I was taught about externalities during my econ undergrad and thought it was a sensible idea -- when considering a decision, the full context should be taken into account, including the consequences that aren't borne by the decision maker and we should be explicit that we are trying to maximize human flourishing. Yet I found that discussion of externalities seemed biased to only focus on the negative consequences, instead of taking into account both the positives and negatives.

For example, as a negative externality, the health consequences of managing e-waste are potentially serious. Electronics with shorter useful life might create more e-waste than those with a longer life.

At the same time, a positive externality of less expensive goods is increased demand for other, higher value goods and services - which might allow those managing e-waste to move into other fields of work and create an incentive to increase safety/automation/productivity for the remaining e-waste workers.

I know very little about e-waste and am not qualified to take a position. I am simply saying that it would be incredibly valuable if the people who did take positions explained the full context of how they came to their view, including presenting the best arguments against their position with a clear explanation of why those arguments aren't persuasive.