2004;
Marcus, 1998: 91–92) with political economic analysis of AirPods sales and revenue data and dis-
course analysis of Apple’s video advertising for AirPods. Follow the thing analysis maps the cir-
culation of matter associated with AirPods through different spatiotemporal contexts based on data
drawn from corporate environmental reports, economic data, consumer-focussed repair teardowns
and mining industry data. This is complemented by economic data surrounding the commercial
success of these devices and their role in popularising a new class of digital device, true wireless
hearables. These materialist methods are supplemented by analysing the discourse of individual
freedom that is central to Apple’s marketing of these devices, and contrasting the rhetoric of wire-
lessness, airiness and freedom with the material consequences of AirPods.
I next turn to a synopsis of the debates surrounding the Anthropocene/Capitalocene; to discuss
AirPods as an artifact that exemplifies the Capitalocene this recapitulation is required to contextual-
ise this claim. Following this, the article addresses the specific case of AirPods, first highlighting
how Apple has successfully forged a new market sector for these devices, thereby expanding the
scope of digital consumption, before articulating the social and ecological justice issues that are
4 EPE: Nature and Space 0(0)

present in the production of these devices, the infrastructures required for them to function and
delineating the model of planned obsolescence and irreparability that are features of AirPods’
design.

Humans, capitalism and ecological crises

The sum of human-induced changes to the planet have led geologists and earth system scientists to
argue that the Earth has shifted into a new geological epoch, the Anthropocene (Crutzen and
Stoermer, 2000; Steffen et al., 2007, 2015; Zalasiewicz et al., 2017). These changes include
climate change, loss of biodiversity, alterations to the nitrogen and phosphorus cycles, ocean acid-
ification, land-system change and so on. These crises do not indicate a shift from a homeostatic
‘balance of nature’ to sudden change, but involve an acceleration of the rate of ecological
change which now exceeds the adaptive capacity of many species and ecosystems. This unprece-
dented geological context is evidenced by numerous quantifiable indicators, including the abrupt
presence of radioactive nucleotides resulting from the use of nuclear weapons and the introduction
of technofossils; materials produced by human intervention that were previously not present on
Earth (Zalasiewicz et al., 2014). Technofossils include petrochemical-derived synthetic polymers,
elemental aluminium and purified neodymium and silicon, all of which are used in AirPods.1
The nomenclature of the Anthropocene has, however, received substantial criticism for homo-
genising the ecological and geological impacts of humans. The term Anthropocene combines the
suffix – cene, which refers to an epoch located within the Cenozoic era, with the prefix
Anthropos, meaning man or human. Literally defined it designates the human epoch, strongly reso-
nating with the rhetoric of the human species having a planetary impact which rivals, surpasses, or
even overwhelms ‘the great forces of nature’ (Steffen et al., 2007). The point of contention is not the
scale of disruption and degradation to ecological systems, but the Anthropocene’s emphasis on the
activities of a single, undifferentiated species. Far from being equally responsible for contemporary
ecological crises, differing groups of humans have enormously unequal environmental impacts
which often correlate with economic privilege. For example, with regards to climate change it is
estimated that the richest one percent of humans (approximately 63 million people with a per
capita income of over US$109,000 per annum) account for fifteen percent of global carbon
dioxide emissions, over double that produced by the poorest fifty percent (approximately 3.1
billion people with a per capita income of less than US$6000 per annum) (Oxfam, 2020). Far
from being an issue that is homogenously produced by the species, climate change is predominantly
an issue that results from the activities of a relatively small subset of economically privileged
humans acting within the context of a capitalist socio-economic system.
In response to criticism from humanities and social science scholars problematising the
species-level approach of the Anthropocene, its proponents in the natural sciences now typically
acknowledge that that a ‘profound scale of global inequality’ (Steffen et al., 2015: 91) meaningfully
contributes to the development of these crises. However, inequality is described as a distortion of
the distribution of the socio-economic benefits of the Great Acceleration (Steffen et al., 2015: 91),
rather than a central feature of the capitalist mode of production. As Malm and Hornborg (2014: 64)
contend, ‘The affluence of high-tech modernity cannot possibly be universalised – become an asset
of the species – because it is predicated on a global division of labour that is geared precisely to
abysmal price and wage differences between populations.’ The deeply inequitable distribution of
benefits and harms associated with the proliferation of digital technologies such as AirPods is
not an unfortunate and temporary arrangement, it is integral to contemporary and historical
modes of capitalism.
Political ecologists have conceptually outlined (Bedford et al., 2020; Hornborg and
Martinez-Alier, 2016) and empirically demonstrated (Dorninger et al., 2021; Jorgenson and
Taffel 5

Clark, 2014) the process of ecologically unequal exchange, whereby high-income nations’ econ-
omies rely upon resource-intensive technologies and infrastructures which require vast annual
transfers of biophysical resources from low-income countries. This asymmetry functions alongside
high-income countries deriving far higher monetary exchange values when exporting both
embodied materials and labour. Consequently, ‘On aggregate, ecologically unequal exchange
allows high-income countries to simultaneously appropriate resources and to generate a monetary
surplus through international trade’ (Dorninger et al., 2021). Further, ecologically unequal
exchange sees environmental and social harms resulting from extraction and waste accumulate
among low-income nations, it is a theory of ecological injustice as well as exchange (Givens
et al., 2019). As we shall see, digital technologies such as AirPods exemplify these asymmetries.
As a result of the vastly differential contributions to ecological crises, the ‘Capitalocene’ has
been suggested as an alternative term that does not aberrantly imply that indigenous peoples, sub-
sistence farmers, environmental activists and fossil fuel executives are equally culpable for eco-
logical crises (Malm, 2015; Moore, 2016). Instead of blaming humanity, as though ecological
crises are an inherent characteristic of the species, the Capitalocene contends that the socio-
economic system of capitalism, with its systemic requirements for ever increasing forms of accu-
mulation accompanied by perpetual economic growth (Harvey, 2005; Hickel and Kallis, 2019) on a
materially finite planet is predominantly to blame for contemporary ecological crises. Accounts of
the Capitalocene typically employ a longer temporal framing than that of the Anthropocene, whose
onset is typically framed within the post-World War II Great Acceleration (McNeill and Engelke,
2014; Steffen et al., 2015). The broader temporal framings assist in revealing how accounts of indi-
vidual genius and invention that surround Western technological innovations from the steam engine
and industrial revolution onwards, were in fact dependent upon planetary networks of colonial dis-
possession, slavery and military conquest (Hornborg, 2015; Patel and Moore, 2017). Indeed, the
misidentification of digital systems with individual, predominantly white, predominantly male
entrepreneurs such as Steve Jobs/Apple or Mark Zuckerberg/Facebook demonstrates the contem-
porary continuation of this ideologically laden individualistic fetishism. Accounts of the
Capitalocene demonstrate that capitalism has never just been a socio-economic system but is
better grasped as a world-ecology that has generated social wealth through the exploitation and
cheapening of nature and labour (Moore, 2015).
The Capitalocene has been criticised for propagating a global metanarrative around capitalism
which becomes disempowering and effectively incontestable (Latour et al., 2018), and for failing
to account for how the ecological boundaries associated with the Anthropocene ‘are independent
of capitalism or socialism’ (Chakrabarty, 2009). This latter critique forcefully highlights that the
ecologically calamitous productivism associated with the Soviet Union during the twentieth
century was far from sustainable; replacing capitalism does not necessarily imply resolving eco-
logical crises. Nonetheless, in moving beyond the homogenisation of ecological crises as a
species-level event or the technocratic portrayal of socio-ecological inequities as a distortion of
development and instead identifying a mode of production whose requirement for continuous eco-
nomic growth is fundamentally incompatible with the finitude of terrestrial resources and ecological
boundaries, the Capitalocene remains a more productive label than the Anthropocene.

