Their FAQ is pretty clear that they actually replace the batteries somehow. I'm glad someone figured out how to do that, but I agree with you that the airpod batteries (like the batteries in everything else) should have been replaceable in the first place.
1. Every new product designed should have a cost associated to it for proper disposal. Thus total cost of ownership is a "green cost" which is not just acquisition but also proper disposal.
2. Another option is to put burden of mandatory proper recycling back on the original manufacturer of the product using the same supply-chain that is used for sales. Thus consumers should be able to drop electronics at retail store -> supplier -> manufacturer, eventually leading to proper disposal.
3. Incentives from government and/or from culture for manufacturers whose products support R2R (Right to Repair). Thus encouraging reuse and refurb market.
4. Certify for and incentivize towards extending Total life of equipment. e.g. low-durability electronics carry a low-durability tax.
Which isn't that bad. The oil came from under ground. Stick it back there and its not too bad. The real problem is when it ends up in rivers and oceans.
> Which isn't that bad. The oil came from under ground. Stick it back there and its not too bad.
I’m curious what you based this on?
Did you fall victim to ultracrepidarianism / the fallacy of transferable expertise [1]?
” The millions of tons of plastic swirling around the world’s oceans have garnered a lot of media attention recently. But plastic pollution arguably poses a bigger threat to the plants and animals – including humans – who are based on land.
Very little of the plastic we discard every day is recycled or incinerated in waste-to-energy facilities. Much of it ends up in landfills, where it may take up to 1,000 years to decompose, leaching potentially toxic substances into the soil and water.
Researchers in Germany are warning that the impact of microplastics in soils, sediments and freshwater could have a long-term negative effect on such ecosystems. They say terrestrial microplastic pollution is much higher than marine microplastic pollution – estimated at four to 23 times higher, depending on the environment.” [2]
Sticking something back into the ground in a safe way is non-trivial. That is to say, expensive - more expensive than waste-management companies in developing countries care to pay. Among other things, you need to make sure it won't be broken down by UV radiation from the Sun, weathered by wind and washed into the rivers, and that nothing leaks out and reaches the water table.
> Sticking something back into the ground in a safe way is non-trivial. That is to say, expensive - more expensive than waste-management companies in developing countries care to pay
You do realize the waste is created by global north capitalists (and consumed by global north capitalists and the working class), right? So why mention that it is expensive for global south countries ('developing countries'), as if it's ok that the burden of our waste is on them?
In other words the global south countries have to deal with their own waste, as well as being used as trash dump by the global north capitalists. And if they are creating a lot of waste, it's because they buy planned obsolescent black box products from global north companies (companies who 'kicked away the ladder' in the first place [1] [2]).
> So why mention that it is expensive for global south countries ('developing countries'), as if the burden is on them?
Wait, that's totally not what I wanted to say.
I mention it is expensive for companies there - companies operating there (including multinational), and companies shipping there. So they just don't do it, period. That they can get away with it is the very reason waste goes there, instead of staying in the West.
Of course I'm not blaming the developing countries: I'm blaming the companies of "global north capitalism" for exploiting the communities that can't afford to reject a deal that's ultimately bad from them. The problem is that the waste can be exported like this in the first place.
> I mention it is expensive for companies there - companies operating there (including multinational), and companies shipping there.
> I'm blaming the companies of "global north capitalism" for exploiting the communities that can't afford to reject a deal that's ultimately bad from them.
Got it, thanks for clarifying what you meant.
> The problem is that the waste can be exported like this in the first place.
Yes, I 100% agree with you.
>> waste-management companies in developing countries
That threw me off because in my experience often a service like this is taken care of by governments/local municipalities. So now I understand that you are talking about corporate entities managing waste.
My understanding from that video is that there's a network of companies involved - some on the export side, and some on the import side. Some of the latter are purely local operations - like the people operating the dump in that documentary.
In cases like that video, I find it hard to blame the locals: it's not like they have a more reasonable alternative to make money. But that's not always the case when it comes to waste management. For example, Poland is infamous for having illegal toxic waste dumps. Some local companies offer importing and properly disposing of the waste, but in reality they just bury it in the ground. For these people I wish long jail sentences, because we do have alternatives in this country; our economy does not necessitate for people to create environmental disasters (which then cost the taxpayer much more when discovered, as government then has to clean it up).
