4 ms·

I think what bugs me about EU legislation like this is how micro-targeted it is. Why apparel specifically? If waste and a disregard for the finite-ness of natur

I think what bugs me about EU legislation like this is how micro-targeted it is. Why apparel specifically? If waste and a disregard for the finite-ness of natural resources is the problem, why not impose a blanket, Pigovian-style tax on all extracted resources? I got the same feeling when they mandated USB-C on Apple devices. If the problem of waste were tackled categorically, then the state wouldn’t need to get involved in matters it has no business getting involved in. It has to stop at some point. Eventually, the regulations will become so complicated, unknowable, and unenforceable, that they’ll have no choice but to say “this is enough” and start tackling the root of the problem instead.

im3w1l 8mo ago
I dont really care about waste too much as I think it's a non-issue blown out of proportion, but mandating standards and interoperability creates a lot of value for consumers and prevents anticompetive behavior.
ragebol 8mo ago
> micro-targeted > mandated USB-C on Apple devices There is no law that states specifically Apple must specifically use USB-C. IIUC, the law is that all brands/manufacturers should use the same type of charger, an industry standard. That was apparently USB-C. Apple was the odd one out and had to change. If something better comes along, the industry as a whole can upgrade.
- kranke155 8mo ago
  Americans always ask - but who decides - the industry decides. The industry gets to decide what they want to use.
Mordisquitos 8mo ago
You have an odd perception of what constitutes "micro-targetting". Why apparel specifically? Because apparel is specifically the consumer industry where enormous quantities of unsold product are intentionally destroyed to then be replaced in the market by newly made equivalent articles. Why was USB-C mandated specifically on Apple devices? Well here's the thing: it wasn't. It was mandated on smartphones in general, and Apple was the only company that specifically tried to fight the regulation because apparently they're special.
- peterfirefly 8mo ago
  > Because apparel is specifically the consumer industry Because it is very visible to low information voters who are also red/green voters.
  - Mordisquitos 8mo ago
    Are you a high-information voter? If so, could you please provide information about any consumer industry that comes even close to the apparel industry in terms of a) ubiquity and market scale and b) destruction of unsold but undamaged items while still producing equally functional equivalents for market? Is there such a thing as fast-cutlery? Or fast-furniture? Maybe fast-book or fast-vehicle? Fast-whitegood perhaps? I'm at a loss here, I've only heard of fast-fashion.
    - im3w1l 8mo ago
      I feel like there is a lot of waste in packaging specifically. Like way, way more colorful plastic polymers go into the trash way faster making products look appealing on the shelf than from clothing. Don't have the numbers to back it up though.
      - deleted 8mo ago
        [deleted]
    - cm2012 8mo ago
      Uh, yes? Food and consumer electronics are larger or similar scale to fashion and undamaged goods for both are landfilled at massive/similar rates to clothing. Books are the same logic as apparel, "print more than needed, pulp what doesnt sale". Its just much smaller.
      - pprotas 8mo ago
        Food is perishable, clearly we can’t force manufacturers or shops to keep unsold perished stock. Unsold electronics aren’t destroyed on a seasonal basis to make room for a new collection. Same goes for books… and pulp from booms can create new paper to print new books on
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
addedlovely 8mo ago
I agree wholeheartedly, seems to be a symptom of bureaucracy. Rules upon rules that end up as the status quo without consolidation and a good refactor.
- emptyfile 8mo ago
  [dead]
kdheiwns 8mo ago
People will say something needs to be done about waste and microplastics then complain when actual action is taken. One of the largest contributors to microplastics in our world is clothing. If companies need to start taking responsibility and reducing their supply, that's good for everyone. If companies feel pressured by regulations because they can no longer produce endless shit and artificially inflate prices by destroying half the shit they produce, then I'm in favor of it. I'd even be in favor of governments shutting down corporations that massively overproduce. It's the 21st century and these companies measure every single little aspect of their business. If they need to trash a bunch of their clothes, it's because they're being actively wasteful. Cost reduction is one of the most fundamental aspects of capitalism, and if companies aren't even concerned about that aspect, then they deserve to be crushed.
mvdtnz 8mo ago
Do you live in the EU? No? Then it's none of your business.
rsynnott 8mo ago
> I think what bugs me about EU legislation like this is how micro-targeted it is. Why apparel specifically? If waste and a disregard for the finite-ness of natural resources is the problem, why not impose a blanket, Pigovian-style tax on all extracted resources? "Don't attempt to in any way address the problem unless you're willing to go for an absolute maximalist solution" is a pretty weird stance.
jadenpeterson 8mo ago
There's a bilingual relationship between the responsibilities of the state and the rights of the consumer. That point you describe - where they'll tackle the root problem - isn't coming. In truth, these are feel good measures anyway - naive attempts to fix a downstream problem that won't pan out. That's my opinion, anyway.