Making a market for true wireless hearables

AirPods are a range of luxury headphones that connect to iOS devices via the Bluetooth wireless
technology standard. While listening to digital audio is a primary use of AirPods, they additionally
feature built-in microphones, allowing users to communicate with Siri – Apple’s digital assistant –
and to answer phone calls. AirPods contain accelerometers and optical sensors to detect in ear pla-
cement and finger taps, allowing users to pause audio by double tapping the device and
6 EPE: Nature and Space 0(0)

automatically pausing music when AirPods are removed from the user’s ears. AirPods were origin-
ally released in 2016, with second-generation and Pro versions released in 2019 and a third-
generation version released in 2021. The introductory price for AirPods was US$159 or US$199
with an included wireless charging case. The Pro version, which additionally features active
noise cancellation and IPX4 water resistance cost US$249.
Over 60 million sets of AirPods were sold in 2019 and this was forecast to increase to over 80
million in 2020 (Savov and Kim, 2020). Currently, Apple is the major player in the true wireless
headphones market, with AirPods responsible for over 40% of unit sales and 60% of revenue (Lee,
2020). These figures indicate that AirPods sales were over US$8 billion in 2019 and will top US$10
billion in 2020 (Reisinger, 2019). The gross profit on each pair of AirPods sold is between US$90–
100, suggesting that in 2019 Apple accrued over US$5 billion in profits from AirPods sales
(Reisinger, 2019). Although these sums are dwarfed by Apple’s overall 2019 sales of US$260
billion and gross profits of US$98 billion (Apple Inc., 2020), they represent a rapidly growing
new revenue stream for the company. Indeed, it is important to note that Apple’s market capitalisa-
tion of US$2.5 trillion (Nasdaq, 2021) is partly premised upon the corporation’s ability to produce
novel digital devices that attract widespread consumer demand.
While Apple originally rose to prominence producing hardware and software for desktop and
then laptop personal computers, its meteoric rise to become the world’s most valuable corporation
by market capitalisation is premised upon the success of numerous i-devices, beginning with the
iPod portable MP3 player that was released in 2001. This gathered pace with the release of the
iPhone in 2007, which has subsequently been Apple’s bestselling and most profitable device as
well as forming the heart of the assemblage of hardware and software that is commonly described
as the ‘iOS ecosystem’ (Kapoor and Agarwal, 2017; Qiu et al., 2017).2 Subsequent Apple devices:
the iPad, which was released in 2010; the Apple Watch, which was released in 2015; and AirPods;
are premium-priced consumer microelectronics devices that have significantly expanded markets
for tablets, wearable computers and hearables, with Apple’s product becoming the bestselling
device in each category. In 2015, prior to the introduction of AirPods, wireless earbud sales
were less than one million units per year (Hunn, 2016), indicating that in the five years following
their introduction, the market for wireless earbuds has grown over 160-fold.
Thus far this is a familiar story outlining how Apple characterise Silicon Valley-styled disruptive
innovation (Vinsel and Russell, 2020). Apple does not merely dominate existing markets, but
actively produces new ones through the design, marketing and affordances of desirable digital
devices. Although touchscreen smartphones, tablet computers, wearable devices and wireless head-
phones were all initially introduced by Apple’s competitors, Apple have been responsible for the
popularisation of these devices. This can be partially attributed to well-funded and stylish marketing
campaigns, but also involves the aesthetic design and functional affordances of the devices them-
selves, which typically interact with other devices within the walled garden of the iOS assemblage
relatively seamlessly. From a purely economic standpoint, it would be difficult to argue that
AirPods are anything but the latest in a long line of Apple’s successes.

Airpods or EarthPods?
Whereas most analyses of AirPods consider what they offer end users in terms of functionality,
affordances, aesthetics and cultural capital alongside the profitability and enhanced stock market
valuation they bring to Apple (Davidson, 2017; Hunn, 2016), adopting the theoretical lens of
media geology shifts the focus away from end users and corporate profits, instead looking to
situate those actors within a broader material assemblage encompassing spatio-temporal scales
that are far removed from those of digital capitalism. Media geology reconnects digital technology
to the deep time of the earth, prompting an examination of the material composition of AirPods.
Taffel 7

Furthermore, it asks us to consider where these materials were procured from, the labour conditions
at those sites and how a range of human and nonhuman power relations inform the material dimen-
sions of media technologies. As media theorist Jussi Parikka (2015: 20) elaborates, a geological
approach to media is designed to ‘find concepts that help the nonhuman elements contributing to
capitalism to become more visible, grasped, and understood-as part of surplus creation as well
as the related practices of exploitation. This historical mapping of the environmental is also a
mapping of the historical features of capitalism as a social and technological planetary arrange-
ment.’ Media geology, then, is not just about mapping how materials are moulded into media tech-
nologies, it focuses on how the processes that produce media technologies sustain particular
sociotechnical systems of power. Media geology does not advocate for an apolitical scientism,
instead it outlines how forms of technological production are never neutral, they produce particular
social, cultural, economic and environmental relations that benefit some agents while harming
others.
Like most contemporary microelectronics devices, AirPods are materially complex artefacts. As
with other digital devices, the material footprint of the device enormously outweighs the product.
For example, a 120-gram mobile phone typically requires over 70 kilograms of raw materials
(Calatayud and Mohkam, 2018). AirPods are composed of numerous materials located in disparate
places and which are extracted from the planet in dramatically differing ways. In briefly outlining
some of these materials and a handful of the significant harms associated with their procurement
and production here, I cannot do justice to the complexity of these processes or the damage they
do to specific communities and ecosystems, as this would require far more space and detail than
is available. Entire phases of production, such as the manufacturing processes undertaken in
China and Vietnam which has been termed iSlavery (Qiu, 2017) are entirely absent from this
partial and selective account. Flagging several specific issues surrounding digital extractivism
does, however, begin to indicate the scale of unseen and often unacknowledged harms involved
in producing AirPods, while also demonstrating how the current forms of high-speed digital com-
putation require a global system of trade and extraction because of the geographical distribution of
materials with specific affordances.
These materials include highly purified silicon,3 which is the principal material used for micro-
chips such as the Apple W1 (original) or H1 (second generation and AirPods Pro) processor which
controls the Bluetooth connection, connects to devices and delivers audio to the speakers, and the
Bosch inertial measurement unit which contains a 16-bit accelerometer and ultra-low-power gyro-
scope that provides real-time motion data to enable spatial audio (Apple, 2020d). Acrylonitrile
butadiene styrene (ABS) and silicone plastics are used for the external casing and tips (Apple,
2020c). The circuit boards are composed of thermoset plastic (LaDou, 2006), and the flexible cir-
cuitry is comprised of a polyimide film (Campbell, 2017). Tantalum is used in the capacitors that
are found on the circuit boards (Padilla, 2017), while Gold is used for the pins which connect the
silicon chips to the circuit boards (iFixit, 2016). Tantalum and gold, alongside tin, which is
employed in leadfree solder and tungsten are collectively referred to as 3TG and have been conflict
minerals within the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) that have played a significant role in
financing warlords and militias within the ongoing civil conflict that has claimed thousands of lives
since the end of the international stage of the Congo wars which directly and indirectly led to over
five million deaths (Coghlan et al., 2007; Nest, 2011).
The AirPods’ battery, which I shall discuss in more depth later, is a lithium ion battery composed
of lithium, nickel and cobalt. The majority of the world’s lithium comes from the arid Atacama
Desert in South America, where lithium is evaporated from brine salts. This water intensive
process has led to significant disputes with local indigenous people, who suffer the depletion of
already scarce water reserves and whose crops are contaminated by saline-rich runoff
(Bhowmik, 2019; Cubitt, 2016). Approximately 60% of the world’s cobalt is located in the southern
8 EPE: Nature and Space 0(0)

