I already acknowledge that. My point is being expensive doesn’t make people dispose any less. If they are not useful they don’t get reused repurposed or recycled.
Given thd volume and unprofitability we can only find ways to process them to get rid of them. Those things which have value will be recycled, etc.
>My point is being expensive doesn’t make people dispose any less.
Factually wrong. If I can now afford 1 unit instead of the 2 I used to per month, I will discard the packaging of 1.
If prices of goods packaged in shitty packaging rises enough, people will opt for other options. This isn't a fantastical idea, it's what has happened historically. See for example what happened every time in every country that decided to force buyers to pay for plastic bags.
You're still thinking in terms of the whole imprecise game of trying to get, induce, tempt, cajole, lecture, nag, incentivize and/or shame people ("end users") into voluntarily contributing some of the time/energy/cost it takes to recycle. What they're suggesting at least with the WEEE thing (lost opportunity to make it say WEEED dudebro! ahem where was I) is that they forcibly take, from the producer of the item, some portion of the costs of recycling, and then downstream use that money... to do the recycling. Which seems a lot more direct and obvious, but maybe I misunderstood that part.
Given thd volume and unprofitability we can only find ways to process them to get rid of them. Those things which have value will be recycled, etc.