3 ms·

I don’t understand why they would ban this rather than charge for it. It seems very likely that destroying unsold clothes is sometimes the socially efficient th

by dash2 3mo ago

I don’t understand why they would ban this rather than charge for it. It seems very likely that destroying unsold clothes is sometimes the socially efficient thing to do, even after taking into account the environmental externalities.

cromka 3mo ago
Because it promotes recycling instead of being another tax.
- dash2 3mo ago
  A tax would also promote recycling, since that would avoid the tax?
  - cromka 3mo ago
    How's that different to current asking for recycling and fining on incompliance?
    - dash2 3mo ago
      The difference is that a tax can be per-item, and doesn't need as much regulatory and legal machinery.
- pyuser583 3mo ago
  Recycling an object almost always means destroying it.
bulder 3mo ago
Destroying unsold clothes is financially the most efficient thing to do. It remains unclear to me how taking actions to maintain higher markups on products would be socially efficient in any way. Companies of course can keep doing it, they just will face financial and legislative repercussions for it.
- dash2 3mo ago
  If you can't sell clothes to anyone, then it may be more socially efficient to destroy them than (a) keep them in a warehouse or (b) ship them overseas. Both (a) and (b) can have substantial environmental costs. I don't think it should be hard to come up with other plausible cases. You're assuming there's only one reason companies do this. I don't deny that that's a possible reason. I also don't see why taxing that behaviour would not reduce it.
  - nairboon 3mo ago
    Or (c) lower the price to the market clearing price point and your clothes will be gone.
    - dash2 3mo ago
      You're assuming there is such a price! Charity shops throw out the majority of clothes they are given: some things just will never sell.[1] [1] https://theclothingbank.org.uk/what-happens-to-the-clothes-you-donate-to-charity-clothing-bins https://theclothingbank.org.uk/what-happens-to-the-clothes-y...
      - Dylan16807 3mo ago
        Those are used clothes. New clothes, especially from a brand that would use a shredder to have a little more exclusivity? I expect almost all to sell just fine.
      - esterna 3mo ago
        Once once they are rejected by charities, they can be destroyed just like before this law. EU regulators are flawed humans, but you can be assured that any argument you can come up with in 10 minutes has been considered.
        dash2 3mo ago
        Fair enough, but now I would "solve for the equilibrium" and assume that any large clothing company will have a friendly charity to reject its clothes for it.
roysting 3mo ago
That was my initial thought too; just make it a non-deductible charge, ideally, payable from executive compensation. Or they could also just levy higher taxes/fees on synthetic fibers and clothing that cannot be repaired (there are several reasons), and at the same time support the industry for natural, truly biodegradable fibers and their research? This seems like more ivory tower navel gazing. And that doesn’t even touch on all the jurisdictional and financial shenanigans that immediately come to my mind how you can circumvent that. Government legislatures really should have red team groups that have to be included in legislative processes with the objective of punching holes into legislation.
deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]

by dash2 3mo ago

cromka 3mo ago

Because it promotes recycling instead of being another tax.

dash2 3mo ago
A tax would also promote recycling, since that would avoid the tax?
- cromka 3mo ago
  How's that different to current asking for recycling and fining on incompliance?
  - dash2 3mo ago
    The difference is that a tax can be per-item, and doesn't need as much regulatory and legal machinery.
pyuser583 3mo ago
Recycling an object almost always means destroying it.

bulder 3mo ago

Destroying unsold clothes is financially the most efficient thing to do. It remains unclear to me how taking actions to maintain higher markups on products would be socially efficient in any way. Companies of course can keep doing it, they just will face financial and legislative repercussions for it.

dash2 3mo ago
If you can't sell clothes to anyone, then it may be more socially efficient to destroy them than (a) keep them in a warehouse or (b) ship them overseas. Both (a) and (b) can have substantial environmental costs. I don't think it should be hard to come up with other plausible cases. You're assuming there's only one reason companies do this. I don't deny that that's a possible reason. I also don't see why taxing that behaviour would not reduce it.
- nairboon 3mo ago
  Or (c) lower the price to the market clearing price point and your clothes will be gone.
  - dash2 3mo ago
    You're assuming there is such a price! Charity shops throw out the majority of clothes they are given: some things just will never sell.[1] [1] https://theclothingbank.org.uk/what-happens-to-the-clothes-you-donate-to-charity-clothing-bins https://theclothingbank.org.uk/what-happens-to-the-clothes-y...
    - Dylan16807 3mo ago
      Those are used clothes. New clothes, especially from a brand that would use a shredder to have a little more exclusivity? I expect almost all to sell just fine.
    - esterna 3mo ago
      Once once they are rejected by charities, they can be destroyed just like before this law. EU regulators are flawed humans, but you can be assured that any argument you can come up with in 10 minutes has been considered.
      - dash2 3mo ago
        Fair enough, but now I would "solve for the equilibrium" and assume that any large clothing company will have a friendly charity to reject its clothes for it.

roysting 3mo ago

That was my initial thought too; just make it a non-deductible charge, ideally, payable from executive compensation. Or they could also just levy higher taxes/fees on synthetic fibers and clothing that cannot be repaired (there are several reasons), and at the same time support the industry for natural, truly biodegradable fibers and their research? This seems like more ivory tower navel gazing. And that doesn’t even touch on all the jurisdictional and financial shenanigans that immediately come to my mind how you can circumvent that. Government legislatures really should have red team groups that have to be included in legislative processes with the objective of punching holes into legislation.

deleted 3mo ago

[deleted]