Katanga province of the DRC (Sanderson, 2019), where artisanal cobalt mining employs children
as young as four years old (Niarchos, 2021). It is estimated that approximately 40,000 children
labour as artisanal cobalt miners (Walther, 2012), and that they earn as little as US$0.11 an hour
for this work (Crawford, 2016).
Headphones fundamentally act as transducers, they convert electrical energy into mechanical
wave energy, sound waves.4 The components of the headphones that perform this transduction
are known as ‘drivers’. Most headphones incorporate moving-coil drivers, which contain a dia-
phragm, a voice coil, and permanent magnets. High purified, electrolytic copper is used for the
voice coil, and the magnets are an alloy of neodymium, iron and boron that are referred to as neo-
dymium magnets. Neodymium magnets are the most powerful type of permanent magnet (Van
Gosen et al., 2017: 3), consequently they are frequently employed when reducing size and
weight is a key design parameter, such as within AirPods, which weigh a meagre five grams per
earbud.
Neodymium is one of the lanthanides or rare-earth elements (REE), a collection of materials
which despite their name are not particularly scarce, but which typically occur in very low concen-
trations and are entangled with one another and radioactive materials such as thorium and uranium.
Consequently, the extraction and purification of REE is a complex process which produces vast
amounts of toxic waste; ‘9600 to 12,000 cubic metres (340,000 to 420,000 cubic feet) of waste
gas – containing dust concentrate, hydrofluoric acid, sulfur dioxide, and sulfuric acid – are released
with every ton of rare metals that are mined. Approximately 75 cubic metres (2600 cubic feet) of
acidic wastewater, plus about a ton of radioactive waste residue are also produced’ (NASA, 2012).
The largest REE processing facility at Bayan Obo in China has an unlined tailings pond that holds
an estimated 180 million tonnes of waste. The nearby city of Baotau is frequently referred to as a
‘cancer village’, (Klinger, 2017: 122) due to the significantly elevated rates of cancer-related deaths
that result from human proximity to REE refinement. Additionally, chronic arsenic poisoning and
skeletal fluorosis are rife within human communities located close to Bayan Obo as a result of REE
mining and processing. These debilitating conditions are not rare, 40% of the inhabitants of the
Hetao Plain suffer from arsenical dermatosis (Mao et al., 2010).
The materials required to produce AirPods inflict significant harm upon humans and environ-
ments in numerous locations across the planet. They are not global in the sense of being
uniform, but unequally distributed. These harms are typically inflicted upon ‘invisible bodies’
(Taffel, 2016) located outside of the economically privileged urban centres of global capitalism
in places such as Bayan Obo, the Atacama desert and DRC.5 Considering the dependence of
digital microelectronics on these highly purified earthy substances it seems counterintuitive that
airiness is such a frequently invoked metaphor surrounding digital technology, and Apple products
in particular. From describing planetary assemblages of data centres, transoceanic and terrestrial
fibre-optic cables, wireless, wired and cellular networking equipment as ‘the cloud’, to the
Macbook Air laptop, iPad Air tablet, AirPort wireless routers and the AirPlay/AirTunes protocol
stack designed to enable wireless streaming between devices, the nomenclature associated with
Apple gestures towards the sky rather than the ground.
Apple’s advertisement from 2016 which accompanied the launch of AirPods begins by stating;
‘We believe in a wireless future’. Although over 99 percent of global Internet traffic travels through
undersea and underground fibre-optic cables (Starosielski, 2015: 1), the fact that end-user devices
typically connect to Wi-Fi, cellular and Bluetooth networks, alongside wired digital infrastructures
being designed to retreat into the background (Leigh-Star, 1999; Weiser, 1991) and become func-
tionally invisible promotes the belief in wirelessness as an irresistible force (Mackenzie, 2010).
Later advertisements for AirPods, such as ‘Stroll’ (2017) and ‘Bounce’ (2019), depict figures
wearing Airpods dancing through monochromatic urban landscapes. Characters fly through the
air, walk upside down, bounce off buildings and otherwise traverse urban space in a joyful and
Taffel 9

fantastical manner that visually represents the tagline that appears at the end of Stroll, ‘practically
magic’.6
While this phrase is intended to gesture towards the supposed freedom that wireless headphones
afford consumers, it is eerily reminiscent of Karl Marx’s description of ‘the magic and necromancy
that surrounds the products of labour as long as they take the form of commodities’ (1967: 21).
Airiness and magic are deployed as rhetorical tropes that obfuscate the geological and social dimen-
sions of technology. Consumers are encouraged to ignore the material composition of these devices,
the extractive processes that produce them and their exploitative and toxic effects upon workers,
communities and ecosystems. Instead, the magic of wirelessness is invoked to promote what
these commodities afford atomised individual consumers; this is a textbook case of commodity fet-
ishism presenting artifacts as autonomous objects ‘disembedded from their social relations’
(Hornborg, 2016: 11).
Alongside the discourse of technology as magic, which Apple actively participate in through the
advertisements produced for AirPods, we should acknowledge the longstanding Marxist critiques
of advertising as magic (Jhally, 2000; Williams, 1980), which contends that the techno-scientific
development of advertising during the 20th century supplanted the role of religion in inculcating
populations with a system of beliefs and behaviours which economically benefit the ruling class
through encouraging them to identify as consumers rather than as producers or workers. As Sut
Jhally (2000) elaborates:

To the extent that a society wants to divert attention away from the political consequences of economic
structures it encourages people to regard themselves as consumers of industrial products rather than as
their producers. Democratic activity in this perspective is equated with the different options that the mar-
ketplace is able to offer. Consumption is democracy, in as much as people have “choices” about the
product they can buy, but not the productive arrangements under which they live.

A ‘consumer democracy’ involves an individual’s ability to participate being equivalent to their

wealth, meaning that enormous numbers of humans – many of whom are amongst the worst
affected by ecological crises – are effectively excluded from the demos. Within the contemporary
conjuncture, this critique of the conflation of consumer choice with democracy requires a supple-
mentary ecological dimension which emphasises that the choices of wealthy consumers are having
a catastrophic effect on the environmental conditions that are a prerequisite for sociotechnical
production.
Advertising is not just important in the context of AirPods because it obfuscates the materiality
of these devices and normalises an ecologically calamitous form of consumption, it is also a key
mechanism for instilling desire within affluent publics for AirPods and other new types of smart
object. This point is illustrated by advertising studies which contend that advertisements are
more likely to drive consumer behaviours in young markets (Chandy et al., 2001). Put simply,
without knowledge that new types of device exist, few consumers would be motivated to purchase
them. Consequently, both the discourse of technology as magic and the magic of advertising work
to advance AirPods as denatured and dematerialised commodities whose materially calamitous pro-
duction remains out of sight and out of mind for consumers.
The frenzied pace of consumption among the rich defines the current trajectory of the
Capitalocene. Since 1990, 81 percent of per capita growth in material use results from increased
consumption in high-income nations (Hickel, 2020: 110), and as we have seen, the global rich
are largely responsible for climate change. Yet the global advertising industry will spend approxi-
mately US$749 billion in 2021 (Bruell, 2021) persuading consumers that additional consumption is
desirable, necessary and normal. This imbalance between the speeds of the capitalist economy and
earth’s ecosystems is integral to the widening planetary metabolic rift responsible for the entangled
10 EPE: Nature and Space 0(0)

ecological crises referred to as the Anthropocene/Capitalocene. Emphasising the contemporary pol-

itics of speed with reference to ecological crises partially parallels Rob Nixon’s (2011: 2) articula-
tion of slow violence: ‘a violence that occurs gradually and out of sight, a violence of delayed
destruction that is dispersed across time and space, an attritional violence that is typically not
viewed as violence at all.’ While a range of contemporary environmental harms are functionally
invisible to humans, such as the disruption to human endocrine systems by plastics (Farrelly
et al., 2021), or the harms neonicotiniods inflict on pollinators such as bees (Blacquière et al.,
2012), this cannot readily be transposed to the social and environmental harms associated with
the mining, processing, manufacturing and waste disposal associated with digital technologies
such as AirPods. These processes are at least partially visibly and demonstrably harmful in ways
that are straightforwardly representable through visual media, which categorically departs from
Nixon’s description of slow violence. While harms associated with AirPods reverberate across mul-
tiple temporalities, and certain harms are imperceptible to humans, the functional invisibility of the
environmental harms of digital devices are not a consequence of innate representational challenges
surrounding visibility, rather, it stems from the success of commodity fetishism and advertising in
severing artefacts from the flows of energy, matter, labour and knowledge that produce and sustain
them.

Ecology and AirPods

Whereas a media geological approach to AirPods foregrounds the multiple relations between digital
devices and the earth, drawing upon political ecology focuses upon how systems of power structure
the flows of matter and energy that coalesce to form AirPods (Devine, 2015, Robbins, 2011) both in
terms of the life-cycle of the devices themselves, and the infrastructural contexts that enable them to
function (Taffel, 2019). Ecology is the study of dynamic, relational complex systems across multi-
ple spatio-temporal and organisational scales; unlike biology – the science of life – ecology
explores flows of energy and matter across populations, communities and ecosystems (Begon
et al., 2006). The emphasis on this being a political process foregrounds the ways that sociotech-
nical systems are never simply neutral. Approaching consumer devices as processes – as temporary
assemblages that affect labour, climate, culture, ecosystems and power – presents a striking contrast
and an important corrective to the dominant way of conceptualising them as objects, as discrete and
decontextualised commodities.
An ecological approach to AirPods involves situating these devices within the vast planetary
infrastructure upon which their functionality depends (Taffel, 2019). Streaming digital audio
from Spotify through a set of AirPods requires an enormous array of technologies and humans
whose existence enables these seemingly magical devices. The hardware includes the instruments
and computers that produced the music, the data centres where digital audio is stored, the planetary
network of undersea and terrestrial fibreoptic cables, the cable landing stations and internet
exchange points through which digital data travels, the cellular towers and antennas, wireless
routers and finally the smartphones which send the digital audio to the AirPods. Alongside this
assemblage of hardware exists the various forms of software and standards that enable contempor-
ary telecommunications including, digital audio workstations used to record, mix and master music;
Spotify’s platform which includes the user interface, music database and the recommendation algo-
rithm that assists users in finding new music, file formats such as .WAV, .FLAC, and Ogg Vorbis,
networking protocols including the Internet protocol, transmission control protocol (TCP),
Hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP), Spotify’s proprietary Spotify synchronisation protocol, the
3/4/5G broadband cellular standards, various iterations of the Wi-Fi wireless network protocols
that are based on the IEEE 802.11 standards, and the Bluetooth wireless technology standard.
Taffel 11

Of course, none of this technology designs, produces, or maintains itself. A huge number of
humans are involved in producing and maintaining this gargantuan, planetary sociotechnical
assemblage, ranging from child labourers in DRC who earn a few cents an hour to extremely
wealthy corporate executives at companies such as Apple and Spotify. The spatial scales, speed
and complexity involved in contemporary digital assemblages almost defy human comprehension,
precisely because the inhuman, planetary scale at which they operate is so significantly divorced
from the embodied, place-based functioning of human beings. Equally though, the temporalities
of digital assemblages leverage centuries of human knowledge production and culture in ways
that are rarely acknowledged.

