• @Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    926 months ago

    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.

    • @IamSparticles@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      346 months ago

      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.

      • @QuarterSwede@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        136 months ago

        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.

      • sil
        link
        fedilink
        66 months ago

        That’s why my shoes all wear out so soon now!

      • @Zippy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        -25 months ago

        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.

  • AutoTL;DRB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    76 months ago

    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!

  • @mtchristo
    link
    26 months ago

    Keep dumping your problems to Africa to deal with them. While keeping a hypocritical ecological front

    • @knfrmity@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      -26 months ago

      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.

  • @corvid_of_the_night
    link
    English
    -226 months ago

    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?

    • space_comrade [he/him]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      9
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      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.

      • @corvid_of_the_night
        link
        26 months ago

        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.

  • @FigMcLargeHuge@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -506 months ago

    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…

    • @davidgro@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      506 months ago

      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.

          • @Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            26 months ago

            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.

        • @davidgro@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          8
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          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.

          • @Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            16 months ago

            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?

            • @davidgro@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              26 months ago

              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.

    • @ninjan@lemmy.mildgrim.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      246 months ago

      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.

    • @Rob@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      126 months ago

      (yes I wash them)

      I had assumed as much, but you explicitly saying so just makes me doubt it.

      • @FigMcLargeHuge@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        16 months ago

        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.

    • @corvid_of_the_night
      link
      English
      66 months ago

      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.

    • Krause [he/him]
      link
      fedilink
      -36 months ago

      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