I don't think this is in dispute, is it?
The point is that manufacturers must now consider this cost in their calculations, rather than pass all the consequences on to the consumer without caring.
> People do not necessarily want to repair a broken old device
If the old device still has value, then both can happen - I can get a new device, and pass my old device on for repair and re-use.
If this was the goal, then simply taxing fossil fuels and other polluting sources would be the ideal and simple solution. How high would the taxes need to be? However high it takes to get pollution levels down to where they need to be. The actual cost of a new item would be properly reflected in the price, and therefore incentivize the purchasing of reusable and repairable items, which would incentivize manufacturers making reusable and repairable items.
Of course, that would bring the world’s economy to a half, as governments’ expectations and calculations are assumed on continuously increasing consumption.
Manufacturers already pay $ proportional to the amount of fossil fuels spent, and this doesn't cause them to consider future consequences on the consumer. They still think vendor lock-in and planned obsolescence are to their advantage.
If the true cost of pollution were pushed into the sale price for end users, end users would have to reduce their purchases of non repairable items, and consumers would then value repairability as a feature, incentivizing manufacturers to cater to that.
It's much easier to force the change this way than through figuring out the correct wording in legislation, which is bound to have loopholes and be subject to costly (time wise) legal conflicts.
The root of the issue is that things are so cheap, repairing them makes no sense, regardless of repair-ability. Manufacturers didn't one day decide to drop repair-ability. One did it, and found that they were not punished by consumers. In fact, they were probably rewarded by offering new "features". Then another manufacturer did it, then another, and so on. And obviously, it works. I just went to someone's house who was showing off their fancy new fridge with a see through door.
Of course, the very very root of the issue is humanity's excess consumption which is causing harm to the environment we live in, but as I wrote earlier, that faces insurmountable political headwinds.
So, I think for many classes of products right to repair makes sense, and should be implemented even if it raises the cost of buying a new device, since the boost in second-hand options will eventually be good for people who don't have so much money.
Recycling is good too, but not as good using a device longer since not all can be recycled, and the process typically requires energy.
Do you live in fanatsy land? they don't come with schematics, they don't come witj repair manuals, sale or replacement parts is pyrposefully restricted, firmware is locked, they are stuck together with glue and their mean time between failure is deacreasing. What else has to happen for you to accept the real world?
"I would rather they focus on ease of recycling."
Repair will always be easier than recycling because laws of physics. Plastic and electronics are basically unrecycleable, and extremely expensive to dispose of priperly?
People go "why don't they just make things simpler to repair?" like it was an obvious solution to problems (real or perceived) whereas the reality is obviously much more complex.
Appliances are already quite durable and repairable. Making things 'more repairable' can increase cost and resources needed. Cost of labour and parts can quickly render repairs uneconomical even if they would be perfectly doable. Some devices are so integrated (e.g. TVs these days) that the very concept of 'repair' is almost meaningless. People do not necessarily want to repair a broken old device because there are better new ones available.
These are all competing considerations and the issue is therefore complex.
I would rather they focus on ease of recycling. The EU legislation has some measures on recycling but gets too much diverted by this "right to repair", IMHO.