Modern shoes have a life in distance not time. Over mikes the foam compresses until it no longer supports. Running shoes are 300-500 miles of running. Hiking boots are 1000 miles. People tend to wear these types of shoes long after the synthetics in the sole have stopped doing it’s job.

Or a company like William Lennon who is based in the UK.

https://williamlennon.co.uk/product-category/boots/

There are plenty of boot makers in the UK and you should be able to get something in a style you like. Someone like William Lennon is still making boots the same way they always have but you will have to wait for them.

https://williamlennon.co.uk/product-category/boots

That's because you shouldn't. Running shoes are meant to last anywhere from 300-500 miles when running. After that the cushioning starts to break down. If you don't run in them they will likely last longer but they should still be replaced much more then most do.

You can get Thursday Captains that are still $200. But really best value is in old stock new boots. The problem is you need to know what to buy and every place is different. For example you can still get very high quality boots that are army surplus. I have paid $40 for boots that are as well made as a $300 boot but just as easily as there is good stuff there there is also garbage. And each country will have different options.

I personally either just go to surplus stores and look. But now that I know my sizing and what I am looking for I can order online on poshmark or grailed as things turn up there. Here is an example.

https://poshmark.ca/listing/Biltrite-Steel-Toe-Black-Leather-Boots-Size-6D-63d61cff0164d0208e760a50

This type of boot they stopped making in 2020 but I found brand new ones in my size at the end of last year to buy. This boot here is easily as well made as a Thursday and likely even better then that. This boot has a solid leather foot bed more like an iron ranger and those cost $350. Again there are lots of examples like this. The problem is knowing sizing if you are buying online.

So while I have more expensive boots the ones above are my go to and have been for almost 30 years. And I can buy almost 10 pairs of them for the price of a red wing iron ranger. And over the years I have.

https://imgur.com/a/2rpYN3l

That depends on what you are doing and for how long. Personally I wouldn't wear a pair of insulated boots unless I am onside in the cold for long periods of time. So my real winter/snow boots are insulated but none of the other boots I wear are. If I need to I will add a thick wool socks on colder days. But I am in Southern Ontario so I would likely only see temps down to -20 regularly. You said -30 so you might be spending more time outside where you need more insulation.

It is is worth it to figure out your sizing and then just buy online as they only sell through small retailers. You can find these for really good price on clearance. For example I got these for $140 CAD at the end of last year from here.

https://wilsontack.com/product/2811_moorbymnsboot/

They only have one size left and reduced it to $100 now. Considering an iron ranger costs $450 CAD that is a steal for a made in North America boot.

They do make insulated versions of some of their boots like the 2829 but those are men's. You can find Canada west boots for very cheap on clearance too so might want to try them with a pair of good wool socks as that might be enough depending on how much time you are spending outside in them.

My wife bought a pair of these a couple months ago and loves them but they have quite a few models to check out

https://wilsontack.com/product/ldsromeo_dirtybrown/

At full price they are a good deal but that price is stupid low. So even if something is not being made right now you can sometimes find it on clearance if you do a search online for it.

Don’t other people do this? I have 3 pairs of a particular boot I like in my closet that I have never worn. They stopped making the boot in 2000 so I wanted to make sure I had some pairs for when I needed them. They are surplus boots so the cost to do was almost noting and I have enough pairs of my go to boots to last me forever. So I can see buying a few of these, if you like them, and they are not being made anymore. After 30 years i know what I like so no reason not to get some backup of whatever it is you like.

Being barefoot doesn’t mean your feet are under load. So people are usually barefoot when at home or just hanging around. So minimal steps at minimal intensity. Our feet evolved to work with minimal covering so cushion does not need to be there. On the flip side cushion tends to allow for bad habits when walking and running as the cushion protects but long term those habits can be bad.

There are many ways to strengthen your feet. But the more time you can spend doing things with intensity in minimal shoes or barefoot can increase foot strength. So getting minimal running shoes and working out in them or running short distances in them and slowly increasing it. But i really think foot health is neglected. I largely wear nothing with cushion and spend much of my days on my feet at 47. Also am a runner and do that in minimal shoes with little to no foot pain. I wouldn’t do a marathon in them but I routinely do 10-15kms at a time in them without issue or foot pain.

