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

671–680 of 894 posts

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

#671

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

8note wrote: post #594
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Companies can't meet demand exactly, no matter what profit margin they take, because it's not possible to predict demand exactly. Biasing towards overproduction is how you minimize the risk of shortages when there's a bit more demand than you expected.

as far as a market clearing problem goes, we should be forcing them to sell it at lower and lower prices, or even going to negative and payoyng people to take it off their hands. supply and demand is that an oversupply makes prices fall, rather than driving artificial scarcity

Well, it sounds like that's what the EU is going to try. My guess is that the manufacturers are mostly destroying stuff for economically rational reasons, and will respond with production cuts leading to that same artificial scarcity from a consumer perspective.

(Although the original commenter would say, I suspect, that it's perfectly OK if there are minor consumer shortages in luxury goods for the sake of the climate.)

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

#672

Post by VorpalWay »

kube-system wrote: post #577
VorpalWay wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

> Your claim that it "factually something that provides value to society“ is unsubstantiated. Fashion is fundamentally an art form that has deep social, cultural, and anthropological meaning. This is high school level social studies. > Just as unsubstantiated as "You are certainly entitled to the opinion that fast fashion is not a good thing". Are you saying you might not be entitled to an opinion? Okay...?

The problem is not fashion, the problem is fast fashion, and the enormous amount of waste created. You really need to keep those separated in the discussion.

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

#673

Post by Saline9515 »

mcny wrote: post #638
Saline9515 wrote: post #572

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to pay to burn them, at home or abroad, and the cost is likely a few % of a clothing piece, where the margin is already >70%. Tl;dr the EU will say "Mission Accomplished" because no clothing has been burned in the EU since 2026(tm), while all of the emissions are produced abroad. The same show has been going on with industry, where the dirtiest parts are done in India or China, so that we can say that we are…

The big brands should be penalized for doing the burning or destroying themselves, enforcing such destruction through contract laws or any formal communication, or even through punishment by denying future contracts. The receiver on the other end should defect and renege on their contract and sell the goods in the open market for pennies on the dollar. While they won't be able to bring it back to western countries, t…

An unexpected consequence of such drastic rule is that sizes on both tails (xs/xl) may disappear as they become unprofitable for the producer.

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

#674

Post by Nevermark »

hilbert42 wrote: post #643
Nevermark wrote: post #620

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What upsets me so much about this unnecessary waste To the degree ethics (which I am using here to mean, accounting for negative externalities) are not incorporated into economics, with very few exceptions, every company will optimize their profits with no thought to externalities. Shareholders might care about waste as individuals, but are not coordinated in anyway that moves corporations. And any corporations tha…

"Asking/convincing companies or individuals to be voluntarily ethical, one at a time, is not a solution. ...just increases the opportunity, profits and incentives for less-altruistic actors." Exactly, it's why we need to reintroduce regulations many of which were removed or weakened from the late 1970s onward. Moreover, we need intelligent regulation not just gut reaction to an immediate problem. That's proving much…

> we need intelligent regulation

Absolutely. Poorly thought out, too strict, performative, or obsolete regulations create opposition for any regulation.

I also think we need to co-opt the “enemy” to be regulated, in their terms. E.g. get all the major fossil fuel CFO’s in a room, and figure out the financials encouraging green energy, and away from polluting and geopolitically complicated energy, that would make cold business sense for them.

Include and involve the military, insurance giants, large food security/supply chain companies like Cargill, reactor companies, big enterprise customers that want rapid energy growth, and all the other major sectors that take climate change and energy expansion seriously and will get value out of a more stable world, with better energy technology in practical terms. The people that CEOs respect.

Once the biggest resisters can profit off not resisting, you will see a genuine change of heart. That can sound very cynical, but it’s just how people are. “First, I shall do no damage to my own turf.” But once they take a new position, their power doesn’t just cease it’s friction, but becomes another rocket for progress.

Whatever tax breaks and other incentives it took, to make green their best move, would be worth it. Bribe? Maybe. Better understood as the cost of faster consensus and coordination. Where the price of waiting for everyone to change due to the hardship that is being locked in, is so much higher.

