[invalidname]

I'm sure you know it but it has to be said that the "it uses renewable energy" argument is the dumbest argument ever. That means it takes renewable energy reserves away from something useful like replacing coal, gas etc. If we were already at 100% renewable energy then sure... but at this point in time it's just the dumbest argument ever.

[me_me_me]

Or maybe its creating demand on renewable that drives companies to invest more into renewable energy generation.

[belltaco]

That sounds a bit like saying "buying and dumping fresh food into landfills means it will encourage growing more fresh food".

[me_me_me]

Because it is.

That your market logic. The more demand the more incentivised production is. That's a spin on the famous example breaking windows, so later your business can set new glass panes.

In practical terms you are talking about planned obsolescence exactly the same thing. Companies make product so the last no more then X years, even though they could last way longer.

You are forced to buy a inferior product because all companies conspire not to produce longer lasting goods.

In your example its like buying an apple and being force to throw it away after one bite.

[ASalazarMX]

Except in this analogy apples are finite, and it becomes exponentially harder to grow the next apple.

But hey, at least we're incentivizing the farming industry!

[me_me_me]

> Except in this analogy apples are finite, and it becomes exponentially harder to grow the next apple.

Yes, I am somehow missing the point. Whats this counter argument about?

Oil is finite and becomes exponentially harder to extract/find.

[ajkdhcb2]

>it takes renewable energy reserves away from something useful

Not necessarily true because energy transport and storage can be a serious issue that makes other usages impractical. Bitcoin mining can be done at the energy source regardless of the location.