The names of our ancestors are all but forgotten … Dead labour congeals to form the technologies of
production comprising factories and machines that Marx defined as fixed capital, as opposed to the
liquidity of money and workers. The historical gift of previous generations whose expertise, knowledge,
and creativity was taken from the commons lies embedded and embodied in today’s machines.
Anonymous and ignored, our ancestors inhabit our technologies. (Cubitt, 2016: 155)

While culturally dominant ways of understanding digital technologies involves the attribution of
invention and innovation to the individual genius of technology corporation CEOs such as Steve
Jobs, Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg, Cubitt illustrates how the Marxist concept of dead
labour re-historicises the social relationships that are necessary for production. While flows of
matter and energy are necessary for technological production, the sum of centuries of human
labour and knowledge are equally vital, but this reliance upon common knowledge is often
obscured or erased by contemporary ideologies based upon individualism, innovation and intellec-
tual property. While AirPods’ advertisements declare them to be practically magic, this magical
thinking only exists by severing AirPods from a multiplicity of relations. One of the key interven-
tions of political ecology is to foreground these spatial and temporal flows of matter, energy, labour
and knowledge, while drawing attention to the exploitation and inequality that is effectively erased
by a myopic focus upon devices and end users.
An additional line of critique which becomes prominent and visible because of political ecol-
ogy’s focus upon flows of matter and energy surrounds the additional volumes of material extrac-
tion, purification, energy use (including the combustion of fossil fuels), human labour and waste
that are required to produce new types of device such as AirPods. While the economic growth asso-
ciated with new types of device is typically celebrated as digital innovation, the ecological context
in which this growth is embedded is one where dramatic reductions in fossil fuel use are urgently
required if wealthy nations are to meet Paris agreement requirements to limit climate change to well
below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, and to attempt to limit the increase to 1.5
degrees C. Equally, the strong correlation between aggregate material use and economic growth
(Pothen and Schymura, 2015) entails that future ecological sustainability requires an absolute
decoupling from both material use and greenhouse gas emissions. Whereas relative decoupling
denotes a weakening of the correlation between material use or environmental impact and economic
growth, it still allows for a net increase in both material use and environmental impact which is
incompatible with addressing global ecological crises. Furthermore, this absolute decoupling
must occur on a permanent rather than temporary basis and on a global rather than local or national
scale (Hickel and Kallis, 2019).
The global spatial scale is important here, as since the 1970s there has been a decoupling of
material use in knowledge based economies, however, this apparent decoupling is ‘counterbalanced
by the intensified resource intensity of several developing economies’ (Bithas and Kalimeris, 2018).
AirPods provide a useful exemplar here, they are the products of globalised industries which
involve the flow materials from extraction sites that are often located in the global South, such
12 EPE: Nature and Space 0(0)

as Congolese cobalt and tantalum mines or Atacaman lithium, through Chinese and Vietnamese
factories before predominantly being purchased and used by wealthy consumers in the global
North. These movements of matter and their attendant energy requirements provides a useful sup-
plementary dimension to the process of data colonialism elaborated by Couldry and Mejias (2019).
While the value extracted from global data flows accumulate with a relatively small number of
multibillion-dollar corporations predominantly based in the United States (and to a lesser extent
China), the raw materials required for this new mode of extraction largely flow from the global
South to the global North. These flows, which see biophysical resources and wealth accumulate
with high income nations, while environmental and social harms from extraction and waste are
largely borne by low-income nations exemplifies the process of ecologically unequal exchange.
Digital microelectronics provide an interesting case study for considering questions of decoup-
ling. Continuing trends towards miniaturisation and significant energy-efficiency savings are fre-
quently mistaken for an ecologically benevolent mode of dematerialisation (Franck, 1999).
However, this apparent dematerialisation has rarely involved actual reductions in material through-
put or greenhouse gas emissions that would be characteristic of absolute decoupling, instead a sig-
nificant relative decoupling can be observed (Kostakis et al., 2016), whereby energy efficiency
significantly increases, but overall energy usage still rises. For example, the iPhone 3G released
in 2009 had a greenhouse gas footprint of 55 kg CO2e (Apple, 2009). Conversely, despite the effi-
ciency savings gleaned in over a decade’s worth of improvements to microprocessor fabrication, the
various versions of the iPhone 12 have greenhouse gas footprints ranging between 70–110 kg CO2e
(Apple, 2020a, 2020b). The relative decoupling associated with efficiency savings at the transistor
level ultimately translate into a larger environmental impact. This exemplifies the rebound effect
known as Jevons’ paradox, whereby a more efficient use of a resource leads to increased rather
than diminished demand for that resource. As Foster et al. (2010: 10) demonstrate, far from
being novel or historically anomalous, ‘the rule that efficiency increases energy and material use
is integral to the “regime of capital” itself.’ Rather than providing a panacea for ecological
crises, the relative decoupling associated with efficiency savings has played a key role in the cap-
italist development that causes them.
Unlike iPhones, however, AirPods are a new class of device. As we have seen, until 2015 the
global market for wireless earbuds was minuscule. The proliferation of new classes of luxury
devices such as AirPods are fundamentally antithetical to the absolute decoupling that is urgently
required to prevent contemporary crises of overconsumption leading to ecological calamity. Rather
than reducing material use and fossil fuel emissions these new types of devices produce additional
impacts and harms. Furthermore, these harms are compounded by the incorporation of planned
obsolescence and irreparability into AirPods design.

Obsolescence and AirPods

The term planned obsolescence was introduced by American real-estate broker Bernard London
(1932), who in response to the widespread unemployment and economic recession associated
with the Great Depression argued that artificially limiting the life span of products would spur eco-
nomic growth, and that government should enact a legal framework for enforcing this limited dur-
ation that goods would remain functional. While London’s plans for a legislative form of planned
obsolescence were never realised, the practice of designing products to only function for a limited
period, thereby requiring further consumption in the near future, is common within microelectro-
nics and is widely criticised as a practice that is inimical to sustainability (Andrews, 2015; Foth
et al., 2020; Hertz and Parikka, 2012).
AirPods, like many portable contemporary microelectronics devices, are powered by lithium ion
batteries. These are described as rechargeable batteries because they depart from single-use primary
Taffel 13

cell batteries. They are not, however, endlessly rechargeable. The capacitance of the battery, its
ability to store electrical charge, degrades over time with usage, with typical degradation being
around 20% of the original capacitance after approximately 300–500 charge-discharge cycles
(Buchmann, 2017). For microelectronics devices that are designed to be mobile and used on a
daily basis, significant degradation often occurs between eighteen months and two years, and not
long after this the battery is unlikely to hold enough charge to make it through a typical day.
Little more than a decade ago, most consumer microelectronics featuring lithium ion batteries con-
tained user replaceable batteries. This was typically a tool-free process that enabled batteries on
mobile phones, laptops or other devices to easily be replaced, therefore extending the duration
the device remains functional.
Apple have often led the way in designing devices whereby users are unable to easily access and
replace batteries, and this is now commonplace in devices such as smartphones, laptops and tablets.
This means that from the first day of use, the clock begins ticking on a lifespan that is designed to
last a few years at most. This exemplifies planned obsolescence, whereby corporations design
goods to fail after a relatively short period, necessitating the purchase of replacement devices in
the near future. Apple’s competitors have largely followed suit in terms of design, meaning that
aside from niche ethical devices such as the Fairphone, in 2021 it is difficult to purchase a smart-
phone with a tool-free user replaceable battery. Furthermore, in 2020 Apple were fined €25 million
for deliberately slowing down old iPhones without communicating their actions to consumers,
many of whom would have then purchased new devices because of the hamstrung performance
of their existing devices (BBC, 2020). This is a particularly egregious form of perceived obsoles-
cence, whereby manufacturers attempt to convince consumers that their current devices are no
longer functional, a tactic that is commonly achieved through marketing campaigns, hyperbolic
high-profile product launches or via inhibiting the functionality of old devices.
AirPods are designed to be impossible to repair, refurbish or replace parts with limited durability
such as the lithium ion batteries. The popular consumer repair site iFixit, which conducts ‘tear-
downs’ that involve disassembling microelectronics devices with step-by-step instructions for
how to do so, informing consumers how to repair devices and rating their repairability has given
every version of AirPods a repairability score of zero out of ten (iFixit, 2016, 2019a, 2019b,
2021). This does not indicate that AirPods are extremely difficult to repair, but that doing so is
not possible; Accessing AirPods internal components requires the casing to be cut apart and effect-
ively destroyed. This entails that the lifespan of AirPods is dictated by that of the lithium ion bat-
teries, with some reports that after a mere eighteen months of usage these socially, environmentally
and economically costly artefacts are effectively unusable, as the degraded battery lasts for less than
an hour between charges (Dans, 2019, Dempsey, 2019; Haskins, 2019; Woolfe, 2019).
Headphones are, of course, not a new type of product. In the earliest days of audio transmission
equipment, developing a headphone speaker was understood as technically more straightforward
than a loudspeaker, so devices such as Clement Adler’s ‘Theatrophone’ from 1881 used over-ear
cups containing speakers which audience members placed to their ear (Brandenburg et al., 2016:
2). Over a century ago, sensitive headphones, such as those produced by Brandes, were commonly
used within the radio industry (Traynor, 2017). Common to these relatively straightforward, wired
designs was an understanding that headphones would last for many years or even decades. If a com-
ponent malfunctioned or failed, the headphones could be disassembled and repaired. Comparisons
to other wireless earbuds reveal AirPods irreparable design to be a choice rather than an inevitability
associated with wirelessness. For example, Samsung’s Galaxy Buds Live received a repairability
score of 8/10 from iFixit and were praised for their modular construction, easily accessible and
replaceable batteries and for a using clips rather than adhesives, which enables non-destructive
opening procedures (iFixit, 2020). While the social and environmental justice issues surrounding
procuring materials for production are still present, at least these devices are designed to be
14 EPE: Nature and Space 0(0)