On the other hand, after consensus, change itself needs to happen smoothly, not suddenly. Incentives and disincentive need to operate slower than we might want to make change practical. The most important thing is that those reinforcers are credible. Companies are forward looking. They will naturally move their investments today where the profits will credibly be tomorrow. They don’t need to feel pain, just know what to do to avoid it, and most importantly, prosper.

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

#676

Post by MonkeyClub »

hilbert42 wrote: post #617
miki123211 wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's how this law is actually going to work. Instead of destroying the unsold clothes in Europe, manufacturers are going to sell them to "resale" companies in countries with little respect for the rule of law, mostly in Africa or Asia. Those companies will then destroy those clothes, reporting them as sold to consumers. So instead of destroying those clothes in Europe, we'll just add an unnecessary shipping step to…

"So instead of destroying those clothes in Europe, we'll just add an unnecessary shipping step to the process, producing tons of unnecessary CO2." The world being as it is you're likely correct and your cynicism makes sense, but I'd like to think somehow you're wrong. That EU regulators actually saw need for such regulations makes me both sad and annoyed because they ought not be necessary. What's wrong with clothing…

> Why would any species take effort to [...]

Because Market Forces said so :(

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

#677

Post by hilbert42 »

shiroiuma wrote: post #630
belorn wrote: post #558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is enough local fraudulent waste management companies that shipping things to Africa to have it "recycled" is just a waste of money and time. Sweden recently had one of the largest fraud cases involving a waste management company, which also became the largest environmental case in Swedish history. The scheme is fairly simple. The criminals rent some land, dump the stuff there, and then have the company go bust…

>The scheme is fairly simple. The criminals rent some land, dump the stuff there, and then have the company go bust, thus leaving the problem to the land owner. This is what these countries get for having weak laws that allow people to do illegal dumping and then hide behind a corporate veil to avoid accountability.

Trouble is if democracy worked properly then corporate entities wouldn't be able to lobby and influence governments to weaken laws out of self-interest.

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

#678

Post by blitzar »

MonkeyClub wrote: post #676
hilbert42 wrote: post #617

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"So instead of destroying those clothes in Europe, we'll just add an unnecessary shipping step to the process, producing tons of unnecessary CO2." The world being as it is you're likely correct and your cynicism makes sense, but I'd like to think somehow you're wrong. That EU regulators actually saw need for such regulations makes me both sad and annoyed because they ought not be necessary. What's wrong with clothing…

> Why would any species take effort to [...] Because Market Forces said so :(

Its the invisible hand of harvard MBAs at work.

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

#679

Post by blitzar »

ThrowawayTestr wrote: post #610
cyclotron3k wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a fantasy. No one is going to pay you to take your waste away and dispose of it. You would have to pay them. So now there's a strong financial incentive to a) not over produce, b) sell the clothes - even if it means selling them for next to nothing.

Retailers don't want their excess inventory to be sold at a discount. They'd rather it be destroyed. A small fee to have someone else destroy it is just a business expense. The OP should have put "sell" in scare quotes.

> A small fee to have someone else destroy

They just write it off, Jerry.

All these big companies, they write off everything.

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

#680

Post by blitzar »

makingstuffs wrote: post #614
skeptic_ai wrote: post #599

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They won’t “sell”. Imagine LV selling originals in Africa , Africa would immediately resell them in Europe and us and Asia for much higher price and dilute the brand. It will be officially sold to a reseller, not officially they will pay a special African company to destroy it. So same shit as before. Slightly more expensive. No big brand would ever sell their originals that didn’t sell cheap.

> No big brand would ever sell their originals that didn’t sell cheap This is just inherently incorrect. In Europe we have a load of outlet villages which is where big brands do exactly that. It’s where I do most of my shopping. Last year I bought two pairs of Nike Dunks for £25 a pop. I bought Salomon hiking shoes for £60 instead of £140. A pair of Levis 501s for £20. Just an example or my most recent purchases.

> Levis 501s

Ewww, those are last years 501s

Post reply on HN