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

811–820 of 894 posts

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

#811

Post by mulmen »

quotemstr wrote: post #644
joe_the_user wrote: post #637

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you think that what's cost effective (in terms of money, of course) for a given company involves optimally conserving resources? The obvious counter-example is that polluting is very cost-effective in an unregulated environment there are others - such as this.

> What makes you think that what's cost effective...involves optimally conserving resources The words "cost" and "effective "perhaps? > Polluting Pollution is an economic externality. If I buy a shift and throw it out unworn, I've wasted only my own resources. (I'm paying for the landfill of course.) You could argue that my wasting that shirt hurt you because I could have instead spent those resources on productive a…

What if I dump toxic industrial waste in the river upstream of your house? I pay for access to the river. Does that hurt you?

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

#812

Post by Nevermark »

wolvoleo wrote: post #748
Nevermark wrote: post #674

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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 Oh yeah let the corp…

I am talking about getting support for regulations or even law that constrain damage.

Maybe you didn’t read what I wrote? Thats not more market “freedom”.

To make big changes, good changes, you do need both widespread grassroots support, and the cooperation and competencies of big players.

The military has labeled climate change a global destabilizer for years. Insurance companies and farmers are dealing with the fallout already.

Despite growing corruption, there are still competent people in these organizations to work with.

Neither surrender by blanket cynicism, or the incompetence of apathy, are going to solve anything.

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

#813

Post by buckle8017 »

acdha wrote: post #747
buckle8017 wrote: post #544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

fraud charges for ebay sellers over stating the condition of their items? hilarious fantasy

There are people in jail for this right now who presumably don’t find it funny, and in this scenario the volume would be high enough that prosecutors would definitely be interested.

Show me one person in prison for this

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

#814

Post by mulmen »

anymouse123456 wrote: post #771
apexalpha wrote: post #767

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's theirs to do with as they please. They paid for it to be made. This is not how that works. You have to pay for things within a legal framework setup by the government. If the legal frameworks changes then you have to deal with that.

Indeed. The government represents a legal framework for us all to operate in together. Sure. If I pay for something to be made, that something belongs to me. It becomes private property and (at least in the US) I'm free to destroy a thing I own. If you want to talk about options for protecting the environment, that seems great. There are ways to destroy textiles without fouling rivers or the air. The OP article raise…

> It becomes private property and (at least in the US) I'm free to destroy a thing I own.

Only within the confines of the law. If I buy a skyscraper I can’t blow it up without permits. I can’t burn trash in my yard in the middle of the city. I can’t tear down a landmark in a historical district, even if I own it.

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

#815

Post by mulmen »

gabrieledarrigo wrote: post #385
throw3e98 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And in pre-industrial societies, peasants (almost entirely women, ranging from children to the elderly) commonly spent around 100 hours of labor to produce a single square yard of fabric to clothe their families (fabric was too expensive for peasants to buy, so most spun it at home). So yeah, considering how necessary fabric is to human life, that isn't a terribly surprising figure. Citation for the 100-ish hours: ht…

Man, I really can't see your point. And so...?

Try opening your eyes.

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

#816

Post by apparent »

frm88 wrote: post #636
apparent wrote: post #501

> “If I was David Greene I would be upset, not just because they stole my voice,” Pesca said, but because they used it to make the podcasting equivalent of AI “slop,” a term for spammy, commodified content. “They have banter, but it’s very surface-level, un-insightful banter, and they’re always saying, ‘Yeah, that’s so interesting.’ It’s really bad, because what do we as show hosts have except our taste in commentary…

You seems to have commented on a different topic.

Yep, tried to delete but it was too late...

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

#817

Post by acdha »

buckle8017 wrote: post #813
acdha wrote: post #747

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are people in jail for this right now who presumably don’t find it funny, and in this scenario the volume would be high enough that prosecutors would definitely be interested.

Show me one person in prison for this

Here’s the first hit on Google:

https://www.justice.gov/usao-nm/pr/us-attorneys-office-secur...

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

#818

Post by apexalpha »

anymouse123456 wrote: post #771
apexalpha wrote: post #767

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's theirs to do with as they please. They paid for it to be made. This is not how that works. You have to pay for things within a legal framework setup by the government. If the legal frameworks changes then you have to deal with that.

Indeed. The government represents a legal framework for us all to operate in together. Sure. If I pay for something to be made, that something belongs to me. It becomes private property and (at least in the US) I'm free to destroy a thing I own. If you want to talk about options for protecting the environment, that seems great. There are ways to destroy textiles without fouling rivers or the air. The OP article raise…

Yes, these laws have unintended consequences. I think at the continental scale the EU operates every law or decision has that.

But the current incentives in the fashion market also has unintended consequences: companies producing a lot of garments only to destroy them to protect perceived intellectual property value.

And here's the thing: this brand image value is relative. So by forcing all companies to comply no one has to take the negative brand image hit that would be required to unilaterally decide to do this.

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

#819

Post by waynesonfire »

miki123211 wrote: post #373
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…

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…

> Those companies will then destroy those clothes,

I disagree. Suppose that this is even allowed, What's the incentive for these off-shore resale shops to destroy the items? Do they get paid per ton of ash produced? There is a stronger incentive to re-sell it, it'll create more economic value. I could care less if it's sold off-shore or within EU; as long as it's not being destroyed.

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

#820

Post by LargoLasskhyfv »

miki123211 wrote: post #373
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…

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…

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/chile...
Post reply on HN