Yes but the parent is not stating that. They are stating that a "save the environment" effort is not very environmentally friendly if it makes more waste.
Saving the environment by reducing actively, acutely hazardous materials and saving the environment via reducing landfill/carbon emissions are completely different goals.
As others have pointed out in this thread, reducing landfill waste from electronics is a much more complex problem and just adding leaded solder will not solve it.
That assumes waste reduction is the goal, rather than lead reduction. With toxic, intelligence reducing [1], materials like lead, maybe some extra waste is a perfectly good trade off.
Last i checked tin was not an edible material. There is a small difference between having tin dust, which you cannot contain, and having electronics containing lead which you can colect and store in a warehouse ( asuming you want to address the problem in the first place).
They are assuming that these devices would be used long enough for tin whiskers to become a problem. I seriously doubt that RoHS will be causing more waste - because at the point that devices become unusuable, they are on in the trash anyways for completely unrelated reasons (think: bezel to large to be popular, plastic backshell instead of metal or glass, device is too thick, device is too heavy, ...).
Uhm, that is exactly the point that I'm making? That the goal was never save the environment, but rather reduce the exposure to toxic-at-any-concentration things like lead?
Devices are disposed of (becomes waste) long before they become broken from whiskers. That makes RoHS a net-win by reducing toxic materials from landfills full of phones with broken screens and kitschy doodads with broken plastic.
As others have pointed out in this thread, reducing landfill waste from electronics is a much more complex problem and just adding leaded solder will not solve it.