You need to offer an incentive (ie: discount on new vape if you recycle) and then, from my experience, most people will recycle.
Here in NY as a cannabis user, one of the brands available that offers vapes (Fernway) offers a recycling program at dispensaries. I get 10% back off my next vape/cart if I return the old one to the recycling dropbox. My dispensary also keeps how many I've returned on file if I return extras, so I keep a 'balance' of disposables returned for the discounts.
Such restrictions seem to purposefully target poor people, and I have rather strong ethical objections to them (something about making a problem invisible and hoping it'll go away - or starve out), but the effect goes beyond that. Getting $20 back on a $200 product would be a different story, but here, it's more like $2 on $20, or $0.2 on $2; most people aren't going to bother with that (and understandably so: it's not worth the logistics overhead). So at best, all this does is redirect money stream from poor people to recycling companies. More typically, it just makes people recycle less.
Edit: I'm actually curious l, i don't know how recycling supposed to work for electronics and how it can be a scam.
I wouldn’t really call that recycling.
But yes, not proper recycling.
Metals, especially aluminum, get widely recycled because it actually makes financial sense.
Plastics, well, you are probably better off burning them for electricity.
I won't speculate about whether the plastic on the board is recyclable, or ecological to recycle. I don't know. This is what I'm asking.
The fundamental problem with "recycling" is precisely the fact that we just hand it off and don't ask questions about where it ends up, all while feeling great about ourselves afterwards. Bestbuy and Staples are offering accountability laundering so that you don't have to feel bad and in exchange are more likely to become a customer. The 3rd parties working for them do the same thing, but they usually want cash for it.
This sentiment is the case because very often that's where recycling ultimately ends, we just pay someone to move it far away from us so we don't have to see it when it happens.
Until 2018, when they finally stopped accepting it, one of the US largest exports to China was cardboard boxes sent over for "recycling". We burned tons of bunker fuel shipping back the boxes Chinese goods arrived in. The net environmental impact would likely have been less had we just kept the boxes at home.
It's strange to me how often people prefer a widely acknowledged lie than to simply admit the truth.
I always recycle though because the recycle bin in my city is larger than my trash bin, and I don't have enough room in my trash bin sometimes.
(The above is not so much about processors, but about plastics. As long as we are still burning any fossil fuels at all, we are probably better off holding off on recycling and instead burning the plastic for electricity to use ever so slightly less new fossil fuels for power, and instead use the virgin fossil fuels to make new plastics.
Especially considering the extra logistics and quality degradation that recycling entails.
Directly re-using plastic bottles a few times might still be worth it, though.)
The World has limited resources, we don't have a spare.
Do you need it spelling out more clearly?
Also, if you go for measures like mass processed, the weight of microchips, pcbs, parts is only a tiny fraction of what has to be processed and build in the supply chain.
Agreed that it is smarter to use oil for plastics then to burn it directly.
My argument is that as long as we are still burning oil and gas, we might as well burn old plastic instead of new oil and gas.
If/when we stop burning oil and gas, then we can think more seriously about recycling plastic.
1) Plastic is not liquid, so you can't pipe it to a gas or oil power plant. You may argue that coal isn't liquid either, but continue reading...
2) Burning plastic generates toxic fumes.
3) Plastic ash is sticky and very difficult to clean.
It's a fascinating topic. There's even more problems than the ones you bring up, but engineers are also pretty smart.
The world has effectively infinite resources, getting more is usually just a matter of figuring out better extraction techniques or using better energy.
Sure, like effectively infinite atmospheric carbon sink, effectively infinite Helium, effectively infinite fresh water, effectively infinite trees ... we've treated these things as true, because the World is big and population of humans wasn't so big we've got away with that for a time, now those presumptions are coming to bite us, hard.
Yes, we can work our way out of some holes, maybe all of them. But we have to make things sustainable first, then spend those resources. We're not wizards, deus ex machina only reliably happens in movies.
A little Malthusian.
For example at 1% energy growth per year it would only take around 9-10k years before to reach an annual consumption equal to all the energy in the Milky Way galaxy. By "all the energy" I don't just mean consuming all the solar energy from all the stars, and using all the fissionable material in reactors, and fusing everything that can fuse, and burning all the burnable stuff. No, I mean also using all the gravitational potential energy in the galaxy, and somehow turning everything that has mass into energy according to E=mc^2.
From there at 1% annual growth it is only another 2-3k years to using all the energy in the whole observable universe annually.
Population at 1% growth also gets out of hand surprisingly quickly. If we don't get FTL travel then in about 12k years we run out space. That's because in 12k years with no FTL we can only expand into a spherical region of space 12k lightyears in radius. At 1% annual growth from the current population in 12k years the volume of humans would be more than fits in the sphere--and that's assuming we can pack humans so there is no wasted space.
We actually have population growth under 1% now, down to around 0.85%, but that only gets us another 2-3k years.
We are very far from that.
Directly reusing plastic bottles that were not meant to be is bad for your health though, isn't it?
If you just opened it and drank the drink in it, there's probably no harm in filling it soon after and using it a few times like that. Using that same disposable bottle for a few months is probably not a good idea.
The problem here is the item lasts 'long enough' that they can't, a single battery, unless it were very large would drain charge first.
But that brings in the second issue of the device not being refillable, which may be the bigger sin.