[notacoward]

That response seems a bit too dismissive when the entire OP is about how recycling capacity/capability for these items is sorely lacking. Many things that are much easier to recycle, for which the technology to do so already exists, are in fact not recycled because it's not economically viable. Why would it be any easier for items full of volatile and/or toxic components? Responses which amount to "magic it away" without even addressing the question of how to solve or avoid the various technological and economic problems are incurious and non-constructive.

[Workaccount2]

I don't think anyone has to argue any of those things when the alternative is to keep pumping carbon into the atmosphere.

The building is burning and people are trying to pump the brakes to discuss the most efficient and clean way to put out the fire. I don't care if it turns all your (and my) papers to mush, we need to be spraying water everywhere immediately.

[notacoward]

Of course we should put out the fire, but does that mean we should just ignore the mess that's left behind? If I were as given to constructing strawmen as you seem to be, I'd put those words in your mouth, but that wouldn't be constructive. As we've learned from decades of chemical-factory fires (or WTC if you need a more specific example), the aftermath can present interesting problems in its own right.

The OP is not about foregoing use of these batteries. It's about taking the next step forward, and how we still don't have a sufficient answer for what that step should be. Try to keep up. It's a topic that deserves more than a hand-wave.