New rules will also ensure products are more enviromentally friendly and that goods are also more easily repaired and recycled.
This seems more like the real news here. Keeping clothes lasting longer would be to everyone’s benefit.
Seriously. One of my pet peeves is shoes made with no outsole. Around 10 or 12 years ago a bunch of shoe brands decided they could save money if they stopped making shoes with a hard rubber outsole. Instead they just mold the tread into the soft midsole material. They spent a bunch of money convincing people it was fashionable. Probably a lot cheaper to produce for them. But the shoes wear out insanely fast.
I hate to say it but I’ve never had a pair where the new foam midsole was the reason I replaced the shoes. It was always near the toe or fabric separating. That happened before with harder soles too. If anything they don’t wear out as quickly. I’ve no idea why but they don’t.
That’s why my shoes all wear out so soon now!
I have never worn out a pair of shoes that way. Not against what you suggest but if they takes say 20 percent more energy but only 5 percent of people will take any advantage of it, that is a fifteen percent hit to the environment.
I just took those numbers out of my ass but there is a good chance that if you force companies to build say a product like this more durable, it could end up costing the consumer and the environment more than less. It is near impossible to legislate.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Negotiators from the European Parliament and EU member states on Tuesday reached an agreement to stop large retail groups of destroying unsold clothes and footwear.
Brussels is seeking to address textile consumption in Europe, which has the fourth highest impact on the environment and climate change after food, housing and transport.
The latest agreement comes as part of a wider initiative after the European Commission proposed changes to the bloc’s so-called ecodesign rules.
MEP Alessandra Moretti, who spearheaded the legislation through parliament, said: “It is time to end the model of ‘take, make, dispose’ that is so harmful to our planet, our health and our economy.”
Full details of requirements for individual products have not yet been finalized with parliament and member states still needing to officially approve the agreement, although that this is believed to be a formality.
The agreement outlined that the European Commission can issue legally binding requirements to make goods such as furniture, tyres, detergents, paints and chemicals more environmentally friendly.
The original article contains 326 words, the summary contains 162 words. Saved 50%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Keep dumping your problems to Africa to deal with them. While keeping a hypocritical ecological front
Not surprising, the EU is at its core an imperialist project.
The negative effects of EU regulations on the global south as well as its own internal periphery aren’t discussed enough.
for every anti-tech monopoly law the EU makes, the counterbalance is a law favoring the fast fashion industry. I suppose that instead of destroying them, they’d need to be sold in a second hand clothes store or to be refurbished, and not just dumped into Africa or China… right?
How does this law favor fast fashion? it seems the opposite
yeah, I didn’t look into it deeply, my bad.
No worries mate
Then why comment?
I suppose that instead of destroying them, they’d need to be sold in a second hand clothes store or to be refurbished, and not just dumped into Africa or China… right?
Isn’t that, like, better than just destroying them tho? I get it this is a pretty mild and inconsequantial reform in the grand scheme of things but it feels like you’re just being contrarian for the sake of it.
I have owned up to my mistake and noted that I did not think of my argument thoroughly here, as noted by how Adriaan said this.
However, all I was attempting to say was that I was concerned over what the implication of this law was, and another comment did raise the concern that, instead of destroying the clothes altogether, they would still be dumped. At least not destroyed anymore, just left there to rot.
How does this favour fast fashion?
They might as well try banning fashion and individual choice. Just because you ban destroying clothing if it doesn’t sell doesn’t mean that people will automatically wear it. Just walk into any resale shop/goodwill store and see the amount of clothes there that are practically given away and people are still picky about it. “MEP Alessandra Moretti, who spearheaded the legislation through parliament, said: "It is time to end the model of ‘take, make, dispose’ that is so harmful to our planet, our health and our economy.” " Well I don’t know about her, but I have a simple set of shirts, pants, socks and underwear that I have just been rotating through for years (yes I wash them). Sounds like they need to work on the stigma of wearing clothes more than once…
The issue is that some of the brands are intentionally destroying unsold clothing so ‘the poors’ can’t end up wearing their brand and I guess diluting the brand’s reputation or something.
They should try making only 100 shirts instead of 1000 where 900 end up not selling fast enough.
or not making ugly overpriced shit
There are always a few people willing to pay a crazy price for some crazy nonsense garbage. I think it’s ok to make few shirts like that, but you have to make sure you actually sell all of them. Better not manufacture more than you can sell.
Yeah, they might after this
They could just punch an eye hole in it somewhere and send it to some place that wants/needs clothes.
I’m not sure what you mean. They are (currently) explicitly making sure that the clothing never ends anywhere that wants/needs clothes - as in the goal is anti-charity.
Under the new law, I hope they can’t take a hole puncher to it. If they are allowed, they’ll do as much damage as they legally can.
Because you aren’t likely to run into someone with a “fake” and they couldn’t just ship them back to western countries to resell and undercut. How is that worse then them currently destroying them?
Oh, interesting. I wasn’t aware of the reselling thing, and from the votes it seems a lot of others weren’t either. I guess if it’s just punched on something like the label/tag then that would be fine. Or maybe use permanent dye/bleach to blot it out.
Much better if they’re simply given away as charity as the end stop instead of literally sent into the incinerator to try and extract a fraction of the energy that went into making it. At least that way people who literally can’t afford clothes get to wear something new, clean and whole.
I agree with that. Edit: But think it’s sad that it’s something they have to legislate…
The capitalism model doesn’t allow room for morals, so literally anything we want done morally or ethically has to be regulated.
(yes I wash them)
I had assumed as much, but you explicitly saying so just makes me doubt it.
I was just trying to see if I could preempt the comments where people would ask if I ever washed my clothes. Evidently my entire comment was a disaster in people’s opinion. Oh well, just an old guy yelling at clouds over here.
the point and you are on a parallel path, separated by a thick wall. if only that wall hadn’t existed and you’d understand the fact Alessandra is proving your point.
need to work on the stigma of wearing clothes more than once…
Is this a thing?
They might as well try banning fashion and individual choice.
good
you don’t need 30 different brands of white shirts or 100 different brands of the same fucking chocolate cookie
