I'm not so sure about this comparison even. There are multiple factors at play that you're just assuming, that the $500 leather boots are going to be worn for 1

I'm not so sure about this comparison even. There are multiple factors at play that you're just assuming, that the $500 leather boots are going to be worn for 10 years to be equivalent to the crocs, but I'm not sure that's the norm. Excluding those who have the means easily for $500 leather boots, who likely will just buy more of them to rotate (thus creating waste). Surely someone who spends $500 on leather boots is also going to care about their status, and therefore might get them repaired far more often. These repairs, while likely less wasteful than full-on recycling, have costs attributed to them. It costs to produce the goods required to repair. These goods often aren't super sustainable products either. With these factors in mind, is the comparison equal? Can we absolutely stand by the idea that paying for $500 leather boots will be better for the environment and you for 10 years? Which is why when making these comparisons we should really get into the nitty gritty details, otherwise we're just handwaving a bunch of things and making assumptions to justify our position. By doing so, we'll be able to make better choices with proper information rather than shifting the burden of environmental impact elsewhere (to a repair shop or shoe makers, etc). Note, this is not a defense of crocs vs leather boots. The product categories are just throwaway examples.