Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

EU ban on destruction of unsold clothes and shoes enters into application

environment.ec.europa.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 322 posts

Re: EU ban on destruction of unsold clothes and shoes enters into application

#311

Post by pfdietz »

petre wrote: post #302
altairprime wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To clarify without using the word ‘waste’ into two simple bullets: 1. Destruction is conversion of any usable product X to any non-X form (even if the new form is usable). 2. Destruction is prohibited (for large businesses, right now). Usable is not perfectly defined and will be a judgment call, but one can construct a common sense set of ‘what is unusable?’ definitions that an inspector or judge would accept — so lo…

> Note that, for example, the EU is likely to say ‘launder it first, then donate it’ That's great because it will put pressure on manufacturers to build launderable clothing.

Or clothing that deterministically degrades so it will qualify as unrecycleable. Maybe unlaunderable use-once clothing?

Re: EU ban on destruction of unsold clothes and shoes enters into application

#312

Post by arximboldi »

r3trohack3r wrote: post #267
DangitBobby wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. It's a race to the bottom.

Many options. Option 1: “we won’t trade humans as slaves at all costs, even if it makes us less competitive in the global market - and we don’t hold that conviction about other things” Option 2: “We won’t trade slaves - and if we find you trading slaves we will kill you. So we don’t have to worry about competing against slaves in the global marketplace.” Option 3: “slavery is less efficient than having the same peopl…

It just shows that the whole point of "regulation is bad" blanket statement is an intellectually dishonest argument, as what most people actually mean is "regulations that I don't like are bad". In fact, the whole market vs state thing is very confused, markets are created by the state, something most serious economists specially economic historians will admit. It's no surprise that market driven capitalism has devoleped with the expansion of the reach and capacity of the state, and that weak states devolve into things more similar to feudalism than market utopia.

Re: EU ban on destruction of unsold clothes and shoes enters into application

#313

Post by r3trohack3r »

arximboldi wrote: post #312
r3trohack3r wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many options. Option 1: “we won’t trade humans as slaves at all costs, even if it makes us less competitive in the global market - and we don’t hold that conviction about other things” Option 2: “We won’t trade slaves - and if we find you trading slaves we will kill you. So we don’t have to worry about competing against slaves in the global marketplace.” Option 3: “slavery is less efficient than having the same peopl…

It just shows that the whole point of "regulation is bad" blanket statement is an intellectually dishonest argument, as what most people actually mean is "regulations that I don't like are bad". In fact, the whole market vs state thing is very confused, markets are created by the state, something most serious economists specially economic historians will admit. It's no surprise that market driven capitalism has devol…

This sounds like you’re arguing against an invented boogyman.

For me and my experience, it’s reversed. Someone says some measured statement against a piece of regulation and someone shakes out of the woodwork mumbling something about some horrific thing like slavery.

Arguments of the structure:

“Aha, so you do like regulation, therefore you must like ALL regulation”

Or

“Oh, you oppose this piece of regulation, therefore you must want lord of the flies”

Or

“You only like regulation you like” (which is effectively a tautology)

People can oppose the burden of a body of regulation without opposing a government enforcing contract law.

And when someone says “regulation is bad” - a good faith interpretation of their statement is that they mean we have a large body of bad regulation, not that we should abolish the state and devolve into trading Monero for slaves.

Re: EU ban on destruction of unsold clothes and shoes enters into application

#314

Post by quickthrowman »

anonzzzies wrote: post #175
sokoloff wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you reuse plaster or drywall walls/ceilings? I’m fairly reuse-friendly, but that stuff goes straight in the dumpster for practical reasons.

we fill anything that needs filling: the ground here is very uneven with massive rocks so you need to fill to even, you can empty containers of crap other people give away or pay a fortune.

The ground sounds like a bad place for lead paint and asbestos, two things which can be found in demolition waste.

When we need fill in the US, a big truck comes and dumps actual soil and rock so that lead and other things don’t leach into the groundwater, the construction waste is landfilled after removing the metal for recycling.

If you have well water and have been using construction demolition waste nearby your wellhead, I would suggest an RO filter for drinking water, yikes.

Re: EU ban on destruction of unsold clothes and shoes enters into application

#315

Post by Schiendelman »

altairprime wrote: post #298
Schiendelman wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nike is famously one of the less wealth signalling shoe brands. Until recently I don't think they had a product for sale for more than ~$220 at all.