repairable and long lasting. Unlike other headphones, AirPods are a disposable commodity,
designed to function for a brief period before the user is expected to upgrade them for another
socially and environmentally damaging device. AirPods represent a luxurious yet toxic form of
wasteful upgrade culture.
Contrasting the period in which AirPods function with the duration of the chemical, biological
and ecological effects these devices have foregrounds the temporal disjuncture that exists between
contemporary capitalism and the planet. This incongruity is at the heart of the entangled ecological
crises that exist today. While AirPods are designed to function for just eighteen to thirty-six months,
the materials that were required to produce them are the results of geological processes that required
hundreds of thousands or millions of years. For example, the acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, sili-
cone, polycarbonate and polyimide plastics that are used for the casing, tips, circuit boards and flex-
ible circuits are synthetic polymers derived from petroleum oil. Petroleum oil is a fossil fuel whose
source material is ancient organic material such as plants, plankton and algae that were submerged
in water and could not decompose aerobically. Over time, the process of diagenesis saw this organic
material become kerogen, which typically forms at depths between ten and a thousand metres. As
sediments continue to accumulate, further burying the kerogen inside the Earth’s crust it slowly
became transformed into petroleum oil by geothermal heat from within the planet over durations
ranging from thousands to millions of years (Schobert, 2013: 104–110).
A further temporal discrepancy is evidenced when we turn our attention towards what happens
to AirPods after their batteries fail. The various plastics used in AirPods are not biodegradable, they
do not organically decompose and they are not reintegrated into ecosystems. Instead, they fragment
into increasingly small pieces, eventually becoming micro and nano plastics (Thompson et al.,
2004). The proliferation of anthropogenically produced plastics, their accumulation and the
harms they cause to biological and ecological systems is well documented and has become a sig-
nificant public concern (Gabrys et al., 2013; Jambeck et al., 2015; Rochman, 2015; Thompson
et al., 2009). Plastics were an invention of the twentieth century, with mass production originating
around 1950. As plastics take hundreds or thousands of years to degrade, ‘all of the conventional
plastic that has ever been introduced into the environment still remains to date unmineralised either
as whole items or as fragments’ (Barnes et al., 2009). Certain materials needed for AirPods required
millions of years to form and they will linger in the environment for centuries or millennia.
Equally, AirPods contribute to issues surrounding electronic waste. This involves the accumu-
lation of toxic materials that have been found to detrimentally affect the health of workers involved
in artisanal recycling alongside the ecosystems and communities present in these areas. Detectible
harms include elevated levels of lead in children’s blood (Guo et al., 2014), decreased lung function
(Zeng et al., 2017), DNA damage (Liu et al., 2009), elevated levels of endocrine disrupting chemi-
cals such as bisphenol a (Zhang et al., 2020), and the production of persistent organic pollutants
such as dioxins and furans (Basel Action Network, 2002). It should be noted that the global produc-
tion of electronic waste is far from equal, with some countries in the global South producing under
half a kilogram of electronic waste per capita, whereas others in the global North produce over 40
times as much e-waste per person (Forti et al., 2020).

Conclusion
AirPods have been criticised as irreparable devices that exemplify planned obsolescence on numer-
ous popular repair and journalistic websites. In 2019 Vice magazine published an article discussing
the environmental and labour impacts of AirPods entitled ‘AirPods are a tragedy’ (Haskins, 2019)
which led to significant discussion. Within this media dialogue, OneZero, a tech blog received a
response from Apple, who argued that criticisms aimed at AirPods were not unique to Apple’s
product and that this focus should instead be directed towards larger microelectronics devices
Taffel 15

that compose a greater proportion of the mass of e-waste generated. Apple’s position here contains
more than a grain of truth but requires some consideration.
Of the 53.6 million metric tons of e-waste produced in 2019 (Forti et al., 2020), AirPods, which
weigh just 5 grams per earbud, comprise a minuscule quantity. Even when considering that the
overwhelming majority of waste associated with the material footprint of consumer microelectro-
nics is generated producing devices, not their disposal (Lepawsky, 2018), AirPods are not a signifi-
cant fraction of the overall mass of e-waste. As we have seen, thinking ecologically about consumer
microelectronics devices requires situating them within the vast planetary infrastructures that are
required for them to function as intended, and within these planetary sociotechnical assemblages
AirPods are a tiny and materially insignificant element of digital technoculture.
The reasons for foregrounding AirPods within discourses of digital technology, environmental
sustainability and labour rights are both symbolic and material. As we have seen, AirPods are
largely responsible for the popularity of the true wireless hearables market and so drive a new
mode of consumption which entails additional production, additional consumption and an add-
itional waste stream. Producing novel types of popular digital device is a key component of
Apple’s market valuation, but this practice necessitates supplementary forms of consumption
that are incompatible with a reduction in carbon emissions and material usage. Furthermore,
AirPods are prominent symbols of digital technology as conspicuous consumerism and social
capital; these are devices that are extremely unlikely to be available to those who suffer the
social and environmental costs of extraction, electronic waste and climate change. AirPods exem-
plify the logics of planned obsolescence and irreparability – it is possible to make wireless earbuds
with removable lithium ion batteries, other manufacturers such as Samsung have already done so –
despite Apple being a corporation who frequently proclaim commitment to environmental sustain-
ability (Vonk, 2018). Were sustainability really a significant concern for Apple then the four ver-
sions of AirPods that are available by 2022 would never have made it to market.
Nevertheless, AirPods are not solely or uniquely responsible for the labour and environmental
impacts of digital technologies. They do, however, aptly symbolise the chasm that exists between
rhetorics of corporate social and environmental responsibility and a reality where they exemplify
the toxic throwaway culture of digital capitalism. While large-scale infrastructural and regulatory
change is undoubtedly necessary to address the broader problematics associated with digital tech-
nology, extractive industries, energy and material use, and electronic waste, AirPods are in certain
ways akin to single use plastic bags and incandescent light bulbs in representing a toxic and totally
unnecessary form of consumption that poisons people and the planet.
The wave of legislation banning plastic bags (Farrelly et al., 2021, Macintosh et al., 2020) and
the European Union’s RoHS directive which banned the use of toxic materials including lead,
mercury, hexavalent chromium and certain plasticisers from microelectronics devices (Selin and
VanDeveer, 2006) demonstrate the potential for policy makers to effect changes that significantly
improves outcomes for environments and workers through prohibiting the production and sale of
items that unnecessarily contribute towards socio-ecological harms and crises. The successes of
these legislative interventions predominantly derive from intervening in the design and production
of objects, rather than seeking to alter end-of-life waste management practices which has been the
focus of legislation such as the Basel Convention and EU Waste Electrical and Electronics direct-
ive, neither of which have been as effective as hoped (Davis et al., 2019; Khetriwal et al., 2011;
Taffel, 2019). Pending legislation surrounding repair, such as the European Union’s Circular
Economy Action Plan (European Commission, 2020) could be useful vehicles for altering the prac-
tice of producing irreparable digital devices such as AirPods, insofar as establishing a ‘right to
repair’ presupposes that devices are repairable. While the existing literature on repair foregrounds
ways that proprietary systems of closure inhibit and limit repair work (Houston and Jackson, 2016),
AirPods demonstrate an extreme example whereby design makes repair an impossibility.
16 EPE: Nature and Space 0(0)

