6 ms·

Based on other articles I am reading, it sounds like they can't discard them at all. Does that mean you can just "sell" a lot of clothes to a recycler for $1?

Based on other articles I am reading, it sounds like they can't discard them at all. Does that mean you can just "sell" a lot of clothes to a recycler for $1? Or do they have to keep that ugly jacket on the shelf for decades if they have to? How is this enforceable? Also, I'm all for durable/repairable clothes, but I'm not sure how much the average consumer is really into darning their own socks. If we want more durable clothes we are talking about less spandex and polyester and more thick and uncomfortable garments.

ocdtrekkie 3y ago
Presumably they could discount it heavily to consumers or, barring that, donate it to someone who needs it? But the key issue is how discards allow bad practices. As we prohibit waste, businesses will adjust what they produce and ship accordingly.
- ars 3y ago
  So basically if I buy the ugly shirt I get a discount on a good one? And then the consumer throws it away later? So basically the same disposal, but with extra steps? This article really needs more details on how they plan for this to actually work.
  - ocdtrekkie 3y ago
    So if you're not aware, basically there are a bunch of scenarios where stores are incentivized to over-ship product and then destroy it rather than let it be sold at a loss or low profit. Books are an excellent example: If you've ever heard of a store ripping the covers off books and destroying them, it's because rather than discount them or give them away, they are destroying them and returning the covers (proof of destruction) to the publisher for a refund. Throwing books away is cheaper than shipping them back or elsewhere: They're worth more destroyed, largely because throwing them away is free. If throwing them away wasn't free, a lot of other interesting options would be more viable... like not shipping excess in the first place, discounting extras to an extreme level (shelf space is worth selling you a book for a quarter at some point), or giving them to charities. With clothing returns, or Amazon returns in general, the issue is similar: It costs them more to actually check over the product for resale then to just chuck it in the trash. Waste is cheap because waste doesn't require any labor costs. Forcing a company not to throw away unsold merchandise simply raises the cost of getting rid of it above zero, so they have to seek better options.
    - jimscard 3y ago
      In the case of books, the product with value is the content (the words), not the packaging (the pages of the book). Books are very recyclable, though. The question, really, is what about clothes? Well, it turns out textiles are recyclable as well. That’s what happens to most clothing that’s donated to Goodwill etc. - if they don’t sell, and let’s face it, who wants most threadworn, out of style clothing?— then they’re shredded & recycled.
    - ars 3y ago
      > Throwing books away is cheaper than shipping them back or elsewhere So basically it costs less resources to throw them away, and instead we are legislating that people spend extra resources under the guise of reducing resources by not throwing things away. Sounds backwards to me. It reminds me of those recycling ideas where you are meant to mail the item somewhere, using more energy to do that, than it would cost to make the item from scratch in the first place. Great plan that. Or people who drive 20 minutes to recycle glass. Instead please have a care for the environment and just throw stuff away! > Forcing a company not to throw away unsold merchandise simply raises the cost of getting rid of it above zero, so they have to seek better options. In other words things will cost more? So basically these new laws have as a consequence higher prices, and extra resource consumption? Someone didn't think things though........
      - ocdtrekkie 3y ago
        No, you're missing half the math: By making it more expensive to discard unprofitable items, companies have a lot more incentive to produce less waste in the first place. This is a correction for an existing insanely harmful business practice: That wasteful production is currently so cheap it makes sense to overproduce, overship, and then just destroy what they don't need later. The solution is for them to make less.
        ars 3y ago
        You've re-described the goal. The problem is that your goal doesn't match the reality. They behave this way because it consumes less resources, by definition: if you spend less money, then you spend less resources (that's what money is for: to acquire resources). > The solution is for them to make less. Think about it - wouldn't they do this on their own? I mean it costs them money to make so much. If things are cheap, it's because they don't take much resources to make in the first place. The regulation has a good goal, and a failed implementation - it actually going to result in more resource consumption, only those resources will be in shipping, handling, storage, etc.
csomar 3y ago
You could always ship it to a third-world country. Someone out there will buy it.
- foobar2723 3y ago
  We already do this. It creates a system of free clothing but also has had the unintended consequence of destroying domestic clothing production.
  - cududa 3y ago
    I mean that’s not actually as big of an issue given it’s mostly unusable by the time it gets there, and the bigger problem is the literal mountains being formed of waste clothing https://www.forbesafrica.com/fashion/2023/01/18/rags-not-riches-why-ghana-is-fast-fashions-dumping-ground/ https://www.forbesafrica.com/fashion/2023/01/18/rags-not-ric...
  - legitster 3y ago
    > destroying domestic clothing production What a weirdly specific whataboutism argument. Should we stop food or monetary aid along the same argument?
    - ars 3y ago
      Probably, yes we should. Unless we want the country to be permanently supported by charity. Aid should certainly be given in exceptional circumstances - drought, illness, war, etc. But not routinely every year.
shiroiuma 3y ago
Spandex is great for comfort, but instead of polyester, they could use more nylon. Nylon is extremely durable compared to most polyesters. But I agree: repairability for clothes seems a little silly. We have industrial processes (like automated cutting) that make clothes-making extremely efficient, and materials that make them far more comfortable than ever; we just need to improve what we do with them at the end-of-life (i.e., reusing/recycling). As for the ugly jackets, they should be able to sell these to secondhand stores or the like for next-to-nothing, where they could be sold for very little. Or given to homeless shelters.

