How long until they start shipping those abroad where they will become toxic bonfires?

You're half joking but this actually happens already. As you can imagine there's a lot of backlash on dumping good clothes on Europe itself so they export them in bad conditions just to have it burned out of sight.

https://changingmarkets.org/report/trashion-the-stealth-expo...

And it's not just old clothes being discarded, another related study showed that around 30% of clothes returned from online stores are not even looked over to see if they're worth selling again and are discarded straight away.

▲

Hackbraten 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That loophole has become very difficult:

https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/waste-and-recycling/...

	▲	boredhedgehog 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		But when does a product become waste? When the owner says it is.

▲

wiz21c 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

At least they're trying.

▲

tliltocatl 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

At that point they might skip the bonfire part (or the locals would without asking their permission), which is kinda the whole point.

▲

wolvoleo 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That can be penalised too.

We really have to get away from the idea that curtailing intentional industrial waste production is futile. Perhaps in American style capitalism it is because the system is rigged and the biggest money bag always wins. But we don't want this here at all.

We have to get forward as humanity and treat our planet with respect. Otherwise we won't have one worth living on. Making money isn't the only thing that counts.

▲

graemep 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I agree we should, but that does not mean that a particular regulation is the right way to do it. Its very hard to close loopholes and exploitation of exemptions.

▲

ChrisLTD 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You have to start somewhere, no? We have laws against stealing and murder and folks don’t usually go around saying they should be removed from the books because some people still steal and commit murder.

▲

graemep 10 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes, but those laws are pretty effective. They do deter murderers and thieves, and take them out of society so they cannot repeat their offences.

Ill thought out regulations can make things worse - I am convinced this is the case for the UK's Online Safety Act, for example. That (and the proposed ban on social media for under 16s) is also promoted on "we must do something" grounds.

I am very much in favour of some proposed changes under the law - e.g. improving repairability and reusability of some product categories.

I have doubts that some discouragement of destruction of new products fixes the big underlying problem with clothing: the production of cheap junk not designed to last. Under these regulations (at least as summarised in the article), they offer it to charity, charity rejects it, then they are free to destroy it.

▲

csydas 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

>Yes, but those laws are pretty effective. They do deter murderers and thieves

This is really not true at all for violent crimes. Acts of violence are not really done by rational actors, same with many crimes. The death penalty / life in prison does not deter someone who has already decided that violence is an acceptable response to situations, and the story is similar with non-violent crimes; deterrence isn't really considered when someone has already made the decision to steal or do drugs. Deterrence doesn't change the conditions that contribute to those sorts of crimes; the law is more about restoring society as best it can, and in many countries it's about retribution / revenge more than anything.

With corporations, the conditions that lead to the undesired behavior is economical, and addressing the undesired behavior through economic methods seems appropriate -- if it's no longer economical to perform the undesired behavior, the company has to decide where they want to eat the cost.

In the case of the EU ban from the article, I suppose some companies may make the decision to pack up and leave, but my experience is many in the EU would be pretty okay with this with regards to clothing. There is a lot of interest in EU regarding sustainable, made in EU clothing and reusability, etc.

So if the goal is just to reduce clothing product waste in EU, losing fast-fashion companies and some luxury brands that most of the population won't / can't buy anyways probably isn't going to be such a big deal.

	▲	wolvoleo 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah I think we should also move from giving financial penalties to bad corporate actors, to custodial sentences to their top execs and board members. If their own safety and livelyhood is at stake they will be a lot more careful. If we just fine the company they'll just take it as an extra cost in their business equation. After all these people often say they deserve the high pay due to the high responsibility they have. But they don't, really. They screw up and they get a golden parachute. It was really sickening how the top of volkswagen got off scot-free after doing this calculated manipulation of their diesels. The buck should stop there. They blamed their lower engineers but it's not fair, either the top did know (the most likely option IMO) or they set such unattainable goals for their lower staff that they had no choice but to do this. Either way, it is the top's fault. And indeed, the goal of the EU is to minimise fast-fashion. I have to say the quality of Shein stuff is also awful which makes these things something you buy and wear two or three times before they rip. Especially with the kind of stuff I buy. I tend to buy handmade pieces that last me for years if you look after them. Made from real materials by craftspeople. I spend 100-200 euro on one but they really stand out between all the cheap shein/temu crap.

▲

ChrisLTD 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Why would this law make things worse?

What would your proposal be for fixing what you’ve identified as the underlying problem?

▲

dgellow 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

1. Come up with a regulation idea

2. do a bunch of studies to validate it

3. go through a pretty complicated, comprehensive, pretty long review process to debate and make it work within the existing regulatory system

4. eventually implement it

5. measure its impact

6. adapt or revoke according to the results

We are at the 4th step. Why would you assume your concerns haven’t been already taken in account in all the previous steps? It’s all public, you can look for the reasoning and justification

▲

eastbound 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Because we say this every time. Paper straws, anyone?

Leading a country through neutral scientific studies is the idea of “modernism”, a pipe dream from the 1960 implemented, for example, by Disney in EPCOT. We don’t live in modernist countries - perhaps post-modernist for some, but secular for 2/3rd of the world.

In Europe, our leaders have been unable to explain why we all know someone who was raped, bombed or killed with a machete in our close social circles. Countless crimes are being done by leaders who say “It is proven by science that these side-effects won’t happen.”

All your scientific studies mean nothing at the moment that legislators want to twist them to reach a solution.

	▲	dgellow 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I have no idea what you’re responding to. I don’t see how your comment has anything to do with mine

▲

sorokod 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Naming and shaming is a reasonable first step.

▲

amelius 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

We need judges that don't just look at the letter of the law. We can already use computers for that.

▲

thesmtsolver2 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Wasn’t it the US that caught European companies in the emissions scandal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal

	▲	OKRainbowKid 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Ok, what's your point?

▲

thefourthchime 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I'm pretty sure they're docking the ship right now.