Legislation focussed on design and production potentially becomes a tool for unmaking material
entanglements that promote socio-ecological harm (Büscher, 2021) and which enables democratic
oversight of production, rather than abdicating such responsibility in favour of the aberrant logic of
self-regulating markets and consumer choice.
Unlike plastic bags and incandescent light bulbs though, AirPods are specifically designed for
wealthy consumers. They illustrate the material culture of the Capitalocene, one where obscene
levels of consumption associated with a relatively small proportion of humans and obscene
levels of profit associated with a small number of corporations are constricting the possibilities
for a pleasurable life for humans and nonhumans both today and for future generations. Similar
to plastic bags, AirPods are a visible yet relatively easy to resolve part of a far greater and more
complex issue. Indeed, focusing purely on AirPods may result in a myopic form of ethical con-
sumerism which relieves the consciences of wealthy liberal consumers but leaves the far more
materially impactful issues associated with the planetary scale of contemporary advertising-fuelled,
computational capitalism intact. While AirPods are easily replaced with more sustainable alterna-
tives, they comprise a tiny percentage of the overall social and ecological harms associated with
digital technologies. The problem, then, is not simply AirPods, but the exploitative, growth-based
socio-economic system that produces and promotes them.

Highlights

• AirPods exemplify the Capitalocene, where the actions of a privileged minority are primarily to
blame for multiple ecological crises
• The ongoing expansion and growth of digital technologies has significant social and environ-
mental harms that are rarely acknowledged.
• Right to repair legislation should address irreparable devices and planned obsolescence
• Commodity fetishism and advertising obscure the harms associated with AirPods

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD
Sy Taffel https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4239-2730

Notes
1. While aluminium, neodymium and silicon previously existed in various forms, they are typically oxidised
or found entangled with other elements (Starosielski, 2016). The processes of purification and separation
that isolate these materials for use within microelectronics and other industries indicates a quantifiable mate-
rial change to the geology of the planet.
2. The description of this sociotechnical system as an ecosystem is one that recognises it as a relational assem-
blage, but which typically obfuscates the deleterious environmental impacts of these digital technologies
(Taffel, 2019: 3–5).
Taffel 17

3. Silicon is purified to the point where one non-silicon atom per billion is permissible, before being doped
with boron or phosphorus (Vince, 2018).
4. Conversely, microphones – such as those used for Siri and active noise cancellation in AirPods – transduce
sound waves into electrical energy.
5. Invisibility does not indicate that these bodies are analogous to Nixon’s (2011) slow violence, which
describes pollution that cannot be seen by humans, but that the places where these harms occur largely
exist outside of the highly mediatised social imaginary of the global north.
6. These advertisements also demonstrate the ableist marketing of devices which have potential utility as
assistive hearing devices (Gilmore, 2019).

References
Amoore L (2020) Cloud Ethics: Algorithms and the Attributes of Ourselves and Others. Durham and London:
Duke University Press.
Andrejevic M (2020) Automated Media. New York: Routledge.
Andrews D (2015) The circular economy, design thinking and education for sustainability. Local Economy
30(3): 305–315.
Apple (2009) iPhone 3G Environmental Report. Available at: https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/
products/archive/2009/iPhone-3G-Environmental-Report.pdf (accessed 11 November 2021).
Apple (2020a) iPhone 12 Pro Max Product Environmental Report. Available at: https://www.apple.com/
environment/pdf/products/iphone/iPhone_12_Pro_Max_PER_Oct2020.pdf (accessed 11 November 2021).
Apple (2020b) iPhone 12 Product Environmental Report. Available at: https://www.apple.com/environment/
pdf/products/iphone/iPhone_12_PER_Oct2020.pdf (accessed 11 November 2021).
Apple (2020c) Wearing your AirPods, AirPods Pro, AirPods Max, EarPods, or Beats devices. Available at:
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT211158 (accessed 11 November 2021).
Apple (2020d) Apple reimagines the iPhone experience with iOS 14 Apple Newsroom. https://www.apple.
com/newsroom/2020/06/apple-reimagines-the-iphone-experience-with-ios-14/ (accessed 11 November
2021).
Barnes DKA, Galgani F, Thompson RC, et al. (2009) Accumulation and fragmentation of plastic debris in global
environments. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 364: 1985–1998.
Basel Action Network (2002) Exporting Harm, The High-Tech Trashing of Asia. Available at: http://www.
ban.org/E-waste/technotrashfinalcomp.pdf (accessed 11 November 2021).
BBC (2020) Apple fined for slowing down old iPhones. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-
51413724 (accessed 11 November 2021).
Bedford L, McGillivray L and Walters R (2020) Ecologically unequal exchange, transnational mining, and
resistance: A political ecology contribution to green criminology. Critical Criminology 28(3): 481–499.
Begon M, Townsend CR and Harper JL (2006) Ecology: from individuals to ecosystems.
Bhowmik S (2019) The battery is the message: Media archaeology as an energy art practice. Communication
+1 7. 1–29.
Bithas K and Kalimeris P (2018) Unmasking decoupling: Redefining the resource intensity of the economy.
Science of The Total Environment 619–620: 338–351.
Blacquière T, Smagghe G, van Gestel CAM, et al. (2012) Neonicotinoids in bees: A review on concentrations,
side-effects and risk assessment. Ecotoxicology 21(4): 973–992.
Bonneuil C and Fressoz J-B (2016) The Shock of the Anthropocene: The Earth, History and us. London: Verso
Books.
Brandenburg K, Werner S, Klein F, et al. (2016) Auditory illusion through headphones: history, challenges and
new solutions. In: Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics 22ICA. Acoustical Society of America, 050010.
Bruell A (2021) Global ad spending expected to rebound faster than previously forecast. The Wall Street
Journal, 14 June 2021. Available at: https://www.wsj.com/articles/global-ad-spending-expected-to-
rebound-faster-than-previously-forecast-11623666600 (accessed 21 January 2022).
18 EPE: Nature and Space 0(0)

Buchmann I (2017) BU-802 What Causes Capacity Loss. Available at: https://batteryuniversity.com/learn/
article/capacity_loss (accessed 11 November 2021).
Büscher B (2021) The nonhuman turn: Critical reflections on alienation, entanglement and nature under cap-
italism. Dialogues in Human Geography 20438206211026200. 1–20.
Calatayud P and Mohkam K (2018) Material Footprint: an indicator reflecting actual consumption of raw mate-
rials. https://www.statistiques.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/2018-10/datalab-essentiel-
142-empreinte-matiere-eng-avril2018b.pdf (accessed 11 November 2021).
Campbell M (2017) Apple to adopt speedy LCP circuit board tech across major product lines
in 2018. Available at: https://appleinsider.com/articles/17/12/02/apple-to-adopt-speedy-lcp-circuit-board-
tech-across-major-product-lines-in-2018 (accessed 11 November 2021).
Caraway BR (2018) Literal media ecology: Crisis in the conditions of production. Television & New Media 19:
486–503.
Chakrabarty D (2009) The climate of history: Four theses. Critical Inquiry 35: 197–222.
Chandy RK, Tellis GJ, Macinnis DJ, et al. (2001) What to say when: Advertising appeals in evolving markets.
Journal of Marketing Research 38: 399–414.
Coghlan B, Brennan RJ, Ngoy P, et al. (2007) Mortality in the Democratic Republic of Congo: A nationwide
survey. The Lancet 367: 44–51.
Cook I (2004) Follow the thing: Papaya. Antipode 36(4): 642–664.
Couldry N and Mejias UA (2019) The Costs of Connection: How Data is Colonizing Human Life and
Appropriating it for Capitalism. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Crary J (2013) 24/7: Late Capitalism and the Ends of Sleep. London and New York: Verso.
Crawford A (2016) Meet Dorsen, 8, who Mines Cobalt to make your Smartphone Work. Available at:
https://news.sky.com/story/meet-dorsen-8-who-mines-cobalt-to-make-your-smartphone-work-10784120
(accessed 11 November 2021).
Crutzen P and Stoermer E (2000) The ‘Anthropocene’. Global Change Newsletter 41: 17–18. International
Geosphere–Biosphere Programme (IGBP).
Cubitt S (2015) Integral waste. Theory, Culture & Society 32(4): 133–145.
Cubitt S (2016) Finite Media: Environmental Implications of Digital Technologies. Durham: Duke University Press.
Dans E (2019) Apple’s AirPods Are Great; They Are Also A Powerful Symbol of Our Unsustainable
Economy. Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/enriquedans/2019/12/17/apples-airpods-are-great-
they-are-also-a-powerful-symbol-of-our-unsustainable-economy/ (accessed 11 November 2021).
Davidson G. (2017) AirPods: The Next Step in Headphones. Van Helostein.
Davis J-M, Akese G and Garb Y (2019) Beyond the pollution haven hypothesis: Where and why do e-waste
hubs emerge and what does this mean for policies and interventions? Geoforum; Journal of Physical,
Human, and Regional Geosciences 98: 36–45.
Deleuze G and Guattari F (1987) A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Dempsey P (2019) The teardown: Apple AirPod. Engineering & Technology 14(5): 82–83.
Devine K (2015) Decomposed: A political ecology of music. Popular Music 34(3): 367–389.
Dorninger C, Hornborg A, Abson DJ, et al. (2021) Global patterns of ecologically unequal exchange:
Implications for sustainability in the 21st century. Ecological Economics 179: 106824.
European Commission (2020) A New Circular Economy Action Plan: For a cleaner and more competitive Europe.
Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0098&from=EN
(accessed 11 November 2021).
Farrelly T, Taffel S and Shaw I (2021) Plastic Legacies: Pollution, Persistence and Politics. Edmonton:
University of Athabasca Press.
Forti V, Balde CP, Kuehr R, et al. (2020) The Global E-waste Monitor 2020: Quantities, flows and the circular
economy potential. Available at: https://collections.unu.edu/eserv/UNU:7737/GEM_2020_def_july1.pdf
(accessed 21 January 2022).
Foster JB (2016) Marxism in the Anthropocene: Dialectical rifts on the left. International Critical Thought
6(3): 393–421.
Taffel 19