That’s because you need to strengthen your feet. We tend to over cushion our feet and that leads to issues. Add in age, excess weight and our feet take a beating. Cushion is great but it can lead to bad habits in stride that can create further issues. Runners see this when they try and transition to minimal running shoes and the figure out the heel striking they do with a big cushioned shoe they can’t do with in a minimal one. So it changes the way you stride and you are better for that as it shows you the things you can’t do or are only getting away with because you are bubble wrapping your feet.

That is why people like them. There are plenty of shoes/boots you can get extra cushioning if you want or you can add an insole. I wear this type of boot because it doesn't have that.

I understand exactly what you are saying. I just don't think it makes any sense. If it does then every life cycle study that has ever been done is wrong. The variation in the numbers is because of differences in location. So the electricity in X place is dirtier then somewhere else and you have to adjust for that. These variables are well known. You just have to do the math for each location. This is exactly what I did and why I said that here it is better. Somewhere else it might not. See understanding this allows you to use the correct numbers.

So I will say the same thing again. Unless you are able to show which of my numbers are wrong, based on my location, then you can just stop writing anything at all because it is meaningless. Seriously it is like you are telling me that 2+2 = 5 but then can't tell me how you reached the conclusion. If you are right it should be extremely easy to show that using the correct numbers. Now if you are arguing that it is completely unknowable then what kind of stupid argument is that? You need to have words with every scientific publication that has ever published a life cycle study on this because they will all be wrong too.

But can't show me where I made a mistake with my numbers. Again you wrote a lot of words but unless you can challenge directly those words are meaningless. You can't just say that my numbers are wrong for reasons that are unexplained. Should be very easy to do the math with the correct numbers. I mean the only way you can know if my numbers are wrong is if you have others. So do the math and show me I am wrong.

This is why I love math. There is no BS. You can't write out long essays that obscure the truth. The base numbers are either right or wrong. So if they are wrong it should be pretty easy to point out which ones are wrong or to do your own math. Strangely I don't see a lot of numbers in what you are writing. So do the math or don't. But don't tell me I am wrong when you can't even put a few numbers together yourself to prove you are right.

I give numbers and math and you give feelings. Then you say the numbers are unreliable but give no reason why. If the numbers are wrong you should be able to provide your own. But you keep writing words but have nothing to substantiate them. So again I say that your words are useless without the numbers to back it up.

You can write all you want but unless you can point out where my numbers are wrong then it is a wasted effort. If I wrong then my math would be wrong. So it should be pretty easy to run the numbers to show me where I went wrong.

Even just the extra energy of using something that is less efficient could mean it is better to make a new one rather then keep using it.

I am including that carbon cost to manufacture in that. So even with the carbon cost to manufacturer the new BEV I am still better off with it rather then a used gas car. I did another comment further down where I did the math for someone else.

https://www.reddit.com/r/BuyItForLife/comments/z10bs2/comment/ix9bvtv/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

People tend to vastly overestimate the emissions they think it takes to build a car whether electric or gas. And they vastly underestimate the emissions in operation of ICE vehicles. And the source of electricity also matters. I was saying this to show that there isn't a blanket answer that is correct here. It would depend on many different factors.

And it does reduce it that much. Where I live when you factor in the total lifecycle (manufacturing, operation, and EOL) a BEV has a carbon footprint that is 85% less then a comparable gas powered car.

Whether it is better depends on the factors used. Operationally the numbers are easy to do then you just have to figure out the manufacturing emissions. But yes in my case here it is better to buy a new BEV. The numbers are actually pretty easy to do from a carbon emissions point of view especially for the operation.

Here is an example of the math and I am doing it in metric because that's what we use here. I drive around 24,000 kms a year. So if I bought a gas car (or kept using one that I already bought) I would use 1882 liters of gasoline to drive that distance if the car got 7.84 L per 100 km (30 MPG). Each liter of fuel emits 2.3kg of carbon when burned and then there is another 0.4 kg of carbon per liter to extract and refine oil into gas. So a year i am looking at 5081 kgs of CO2 to drive that distance in the used gas car.

