[lorenzsell]

I’m not sure your point about the fully burdened real economic and environmental cost being higher than the repair cost makes sense.

First, you’re assuming a world of infinite resources where production and disposal have no burden beyond their direct consumer cost which is simply not the case. Common consumer goods have massive externalized costs that are not reflected in the final price tag.

And second, the idea that I can offset environmentally detrimental choices by volunteering elsewhere also assumes that we live in a world where those original choices don’t compound.

[improbable22]

No, I don't think fanzhang's point assumes infinite anything.

To give a more concrete example than GP's repair of an LCD, let's think about repainting a car. Doing this in your back yard like your grandfather might have done it certainly has much higher environmental costs than the original paint job. You'll spill paint-stripper on the grass. You'll buy two tins of paint and throw the leftovers away when you move house. You won't have the factory's precisely monitored spraying, and air filtration.

Of course the point of repairing is that it saves all the other parts (like the engine!) so the balance may well be positive. But we should not assume that any options are zero-cost.

[zeth___]

They are assuming that prices reflect the costs of the products. Externalities however are completely mispriced, so comparing the monetary value of buying new vs repairing is very misleading.