Foster JB, Clark B and York R (2010) Capitalism and the curse of energy efficiency. Monthly Review 62(6): 1–12.
Foster JB, Clark B and York R (2011) The Ecological Rift: Capitalism’s war on the Earth. New York: Monthly
Review Press.
Foth M, Mann M, Bedford L, et al. (2020) A capitalocentric review of technology for sustainable development:
The Case for more-than-human design. Global Information Society Watch, Available at: https://giswatch.
org/node/6216 (accessed 11 November 2021).
Franck G (1999) The Economy of Attention–Decline of Material Wealth. Telepolis: Heise Medien Gruppe.
Available at: http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/5/5567/1.html (accessed 11 November 2021).
Gabrys J (2011) Digital Rubbish: A Natural History of Electronics. Minnesota: University of Michigan Press.
Gabrys J, Hawkins G and Michael M (2013) Accumulation: The Material Politics of Plastic. London and New
York: Routledge.
Gilmore JN (2019) Design for everyone: Apple AirPods and the mediation of accessibility. Critical Studies in
Media Communication 36(5): 482–494.
Givens JE, Huang X and Jorgenson AK (2019) Ecologically unequal exchange: A theory of global environ-
mental injustice. Sociology Compass 13(5): e12693.
Guattari F (2008) The Three Ecologies. London: Continuum.
Guiltinan J (2009) Creative destruction and destructive creations: Environmental ethics and planned obsoles-
cence. Journal of Business Ethics 89(1): 19–28.
Guo P, Xu X, Huang B, et al. (2014) Blood lead levels and associated factors among children in Guiyu of
China: A population-based study. PLoS ONE 9(8). 1–9.
Harvey D (2005) A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Haskins C (2019) AirPods Are a Tragedy. Available at: https://www.vice.com/en/article/neaz3d/airpods-are-a-
tragedy (accessed 11 November 2021).
Hertz G and Parikka J (2012) Zombie media: Circuit bending media archaeology into an art method. Leonardo
45(5): 424–430.
Hickel J (2020) Less is More: How Degrowth Will Save the World. London: Random House.
Hickel J and Kallis G (2019) Is green growth possible? New Political Economy 1–18.
Hornborg A (2015) The political ecology of the Technocene. In: Hamilton C, Bonneuil C and Gemenne F
(eds) The Anthropocene and the Global Environmental Crisis: Rethinking Modernity in a New Epoch.
London and New York: Routledge. 177–183.
Hornborg A (2016) Global Magic: Technologies of Appropriation from Ancient Rome to Wall Street. Springer.
Hornborg A and Martinez-Alier J (2016) Ecologically unequal exchange and ecological debt. Journal of
Political Ecology 23(1): 328–333.
Houston L and Jackson SJ (2016) Caring for the ‘next billion’ mobile handsets: Opening proprietary closures
through the work of repair. In: Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Information and
Communication Technologies and Development, 1–11.
Hui Y (2021) Problems of digital temporality in the digital epoch. In: Volmar A and Stine K (eds) Media
Infrastructures and the Politics of Digital Time. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. 77–88.
Hunn N (2016) And Then There Were AirPods: The Market for Hearable Devices 2016–2020. https://www.
nickhunn.com/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2016/11/The-Market-for-Hearable-Devices-2016-2020.pdf
(accessed 11 November 2021).
iFixit (2016) AirPods Teardown. Available at: https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/AirPods+Teardown/75578
(accessed 11 November 2021).
iFixit (2019a) AirPods 2 Teardown. Available at: https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/AirPods+2+Teardown/121471
(accessed 11 November 2021).
iFixit (2019b) AirPods Pro Teardown. Available at: https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/AirPods+Pro
+Teardown/127551 (accessed 11 November 2021).
iFixit (2020) Samsung Galaxy Buds Live Teardown. Available at: https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Samsung
+Galaxy+Buds+Live+Teardown/135908 (accessed 11 November 2021).
iFixit (2021) AirPods3 vs. Beats Fit Pro Teardown. Available at: https://www.ifixit.com/News/55507/airpods-
3-vs-beats-fit-pro-teardown (accessed 11 November 2021).
20 EPE: Nature and Space 0(0)

Inc. A. (2020) Q4 FY19 Consolidated Financial Statements. Available at: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/

pdfs/Q4%20FY19%20Consolidated%20Financial%20Statements.pdf (accessed 11 November 2021).
Jambeck JR, Geyer R, Wilcox C, et al. (2015) Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean. Science
(New York, N.Y.) 347(6223): 768.
Jhally S (2000) Advertising as religion: The dialectic of technology and magic. Advertising & Society Review
1(1).
Jorgenson AK and Clark B (2014) The economy, military, and ecologically unequal exchange relationships in
comparative perspective: A panel study of the ecological footprints of nations, 1975–2000. Social
Problems 56(4): 621–646.
Kan M (2021) Congressman Introduces Federal ‘Right to Repair’ Bill. Available at: https://www.pcmag.com/
news/congressman-introduces-federal-right-to-repair-bill (accessed 11 November 2021).
Kapoor R and Agarwal S (2017) Sustaining superior performance in business ecosystems: Evidence from
application software developers in the iOS and Android smartphone ecosystems. Organization Science
28(3): 531–551.
Khetriwal DS, Widmer R, Kuehr R, et al. (2011) One WEEE, many species: Lessons from the European
experience. Waste Management & Research 29(9): 954–962.
Kinsley S (2014) The matter of ‘virtual’geographies. Progress in Human Geography 38(3): 364–384.
Kitchin R and Fraser A (2020) Slow Computing: Why we Need Balanced Digital Lives. Bristol: Bristol
University Press.
Klinger JM (2017) Rare Earth Frontiers. Ithaca, London: Cornell University Press.
Kostakis V, Roos A and Bauwens M (2016) Towards a political ecology of the digital economy:
Socio-environmental implications of two competing value models. Environmental Innovation and
Societal Transitions 18: 82–100.
LaDou J (2006) Printed circuit board industry. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health
209(3): 211–219.
Latour B (2004) Politics of Nature : How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press.
Latour B, Stengers I, Tsing A, et al. (2018) Anthropologists are talking–about capitalism, ecology, and apoca-
lypse. Ethnos 83(3): 587–606.
Lee L (2020) True Wireless Hearables Market Beats Expectations in 2019 with Apple to Continue Dominating
in 2020. Available at: https://www.counterpointresearch.com/true-wireless-hearables-market-beats-
expectations-2019-apple-continue-dominating-2020/ (accessed 11 November 2021).
Leigh-Star S (1999) The ethnography of infrastructure. American Behavioral Scientist 43: 377–391.
Lepawsky J (2018) Reassembling Rubbish: Worlding Electronic Waste. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Liu Q, Cao J, Li KQ, et al. (2009) Chromosomal aberrations and DNA damage in human populations exposed
to the processing of electronics waste. Environmental science and pollution research 16(3): 329–338.
London B (1932) Ending the Depression through Planned Obsolescence. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.
org/w/index.php?title=File:London_(1932)_Ending_the_depression_through_planned_obsolescence.pdf
(accessed 11 November 2021).
Macintosh A, Simpson A, Neeman T, et al. (2020) Plastic bag bans: Lessons from the Australian capital ter-
ritory. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 154: 104638.
Mackenzie A (2010) Wirelessness: Radical Empiricism in Network Cultures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
McNeill JR and Engelke P (2014) The Great Acceleration: An Environmental History of the Anthropocene
Since 1945. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.
Malm A (2015) The Anthropocene Myth. Jacobin. Available at: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/03/
anthropocene-capitalism-climate-change/ (accessed 11 November 2021).
Malm A and Hornborg A (2014) The geology of mankind? A critique of the Anthropocene narrative. The
Anthropocene Review 1(1): 62–69.
Mao G, Guo X, Kang R, et al. (2010) Prevalence of disability in an arsenic exposure area in Inner Mongolia,
China. Chemosphere 80(9): 978–981.
Marcus GE (1998) Ethnography through Thick and Thin. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Taffel 21