im3w1l 8mo ago

I dont really care about waste too much as I think it's a non-issue blown out of proportion, but mandating standards and interoperability creates a lot of value for consumers and prevents anticompetive behavior.

ragebol 8mo ago

> micro-targeted > mandated USB-C on Apple devices There is no law that states specifically Apple must specifically use USB-C. IIUC, the law is that all brands/manufacturers should use the same type of charger, an industry standard. That was apparently USB-C. Apple was the odd one out and had to change. If something better comes along, the industry as a whole can upgrade.

kranke155 8mo ago
Americans always ask - but who decides - the industry decides. The industry gets to decide what they want to use.

Mordisquitos 8mo ago

You have an odd perception of what constitutes "micro-targetting". Why apparel specifically? Because apparel is specifically the consumer industry where enormous quantities of unsold product are intentionally destroyed to then be replaced in the market by newly made equivalent articles. Why was USB-C mandated specifically on Apple devices? Well here's the thing: it wasn't. It was mandated on smartphones in general, and Apple was the only company that specifically tried to fight the regulation because apparently they're special.

peterfirefly 8mo ago
> Because apparel is specifically the consumer industry Because it is very visible to low information voters who are also red/green voters.
- Mordisquitos 8mo ago
  Are you a high-information voter? If so, could you please provide information about any consumer industry that comes even close to the apparel industry in terms of a) ubiquity and market scale and b) destruction of unsold but undamaged items while still producing equally functional equivalents for market? Is there such a thing as fast-cutlery? Or fast-furniture? Maybe fast-book or fast-vehicle? Fast-whitegood perhaps? I'm at a loss here, I've only heard of fast-fashion.
  - im3w1l 8mo ago
    I feel like there is a lot of waste in packaging specifically. Like way, way more colorful plastic polymers go into the trash way faster making products look appealing on the shelf than from clothing. Don't have the numbers to back it up though.
    - deleted 8mo ago
      [deleted]
  - cm2012 8mo ago
    Uh, yes? Food and consumer electronics are larger or similar scale to fashion and undamaged goods for both are landfilled at massive/similar rates to clothing. Books are the same logic as apparel, "print more than needed, pulp what doesnt sale". Its just much smaller.
    - pprotas 8mo ago
      Food is perishable, clearly we can’t force manufacturers or shops to keep unsold perished stock. Unsold electronics aren’t destroyed on a seasonal basis to make room for a new collection. Same goes for books… and pulp from booms can create new paper to print new books on

deleted 8mo ago

[deleted]

addedlovely 8mo ago

I agree wholeheartedly, seems to be a symptom of bureaucracy. Rules upon rules that end up as the status quo without consolidation and a good refactor.

emptyfile 8mo ago
[dead]

kdheiwns 8mo ago

People will say something needs to be done about waste and microplastics then complain when actual action is taken. One of the largest contributors to microplastics in our world is clothing. If companies need to start taking responsibility and reducing their supply, that's good for everyone. If companies feel pressured by regulations because they can no longer produce endless shit and artificially inflate prices by destroying half the shit they produce, then I'm in favor of it. I'd even be in favor of governments shutting down corporations that massively overproduce. It's the 21st century and these companies measure every single little aspect of their business. If they need to trash a bunch of their clothes, it's because they're being actively wasteful. Cost reduction is one of the most fundamental aspects of capitalism, and if companies aren't even concerned about that aspect, then they deserve to be crushed.

mvdtnz 8mo ago

Do you live in the EU? No? Then it's none of your business.

rsynnott 8mo ago

> I think what bugs me about EU legislation like this is how micro-targeted it is. Why apparel specifically? If waste and a disregard for the finite-ness of natural resources is the problem, why not impose a blanket, Pigovian-style tax on all extracted resources? "Don't attempt to in any way address the problem unless you're willing to go for an absolute maximalist solution" is a pretty weird stance.

jadenpeterson 8mo ago

There's a bilingual relationship between the responsibilities of the state and the rights of the consumer. That point you describe - where they'll tackle the root problem - isn't coming. In truth, these are feel good measures anyway - naive attempts to fix a downstream problem that won't pan out. That's my opinion, anyway.