81–90 of 894 posts
Fashion production is responsible for 8-10% of all carbon emissions https://www.ifc.org/en/insights-reports/2023/strengthening-s...
So carbon emissions are bad, but then we should price carbon and not micromanage clothing inventory.
Fashion production is responsible for 8-10% of all carbon emissions https://www.ifc.org/en/insights-reports/2023/strengthening-s...
Cheap clothing is a civilizational achievement and good for human welfare. So carbon emissions are bad, but then we should price carbon and not micromanage clothing inventory.
A bit like feeding everyone vs. having an obesity crisis.
Now of course this might be a totally acceptable price to pay, I'm not necessarily arguing against it. It will just be conveniently omitted from public communications on the topic by the EU. For regulators, there never are tradeoffs, after all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That has already been happening for decades - and it isn't the "net benefit" most think it is - here is just one example - but there are dozens of similar articles that can be found: https://www.udet.org/post/the-hidden-cost-of-generosity-how-...
You can steer where donations go with regulations. I don't see any downsides of warm coats to homeless shelters for example.
In my experience in other physical goods industries (not textiles specifically) there is a big difference between products that are good but aren’t ever sold for some reason and products that are deemed not sellable for some reason. For example, if a custom returns a product that was opened but they claim was never used (worn in this case) you can’t sell it to someone else as a new item. With physical products these…
A robust liquidation market does a lot to prevent waste, and it reduces the cost of living for those who participate, so finding ways to allow products to be truly sold as-is is vital, otherwise the next most logical option is to put those items in a landfill.
It's also important that there's no legislative hurdles to seelling items as-is, or there may be no legal way to sell a salvage products without completely overhauling them, which is usually not cost effective.
Can they ship it outside the EU and then destroy it? What happens if truly nobody wants those clothes? Why not just put a carbon tax per weight?
>What happens if truly nobody wants those clothes In theory companies would eventually be forced to produce less items nobody wants, although this is just an additional incentive in that natural process.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe donate it to poor countries? When I used to work for the biggest ecommerce in europe, we had various stages for clothes. The last stage was selling the clothes by kilo to companies.
That has already been happening for decades - and it isn't the "net benefit" most think it is - here is just one example - but there are dozens of similar articles that can be found: https://www.udet.org/post/the-hidden-cost-of-generosity-how-...
Isn't that another version of the Broken Window Fallacy? Destroying things to create jobs re-creating them is a net loss.
Fashion production is responsible for 8-10% of all carbon emissions https://www.ifc.org/en/insights-reports/2023/strengthening-s...
So yeah, considering how necessary fabric is to human life, that isn't a terribly surprising figure.
Citation for the 100-ish hours: https://acoup.blog/2025/09/26/collections-life-work-death-an...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What developing country do you think has a clothing shortage?
What about the poor in their own countries that might not be able to afford clothes?
Rather have all people spend all of their money to the cent to buy clothes, to pay rent and to buy water tbh
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Supplier MOQs can create significant incentives to overproduce. For example, you get 9000 things someone wants and 1000 that no-one wants. This can be profitable for the customer, if they can't just easily get rid of those 1000 they can't sell, it's presumably less profitable.
Presumably the split between things people want and do not want is not known a priori. It seems the EU is trying to legislate into an existence a solution to an unsolvable equation.