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

781–790 of 894 posts

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

#781

Post by nonethewiser »

babybjornborg wrote: post #230
motbus3 wrote: post #204

I'm reading the comments and I get confused. I kinda think this is a good idea and it is not like the government is purely making it a 3rd party problem only. This might make production more complicated for a while, but nowadays it is much easier to predict demand and produce quicker in smaller batches. In the 90s you might need change a whole factory setting for every single piece of fabric but nowadays it is that m…

Apparel firms exist not to clothe people as common sense would suggest but to make a profit, and this practice of erring on the side of overproduction is more profitable than under production. The perfect solution would be to produce exactly the number of goods they will sell, but forecasts aren't perfect so they overproduce. Firms are already incentivised by profit to not waste, so this adds another incentive and re…

> so this adds another incentive and removes the pollution externality they have been enjoying.

Displaces it. And adds other externalities like C02 to do so.

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

#782

Post by bee_rider »

globular-toast wrote: post #780
lonelyasacloud wrote: post #751

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the footpaths are supposed to be done by residents. For public footpaths, unlike in places like Germany [0], there are no such enforceable rules in the UK. [0] https://www.ergo.com/en/newsroom/advisory/2025/20251222-verb...

I think that's a purely German thing. I doubt it's the law in the US and Canada either. Shouldn't have to be.

In the US it is often law, but like everything here it varies state-by-state.

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

#783

Post by lan321 »

epolanski wrote: post #764
lan321 wrote: post #726

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. You can buy a cotton tshirt from LIDL for 3 bucks and it'll hold for years. It won't be cut perfectly or have the softest material but it's definitely not bad. Of course, if I get it from Temu for 6 cents it'll probably fall apart in a week, but modern clothing isn't really covered by "the cheapest thing I can find". Same for ultralight fabrics, that, while lovely in summer, usually get trashed in a season or two…

Cheap cotton cannot hold for years, the fiber length and yarn quality makes it simply impossible. On top of that, cheap cotton is bleached and fast dyied which makes the clothing change after few washings. I mean if you mean "hold" like, you can't still wear it albeit it looks nothing like it did two washings before, of course it does. But then you look exactly like what you buy, someone with worn low quality clothin…

The 3 buck LIDL tshirt isn't really intended for casual business attire tbh.

If you want good looking (symmetrically cut, better stitched, etc) tshirts long term I then raise you Uniqlo with 7 bucks per DRY synthtic tshirt and 12 for a supima cotton one. I pretty much daily them and in over at least 3 years they haven't shown significant aging. Only the supima ones have mostly lost the "supima" text on the inside at the back of the neck area.

Comically enough I also have 3 shirts from Primark for 1$ each that are now at least 5 years old, probably more like 7 that still look fine. I still wear them to work without worry. The shaping of them was all over the place though. No two in the pile were identical.

Dying could be an issue, I wear gray and black ones so your mileage may vary with colored washing. I also don't blast them at 90 degrees C but rather 60 for black/gray, 40 for everything else.

Or your standards are just ultra high compared to mine, for better or worse. From my perspective tshirt quality ends at Uniqlo and I then go to Olympus business/casual shirts. From there the only option I have to look more businessman-y is the wool suit.

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

#784

Post by nonethewiser »

touwer wrote: post #775

Every time again when it's about Europe, there are lots of commenters here complaining about the Eu or the rules, probably a lot of US commenters aping MAGA sentiments. Of course without solving the problem this law tries to solve. It's soooo easy to complain about something you know nothing about. As if the US is perfect

What does this post have to do with the United States?

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

#785

Post by nonethewiser »

FarmerPotato wrote: post #642

Turning the issue on its head, if 4-9% is unsold, then the whole supply chain's success at predicting consumer preferences is 90-95%. Wow! When I think of unsold, I see that some sizes run out, leaving odd sizes as surplus.

Not 4-9% unsold. 4-9% of unsold is destroyed without being worn.

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

#786

Post by nonethewiser »

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #366

> The ban on destruction of unsold apparel, clothing accessories and footwear and the derogations will apply to large companies from 19 July 2026. Medium-sized companies are expected to follow in 2030. The rules on disclosure under the ESPR already apply to large companies and will also apply to medium-sized companies in 2030 5 months is a pretty short timeline for a large company to change literally its entire busin…

You're going to have lot worse return policy.

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

#788

Post by haritha-j »

stainablesteel wrote: post #758
haritha-j wrote: post #757

What I don’t understand is, why are these being destroyed instead of being donated? Is it just because businesses don’t want their brand to be devalued because the poor people will wear their brand?

donated to who? in the past they would typically send them to africa or something but this actually has negative effects on local african economies for example

even within the country, to those in need. At least in the UK, there are collection points, as well as many charities that accept clothes such as oxfam and cancer research UK

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

#789

Post by everforward »

nine_k wrote: post #155
everforward wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think that solves the issue they want to fix. The issue is brands that are stylish destroying clothing that’s now out of style (preserving brand value). The price point is already high enough that taxing raw materials doesn’t really push the needle on price, they’ll just pass the costs on. Utilitarian brands already don’t want to destroy clothing because their customers are price sensitive. This forces the br…

How recycling by shredding is not destroying? If the regulation specifically prohibits burning, it makes sense, as a measure to limit unproductive CO₂ emissions.

Shredding is the first step in most recycling processes (ie excluding reusing). Like if they were going to make them into this seasons fashion, I think the first step is shredding. The cut and color of style changes, and I don’t think you can do either without shredding first.

It means they’re still using the fibers, which is an upside. It does waste some CO2 for the original cut and dye.

I’m sort of dubious of the value of trying to limit CO2 like this, but that might be the goal. Whether they burn them now or sell them, they end up as atmospheric CO2 either way. It’s the same as lumber; it ends up back in the atmosphere (although not burning them does reduce PM2.5 particulate).

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

#790

Post by lingrush4 »

brightbeige wrote: post #740
wackget wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think some people here on Hacker News are semi-deluded free market fundamentalists who believe they're going to be future billionaires, so they naturally gravitate towards protecting the rights of big business to do whatever it wants, even if it hurts people and the planet. The only people who think that destroying useful items is a good idea are those who would stand to lose money from it; either by having to pay…

"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." - (probably not) John Steinbeck I guess with inflation we can update the quote to “temporarily embarrassed billionaires”

Socialism never took off in America because Americans know that disincentivizing work shrinks the economy and makes everyone poorer.
Post reply on HN