That sounds very expensive, given that I was raised lower-middle class. Perhaps not so much to pro sports or tech folks? Apologies for misreading, I guess :)

That's their maximum. They are very cheap compared to any shoes that are wealth signals.

Re: EU ban on destruction of unsold clothes and shoes enters into application

#316

Post by UltraSane »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #245
zb3 wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While my sibling comment said it all, note that destroying them also costs money, hence if those can't be sold, it's a loss of profit already, lower the price and let people eat.. > higher costs. Higher costs of what? Of those new fruits? Well, maybe wasting food should cost?

Destroying food is pretty cheap. you put it in the dumpster. Picking through it, sending it to a shelter, and vetting the people at the shelter seems more expensive. > Well, maybe wasting food should cost? Why? Wasting food should be be free. The owner paid for it.

Giving away food is pretty cheap. You just put it on a shelf with a big "FREE" sign.

Re: EU ban on destruction of unsold clothes and shoes enters into application

#317

Post by anonzzzies »

quickthrowman wrote: post #314
anonzzzies wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

we fill anything that needs filling: the ground here is very uneven with massive rocks so you need to fill to even, you can empty containers of crap other people give away or pay a fortune.

The ground sounds like a bad place for lead paint and asbestos, two things which can be found in demolition waste. When we need fill in the US, a big truck comes and dumps actual soil and rock so that lead and other things don’t leach into the groundwater, the construction waste is landfilled after removing the metal for recycling. If you have well water and have been using construction demolition waste nearby your w…

I see that when you don’t know what is in there then sure, but we don’t have that issue. No lead or asbestos or fiber glass. Otherwise men in white suits arrive anyway.

Re: EU ban on destruction of unsold clothes and shoes enters into application

#318

Post by altairprime »

pfdietz wrote: post #311
petre wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Note that, for example, the EU is likely to say ‘launder it first, then donate it’ That's great because it will put pressure on manufacturers to build launderable clothing.

Or clothing that deterministically degrades so it will qualify as unrecycleable. Maybe unlaunderable use-once clothing?

Disposable scrubs are already a thing! But they have specific and reasonable causes for their production and use, unlike fast fashion.

Re: EU ban on destruction of unsold clothes and shoes enters into application

#319

Post by pnt12 »

ablob wrote: post #252
athrowaway3z wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure your complaint works in this case. You only write a report if you want the exemption. The hypothetical business you're imaging shouldn't be looking for an exemption. The law's effect on small business is conceptually not too different from eg laws against dumping toxic sludge.

You have to deal with this no matter what unless you can live with wasting storage space. You have to arrange extra sales or try and donate stuff (basically, go through all possible options that exclude it from being exempted) if you want to get rid of an item. Your estimates on sales count need to be pretty spot on to keep that low. Donations are still taxable where I live, by the way, so all that shenanigans is add…

It only applies to big companies for now, and it's not rocket science - stores already had to deal with unsold inventory.

I helped a charity that distributed misc items to families who needed them, and I remembered seeing lots of brand new t-shirts from a big supermarket chain. Guess they were already doing it 10 years ago, either due to local regulation or as a tax write-off.

Re: EU ban on destruction of unsold clothes and shoes enters into application

#320

Post by palata »

wisty wrote: post #239
palata wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. So what you're saying is that instead you should be allowed to go in the forest to get another 99 mushrooms, give them the same treatment, and then throw them away? And suddenly it's worth it for one mushroom if you threw away 99 other mushrooms in the process?

> Right. So what you're saying If you start a sentence with "so what you are saying", and then say something obviously silly ... The argument would be that it's a large burden to have to write a report if you forage 10 mushrooms and toss one away. Low volumes, higher fixed costs.

Wait. I say "how does wasting 10% have more impact if you waste 10% of 10 or 10% of 1000?", and they answer "it's just not worth doing it for 1".

I just don't see how this is related to waste. Of course if it's not profitable when you sell 100% of what you produce, then it is not profitable (that's a tautology). My question is: why is it more profitable to sell the same amount but to waste more?

Turns out someone explained in another comment [1], and the "it's just not worth it for one mushroom" just does not explain it.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48962668

Post reply on HN