> The point is that people have different preferences, so the EU should not force people to buy phones with removable batteries.

There are many food additives with very useful properties, but health effects. There are many perfumes too where the original formulation had a particular compound layer found to be carcinogenic.

Regardless of whether an individual prefers to use such compounds at their own risk or not, large companies will use whatever is the cheapest ingredient for their product.

In some cases, that's better for the consumer - who, often, has almost zero choice.

(And if you think you truly have choice as a consumer, I challenge you to use a phone that isn't running either Apple or Google's code.)

I not sure how much we’re disagreeing here. Applying my argument of taxing externalities to certain food additives would result in taxes so high that it would effectively be a ban.

The externalities of integrated batteries are that people probably replace their phones sooner than otherwise, resulting in more electronic waste. But phones are only a tiny fraction of e-waste. Most e-waste is from household appliances, displays, & HVAC equipment. Phones are less 10%. I mean, how could it be otherwise? Phones are small and people use them for years before upgrading.

I’m not sure what the Android/iOS duopoly has to do with removable batteries. Mandating removable batteries would not change the operating systems available. And while there isn’t much choice in which OS you can run on a phone, there is enough choice that you can buy phones with removable batteries. If anything, this is an argument against mandating removable batteries, as governments are not mandating/subsidizing another phone OS despite far less choice in that area.

Lastly, I don’t see how banning people from having phones with integrated batteries gives them more choice. Most people (such as myself) don’t really care about removable batteries, and would rather have a phone that is smaller, cheaper, and/or more resistant to the elements. The way to give people the most choice is to tax externalities commensurate to the harm they cause, and let the market figure out what people actually value.

> (And if you think you truly have choice as a consumer, I challenge you to use a phone that isn't running either Apple or Google's code.)

Why doesn't this count as a choice? Was it more of a choice when Windows Phone was still around?