Marx K (1967) Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Vol. 1, New York: International Publishers.
Maxwell R and Miller T (2012) Greening the Media. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mezzadra S and Neilson B (2019) The Politics of Operations: Excavating Contemporary Capitalism. Durham
and London: Duke University Press.
Moore JW (2015) Capitalism in the Web of Life: Ecology and the Accumulation of Capital. New York and
London: Verso Books.
Moore JW (2016) Anthropocene or Capitalocene?: Nature, History, and the Crisis of Capitalism. USA: Pm
Press.
NASA (2012) Rare Eath in Bayan Obo. Available at: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=
77723 (accessed 11 November 2021).
Nasdaq (2021) Apple In. Common Stock (AAPL). Available at: https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/
stocks/aapl (accessed 15 July 2021).
Nest M (2011) Coltan. Cambridge: Polity.
Niarchos N (2021) The Dark Side of Congo’s Cobalt Rush. The New Yorker. May 2021. Available at: https://
www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/05/31/the-dark-side-of-congos-cobalt-rush (accessed 11 November
2021).
Nixon R (2011) Slow Violence and the Environmentalism of the Poor. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Oxfam (2020) Confronting carbon inequality: putting climate justice at the heart of the COVID-19 recovery.
Available at: https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10546/621052/mb-confronting-
carbon-inequality-210920-en.pdf (accessed 11 November 2021).
Padilla AJ (2017) Tantalum. USGS 2017 Minerals Yearbook. Available at: https://prd-wret.s3.us-west-2.
amazonaws.com/assets/palladium/production/atoms/files/myb1-2017-niobi.pdf (accessed 11 November
2021).
Parikka J (2012) New materialism as media theory: Medianatures and dirty matter. Communication and
Critical/Cultural Studies 9(1): 95–100.
Parikka J (2015) A Geology of Media. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Parks L and Starosielski N (2015) Signal Traffic: Critical Studies of Media Infrastructures. Chicago:
University of Illinois Press.
Patel R and Moore JW (2017) A History of the World in Seven Cheap Things: A Guide to Capitalism, Nature,
and the Future of the Planet. New York: Verso.
Pothen F and Schymura M (2015) Bigger cakes with fewer ingredients? A comparison of material use of the
world economy. Ecological Economics 109: 109–121.
Qiu JL (2017) Goodbye iSlave: A Manifesto for Digital Abolition. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Qiu Y, Gopal A and Hann I-H (2017) Logic pluralism in mobile platform ecosystems: A study of indie app
developers on the iOS app store. Information Systems Research 28(2): 225–249.
Reisinger D. (2019) Apple’s AirPods Business Is Bigger Than You Think. Available at: https://fortune.com/
2019/08/06/apple-airpods-business/ (accessed 11 November 2021).
Robbins P (2011) Political Ecology: A Critical introduction. Malden and Oxford: Blackwell.
Rochman CM (2015) The complex mixture, fate and toxicity of chemicals associated with plastic debris in the
marine environment. In: Bergmann M, Gutow L and Klages M (eds) Marine Anthropogenic Litter. Cham:
Springer International Publishing, pp.117–140.
Sanderson H (2019) Congo, child labour and your electric car. Financial Times, July 7 2019. Available at:
https://www.ft.com/content/c6909812-9ce4-11e9-9c06-a4640c9feebb (accessed 11 November 2021).
Savov V and Kim S (2020) Apple Losing Wireless Earbuds Market Share Even as AirPods Sales Grow.
Available at: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-27/apple-ceding-wireless-earbuds-market-
share-even-as-airpods-grow (accessed 11 November 2021)
Schobert H (2013) Chemistry of Fossil Fuels and Biofuels. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Selin H and VanDeveer SD (2006) Raising global standards: Hazardous substances and e-waste
management in the European Union. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development
48(10): 6–18.
22 EPE: Nature and Space 0(0)

Sharma S (2014) In the Meantime: Temporality and Cultural Politics. Durham and London: Duke University
Press.
Starosielski N (2015) The Undersea Network. Durham: Duke University Press.
Starosielski N (2016) Thermocultures of Geological Media. Cultural Politics 12(3): 293–309.
Steffen W, Crutzen PJ and McNeill JR (2007) The Anthropocene: Are humans now overwhelming the great
forces of nature. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 36(8): 614–621.
Steffen W, Broadgate W, Deutsch L, et al. (2015) The trajectory of the Anthropocene: The great acceleration.
The Anthropocene Review: 81–98. DOI: 10.1177/2053019614564785.
Stiegler B (2017) Automatic Society: The Future of Work. Cambridge and Malden: Polity.
Taffel S (2016) Invisible bodies and forgotten spaces: Materiality, toxicity, and labour in digital ecologies.
Security, Race, Biopower Edited by Randell-Moon, H. and Tippet, R. 121–141. London: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Taffel S (2019) Digital Media Ecologies. New York and London: Bloomsbury.
Taffel S (2021) Data and oil: Metaphor, materiality and metabolic rifts. New Media & Society, June 2021. 1–19
Thompson RC, Olsen Y, Mitchell RP, et al. (2004) Lost at sea: Where is all the plastic? Science (New York,
N.Y.) 304: 838–838.
Thompson RC, Swan SH, Moore CJ, et al. (2009) Our plastic age. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society of London B: Biological Sciences 364(1526): 1973–1976.
Traynor R (2017) Headphones: they have come a long way, baby!. Canadian Audiologist 4(1) Available at:
https://canadianaudiologist.ca/issue/volume-4-issue-1-2017/column/stories-from-our-past/ (accessed 21
January 2022).
Van Gosen BS, Verplanck PL, Seal RRII, et al. (2017) Rare-Earth Elements. US Geological Survey. Available
at: https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/1802/o/pp1802o.pdf (accessed 11 November 2021).
Vince B (2018) The World in a Grain: The Story of Sand and How It Transformed Civilization. New York:
Riverhead Books.
Vinsel L and Russell AL (2020) The Innovation Delusion: How Our Obsession with the New has Disrupted the
Work That Matters Most. New York: Currency.
Vonk L (2018) Paying attention to waste: Apple’s circular economy. Continuum 32(6): 745–757.
Walther C (2012) In DR Congo, UNICEF supports efforts to help child labourers return to school. Available
at: https://www.unicef.org/childsurvival/drcongo_62627.html (accessed 11 November 2021).
Weiser M (1991) The computer for the 21st century. Scientific American 265(3): 94–104.
White DF, Gareau BJ and Rudy AP (2017) Ecosocialisms, past, present and future: From the metabolic rift to a
reconstructive, dynamic and hybrid ecosocialism. Capitalism Nature Socialism 28(2): 22–40.
Williams R (1980) Advertising: The magic system. In: Problems in Materialism and Culture. London: Verso,
pp.170–195.
Woolfe N (2019) Apple’s AirPods changed everything. They gave the company near-monopolistic power over
users. NBC News. Available at: https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/apple-s-airpods-changed-
everything-they-gave-company-near-monopolistic-ncna1055656 (accessed 11 November 2021).
Zalasiewicz J, Williams M, Waters CN, et al. (2014) The technofossil record of humans. The Anthropocene
Review 1(1): 34–43.
Zalasiewicz J, Waters CN, Summerhayes CP, et al. (2017) The working group on the Anthropocene: summary
of evidence and interim recommendations. Anthropocene 19: 55–60.
Zeng X, Xu X, Boezen HM, et al. (2017) Decreased lung function with mediation of blood parameters linked
to e-waste lead and cadmium exposure in preschool children. Environmental Pollution 230: 838–848.
Zhang B, He Y, Zhu H, et al. (2020) Concentrations of bisphenol A and its alternatives in paired maternal–fetal
urine, serum and amniotic fluid from an e-waste dismantling area in China. Environment International 136:
105407.