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

EU bans the destruction of unsold apparel, clothing, accessories and footwear

environment.ec.europa.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 894 posts

Re: EU bans the destruction of unsold apparel, clothing, accessories and footwear

#481

Post by VorpalWay »

kube-system wrote: post #106
pfp wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yes, the classic HN hair splitting meta-argument. No.

What they’re getting at is not hairsplitting. Your argument presumes that the purpose of clothing is utilitarian in nature. That it exists merely to cover our bodies efficiently. Clothing also has an anthropological function as fashion. That might not be something that you are personally interested in, but it is factually something that provides value to society. You are certainly entitled to the opinion that fast fa…

Fashion changing all the time (on the order of seasons rather than years) contributes to a lot of waste. Your claim that it "factually something that provides value to society“ is unsubstantiated. Just as unsubstantiated as "You are certainly entitled to the opinion that fast fashion is not a good thing".

All fast fashion does is waste money for consumers who buy into the craze, compared to buying quality that lasts. I have used the same two pair of jeans for over a decade at this point for example, and they are in close to mint condition (apart from the colour on the knees). Some T-shirts that I own have survived as long, many have not (it is very hard to tell the quality of the fibers up front unfortunately). In all cases, I use clothes until they are so worn through that they are past my repair skills.

So yes, some people are "invested" in fashion, but I'm saying that is akin to being "invested" in gambling or shopping for the sake of shopping. Addictions come in many forms.

Re: EU bans the destruction of unsold apparel, clothing, accessories and footwear

#482

Post by appreciatorBus »

bonzini wrote: post #445
eddythompson80 wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not. Read their comment and mine. This was always, and will always be a thing. It's not a burden, just a marginal cost of business. Instead of paying a European company a €40k to destroy your broken products, you can pay an African one €10k to "recycle" your product. Best of all, you're legally forced to. I can see hundreds of companies lobbying for this because it completely takes them off the hook. "The law say…

The original comment says "sell them to «resale» companies". Selling goods means being paid for it, while you and the parent comment are both saying money goes in the opposite direction.

When you negotiate the price to ”sell” at, it’s perfectly legitimate for that price to be negative.

Re: EU bans the destruction of unsold apparel, clothing, accessories and footwear

#483

Post by rationalist »

rationalist wrote: post #335
eclipticplane wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean, 'statutory warranty'? At least in the US, aside from a few specific circumstances (door to door sales for example with a '3 day cool off' period) there is no mandatory return policy or timeline.

There is a U.S. federal law which gives warranty of merchantability among others (not sure about E.U.). A major store sold me an expensive item that didn't work, and the store's return policy didn't cover it, so the store said file a warranty claim with the manufacturer. I just did a credit card charge back instead, because the store has to sell me something that works. If for whatever reason the credit card charge b…

Typo, should be: "could sue the store"

I swore I fixed that earlier.

Re: EU bans the destruction of unsold apparel, clothing, accessories and footwear

#484

Post by WalterBright »

em-bee wrote: post #417
WalterBright wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how localized culture clothing styles would be destroyed by importing different styles from other countries.

nobody buys the local style because it is more expensive than the imported stuff. as a result the local style dies out, or it doesn't get a chance to be developed in the first place.

Preventing imports will force them to pay the higher prices for the local stuff.

Maybe it's better to let them decide what they want to buy.

Re: EU bans the destruction of unsold apparel, clothing, accessories and footwear

#486

Post by Jiro »

roughly wrote: post #315
cperciva wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they knew in advance that the clothing wouldn't sell, they would never have made it! But companies stockpile goods in anticipation of potential demand. For example, they'll "overproduce" winter coats because some winters are colder than average. This sort of anti-overproduction law means that the next time there's an unexpected need -- for example an unusually cold winter -- there will be a shortage because there…

So they externalize the cost of their own incompetence and you’re suggesting it’s bad to internalize that cost.

Failing to predict cold winters is not incompetence in the normal sense.

Re: EU bans the destruction of unsold apparel, clothing, accessories and footwear

#487

Post by awesomeusername »

"The Outlaw Sea" is a book about the long history of the complexity of responsibility, ownership, in international shipping and the ships themselves. It's very good, it should be on the HN standard reading list, much like _The Box_.

I'm only interested in comments here from people who have an understanding of the complex world of outsourcing responsibility.

TL;DR: International cooperation isn't at a level where ANY country/bloc can have an impact on how their own waste is disposed of. The idea that magically that will happen with clothing is an admission of ignorance of this fact in decades old industries.

We need more and stronger international laws. The opposite of the current US administration's influence.

Re: EU bans the destruction of unsold apparel, clothing, accessories and footwear

#488

Post by Dylan16807 »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #323
apparent wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think GP was referring to donations, which are not subject to dumping rules AFAIK.

People living in the tropics don't need clothing suited for temperate climates.

Then they won't take the donations, problem solved?

Re: EU bans the destruction of unsold apparel, clothing, accessories and footwear

#489

Post by VorpalWay »

Sol- wrote: post #83

Seems like policy ripe with unintended side effects. At the very least, it'll likely raise prices for consumers because the companies aren't allowed to manage their inventory as efficiently as they wish. 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 nev…

The main risk I see is things getting shipped overseas to where it isn't properly handled and this policy not having any effect at all.

If that can be avoided somehow (I haven't looked in detail at the legal text) I think the outcome you mention would be good. Slower fashion cycles, higher quality and higher cost per item would all potentially synergise. Another thing that could happen is less overproduction, which would also be good.

Thinking about what else could be done: I would like to see some mandatory marking indicating fiber / weaving quality. I have had T-shirts that lasted a decade, and those that lasted a couple of years. And it is very hard to tell up front which is which. As a consumer I would like to be able to tell.

Re: EU bans the destruction of unsold apparel, clothing, accessories and footwear

#490

Post by ncruces »

throwaway198846 wrote: post #29
mbeavitt wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if you read the article... Instead of discarding stock, companies are encouraged to manage their stock more effectively, handle returns, and explore alternatives such as resale, remanufacturing, donations, or reuse. I guess remanufacturing/reuse might be the intended solution if it's absolutely not to be worn.

Well one link deeper says "Restrict the export of textile waste" but I'm still unclear why they preferred these measure over a carbon tax. Edit: "To prevent unintended negative consequences for circular business models that involve the sale of products after their preparation for reuse, it should be possible to destroy unsold consumer products that were made available on the market following operations carried out by…

I bet there's some price at which someone will happily take that Luis Vuitton bag or Burberry coat.
Post reply on HN