In an evolved society anyone would understand the involved risk in to create environment toxicity, as the quality of air or the nutrients that every individual needs are related with it without mere doubt. The planet is a living entity, so a nuclear plant that releases radioactivity thousand kilometers away sooner or later will be affecting everyone increasing the probability to experience health issues. So it's more than naive when someone thinks that the incorrect actions in other places aren't relevant. An example appears when in some places of Africa they burn incredible quantities of e-waste that other countries send there.
Where does the e-waste come? Well, you could easily guess.
Because it's a reality that some companies (or say if you prefer the people behind them) prefer being worried about releasing products fast and cheap (maybe for their side mainly) without planning methodologies to create a closed loop of materials to ensure that no toxicity would be created for these actions.
At the consumer side sometimes there's no interest on increasing the lifetime of products because other ones, perhaps well planned to suggest it, look like a better substitution. It could be simply an error, and the first idea should be to buy quality for lasting a lifetime and repair or update it.
Because one of the main aspects to remember here is: to update a product, it's not necessary to waste the other components. If you have a modular system —or with other words if anyone creates it— any component would be independent of others. For instance a TV could have power supply module, screen controller, screen, armature, user interface (buttons mainly) or others.
Of course if a company sells another big TV, the price would be higher. Well, right now it could be true, but with another market and another ideas, this is not mandatory at all.
The problem is how the system was conceived, an unsustainable disaster worse every day that needs to change as fast as possible with awareness and new methods from multiple corners.