ocdtrekkie 3y ago

Presumably they could discount it heavily to consumers or, barring that, donate it to someone who needs it? But the key issue is how discards allow bad practices. As we prohibit waste, businesses will adjust what they produce and ship accordingly.

ars 3y ago
So basically if I buy the ugly shirt I get a discount on a good one? And then the consumer throws it away later? So basically the same disposal, but with extra steps? This article really needs more details on how they plan for this to actually work.
- ocdtrekkie 3y ago
  So if you're not aware, basically there are a bunch of scenarios where stores are incentivized to over-ship product and then destroy it rather than let it be sold at a loss or low profit. Books are an excellent example: If you've ever heard of a store ripping the covers off books and destroying them, it's because rather than discount them or give them away, they are destroying them and returning the covers (proof of destruction) to the publisher for a refund. Throwing books away is cheaper than shipping them back or elsewhere: They're worth more destroyed, largely because throwing them away is free. If throwing them away wasn't free, a lot of other interesting options would be more viable... like not shipping excess in the first place, discounting extras to an extreme level (shelf space is worth selling you a book for a quarter at some point), or giving them to charities. With clothing returns, or Amazon returns in general, the issue is similar: It costs them more to actually check over the product for resale then to just chuck it in the trash. Waste is cheap because waste doesn't require any labor costs. Forcing a company not to throw away unsold merchandise simply raises the cost of getting rid of it above zero, so they have to seek better options.
  - jimscard 3y ago
    In the case of books, the product with value is the content (the words), not the packaging (the pages of the book). Books are very recyclable, though. The question, really, is what about clothes? Well, it turns out textiles are recyclable as well. That’s what happens to most clothing that’s donated to Goodwill etc. - if they don’t sell, and let’s face it, who wants most threadworn, out of style clothing?— then they’re shredded & recycled.
  - ars 3y ago
    > Throwing books away is cheaper than shipping them back or elsewhere So basically it costs less resources to throw them away, and instead we are legislating that people spend extra resources under the guise of reducing resources by not throwing things away. Sounds backwards to me. It reminds me of those recycling ideas where you are meant to mail the item somewhere, using more energy to do that, than it would cost to make the item from scratch in the first place. Great plan that. Or people who drive 20 minutes to recycle glass. Instead please have a care for the environment and just throw stuff away! > Forcing a company not to throw away unsold merchandise simply raises the cost of getting rid of it above zero, so they have to seek better options. In other words things will cost more? So basically these new laws have as a consequence higher prices, and extra resource consumption? Someone didn't think things though........
    - ocdtrekkie 3y ago
      No, you're missing half the math: By making it more expensive to discard unprofitable items, companies have a lot more incentive to produce less waste in the first place. This is a correction for an existing insanely harmful business practice: That wasteful production is currently so cheap it makes sense to overproduce, overship, and then just destroy what they don't need later. The solution is for them to make less.
      - ars 3y ago
        You've re-described the goal. The problem is that your goal doesn't match the reality. They behave this way because it consumes less resources, by definition: if you spend less money, then you spend less resources (that's what money is for: to acquire resources). > The solution is for them to make less. Think about it - wouldn't they do this on their own? I mean it costs them money to make so much. If things are cheap, it's because they don't take much resources to make in the first place. The regulation has a good goal, and a failed implementation - it actually going to result in more resource consumption, only those resources will be in shipping, handling, storage, etc.

csomar 3y ago

You could always ship it to a third-world country. Someone out there will buy it.

foobar2723 3y ago
We already do this. It creates a system of free clothing but also has had the unintended consequence of destroying domestic clothing production.
- cududa 3y ago
  I mean that’s not actually as big of an issue given it’s mostly unusable by the time it gets there, and the bigger problem is the literal mountains being formed of waste clothing https://www.forbesafrica.com/fashion/2023/01/18/rags-not-riches-why-ghana-is-fast-fashions-dumping-ground/ https://www.forbesafrica.com/fashion/2023/01/18/rags-not-ric...
- legitster 3y ago
  > destroying domestic clothing production What a weirdly specific whataboutism argument. Should we stop food or monetary aid along the same argument?
  - ars 3y ago
    Probably, yes we should. Unless we want the country to be permanently supported by charity. Aid should certainly be given in exceptional circumstances - drought, illness, war, etc. But not routinely every year.

shiroiuma 3y ago

Spandex is great for comfort, but instead of polyester, they could use more nylon. Nylon is extremely durable compared to most polyesters. But I agree: repairability for clothes seems a little silly. We have industrial processes (like automated cutting) that make clothes-making extremely efficient, and materials that make them far more comfortable than ever; we just need to improve what we do with them at the end-of-life (i.e., reusing/recycling). As for the ugly jackets, they should be able to sell these to secondhand stores or the like for next-to-nothing, where they could be sold for very little. Or given to homeless shelters.