Mostly this is going to change which models people buy and make them go through distributers with less variety, not reduce wasteful production and designs.

For the actual shipping, even if we pretend this rule removes the trip across the ocean, that trip across the ocean would have let out a very small amount of pollution per pound. Worrying about cargo ships is iffy to begin with. But GP was talking about the concern being made up, not the underlying issue they're pretending to be concerned about. Fake motivations in a bad faith argument.

▲

cosmicgadget a day ago | parent [-]

I don't know the numbers, but certainly the marketing pushes people toward impulse buys (because everything is so cheap!). And, of course, the replacement cycle is a pretty big environmental impact.

Not sure I can say anything about the claim that some/most/all people expressing concerns over the environmental impact of low quality products are participating in bad faith. I guess you win?

	▲	Dylan16807 a day ago \| parent [-]
		> Not sure I can say anything about the claim that some/most/all people expressing concerns over the environmental impact of low quality products are participating in bad faith. I don't think you understood my post at all. The point was to disentangle low quality products from de minimis and cross-ocean shipping. I am not making the claim you're accusing me of making. watwut was also not making the claim you accused them of making. To put it a different way: The environmental concern you're expressing is valid but not affected much by this rule change. The actual environmental impacts of this rule change are pretty small, so be critical of anyone using those impacts as a major reason to support it. And there is a trend of people claiming whatever they wanted anyway is better for the environment, especially when the claims are small and hard to measure. Again in this situation that would be people talking about the effect of this specific rule change, not the general concern over mass produced junk.