My BEV gets around 6.2 kms per kWh in efficiency on average. So to drive 24,000 kms will require 3871 kWh of electricity. Charging losses will add about 10% onto that number so make the number 4100 kWh a year used. Our grid produces about 45 grams of CO2 per kWh produced. So that is 184.5 kgs of CO2 or 28 times less CO2 then the gas car above.

See I think this is where people just don't really understand these numbers. They believe that the gas car and BEV might be far closer in operational emissions then they are. And they possibly could be on a dirtier grid. But on a clean grid the amount of CO2 from the car is almost negligible. In fact my car emits less CO2 in operation then I breath out in a year. And based on this (a negative view of electric cars) a 75 kWh battery will emit about 4500 kgs of CO2 to build the battery.

https://8billiontrees.com/carbon-offsets-credits/carbon-footprint-of-electric-cars-vs-gasoline/

So that is a tiny amount compared to the 15,243 kgs of CO2 the gas car will emit in operation alone over the next 3.

So again it is far better here to buy a new BEV then keep driving a used gas car if you want to reduce your carbon emissions where I live and with my numbers. Where you live and with your numbers it might be different.

Sounds like you have done the math and it is better for you to go that way. FOr me it is much better to buy a new BEV where I am instead of a used gas car based on the amount I drive and how clean the grid is. My comment was about how you have to be careful making blanket statements about what is better as there are many examples where it is better to buy something new then to keep using something that is older.

You understand there is a huge carbon foot print for burning gas. Again what matters is which one is worse. The math says the BEV is better in my case. So buying a used gas car would increase my carbon footprint over buying a new BEV. My suggestion is you do the math on this to see whether you are correct.

Unless that thing outputs something. There is far more to a product then just the manufacturing of it. So there is the labour that made it and the environmental footprint to build it. But then something like an appliance will use energy over its life. So whether something is more sustainable depends on the entire lifecycle footprint from manufacturing to end of life. Also the location you are, and the way you make electricity, will all have a factor.

An example where I live is a car. Based on your example I should buy a used gas car rather then a new EV. But a new BEV will have a far smaller carbon footprint even with the manufacturing one here because of how clean the electricity is. So if the goal is the reduction of carbon emissions then I am better to buy a new BEV then a used gas car. So keeping something running just because it was already manufactured is not always the most sustainable option.

Moving the goal posts I see. Either way the data on this is pretty clear based on all the lifecycle studies I have read. Perhaps you need to investigate a little further.

Compared to what? The problem here is you write this out in isolation. Is there a footprint to recycle a battery? Of course. But you know what also causes a footprint? The extraction of oil and the refining of that into gasoline. So sure you have a footprint to build the battery but then you use that battery for years. The only thing that matters is if the one thing is better then another. And in this case every lifecycle study I have read says EVs have lower carbon emissions over their lives.

Every manufacturers that I know of have written extensively on how they will recycle the batteries. Here is info from VW.

https://www.volkswagen-newsroom.com/en/battery-recycling-after-the-end-of-a-vehicles-service-life-7223

Here is Tesla

https://www.tesla.com/en_ca/support/sustainability-recycling

"Extending the life of a battery pack is a superior option to recycling for both environmental and business reasons. For those reasons, before decommissioning a consumer battery pack and sending it for recycling, Tesla does everything it can to extend the useful life of each battery pack. Any battery that is no longer meeting a customer’s needs can be serviced by Tesla at one of our Service Centers around the world. None of our scrapped lithium-ion batteries go to landfilling, and 100% are recycled."

And further there are new companies like Redwood Materials that are doing it.

https://www.redwoodmaterials.com/

This has been thought about and discussed endlessly. The idea that massive battery packs are going to go into a landfill doens't seem reasonable. Even degraded battery packs will be able to be reused for stationary storage. And that an EOL they will be recycled.