all 47 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 89 points 4 weeks ago

The linked article is an inferior but true copy of https://environment.ec.europa.eu/news/new-eu-rules-stop-destruction-unsold-clothes-and-shoes-2026-02-09_en , an EU press release with the same headline and, as far as I can tell, true.

  • source
  • [–] 78 points 4 weeks ago

    Fast Fashion has always been a problem and I hope this will combat that.

  • source
  • [–] 58 points 4 weeks ago (1 child)

    here's hoping governments will stop fast fashion at the source too!

    clothing companies need to be forced to fairly pay their workers, have decent working hours & conditions for them, and planned obsolescence for clothing (via flimsy thin fabrics etc) needs to be regulated out of existence. 🤞

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 4 weeks ago (4 children)

    Last September I needed a new pair of jeans. I was in a mall and saw the Levi's store. I remembered how long my Levi's would last in the past and figured I should put the extra money for a good pair that will last. Prices where nowhere to be seen, I tought mabe 60-80$ since I knew they where expensive. Got to the cashier and total was 130$ for a single pair of jeans!

    Worst is I barely wore them and they are already full of holes! WTF !

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago

    Earlier this year, doing a closet cleanup, I finally retired a pair of 501's that I bought in the Late 80's. They were falling apart at the pocket seams. They of course had a bunch of rips and abrasions, but they were just cool.

    Last year I bought a pair of 505's. They are starting to fall apart. They are pre-faded, which means chemically or mechanically stressed. The 501's were old school shrink to fit, dark indigo. You faded them by wearing them and washing them 100's of times.

    The new 505's are made of clearly much inferior denim.

    They were also cheaper, an impulse buy for a teenager.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 45 points 4 weeks ago (3 children)

    So they are going to be shipped abroad to get destroyed?

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 4 weeks ago (1 child)

    It'll get more expensive so were just have to keep removing the incentive structures to destroy

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    You mean like how every time there's a sports championship the losing team's merch ends up in Africa somewhere?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 35 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

    We need to stop these manufacturers from offering a clothing line to every single pop culture phenom because of "business".

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)
  • [–] 21 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

    Sweden tried to something similar last year, they banned throwing out old clothes with the garbage, you had to hand it in to specific collection points.

    In just a few weeks the system was broken and overloaded, they didn't have the capacity to deal with the sudden influx of material.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 63 points 4 weeks ago (1 child)

    Very big differences in these laws.

    In Sweden they put the responsibility on the consumers. EU is putting the responsibility on the companies.

    As you should.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 4 weeks ago

    i donate usable clothing and cut up the rest as cleaning rags or strips for rugmaking. reduse, reuse, THEN recycle.

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 3 weeks ago

    Next step: ban non-degradable synthetic textiles.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 4 weeks ago (3 children)

    What will they do then? Are they setting up sufficient recycling capability?

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 39 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

    From 19 July 2026, luxury and other big brands will be required to either reuse, recycle, resell (at a discount) or donate their leftover stock.

    And

    This rule aims at curbing waste from textiles, as well as reducing the large amount of waste the fashion industry generates each year.

    If they choose recycle, they would need to do it themselves. But most likely, they will donate.

    No matter what, someone is getting something at a lesser price than retail.

    Or, they produce less. Which is very, very good.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 weeks ago (1 child)

    Yes produce less, raise prices because there is "less supply"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 weeks ago* (1 child)

    Honestly I'd gladly pay more if the textile quality was better. You can't fucking get good textiles anymore, and the whole art of knowing and understanding textiles is mostly lost on the average person. That includes me!

    We're all buying the cloth equivalent of those super cheap flimsy rubbish bin liners that tear down the seams as you try to insert them in the bin, but so many don't even know better that we just accept it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 weeks ago

    Agreed. Good textiles, I don't believe they exist anymore. Like they just burned the factory down or something. When I was starting out in the trades, I'd buy all my pants from thrift stores. Grease, oil, general dirt, etc, not only did the old denim last longer than anything i bought new, it washed way better. My stained clothes would actually be like 80-90% stain free out of the wash. The new stuff after a day of work became permanent work pants they just never washed out.

    Come to think of it, it is probably all the damn synthetic fiber the add now that binds tightly to the petroleum molecules. Unlike the fully natural stuff in the past that can actually release the stain.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 3 weeks ago* (1 child)

    This isn't that uplifting if you know just how much donations of used clothing harms developing countries and actually like the planet we all share.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    That sounds like when Clinton was arguing that paying the workers in (Haiti?) better would ackshually hurt them because the businesses would flee to cheaper places...

    Should we really maintain toxic systems because they have one positive benefit?
    I would argue that sifting through piles of rubbish is not a positive benefit :/

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 child)

    There's several African countries that have straight banned shipments of clothing to them. Those shipments destroyed the booming local textile industries they had, and that they are trying to rebuild. Textile industries are the key and first step to bootstrap industrialization, as understood in Europe (see the start of it in England, and how the automation helped and fed back on itself).

    If you think globalization is not a yoke, I don't know what to tell you.. The global rich north needs a poor south to exploit or the system isn't profitable for them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 weeks ago

    That screenshot gives me a vibe of “this is just like the mall, gems surrounded by trash.”

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 4 weeks ago (2 children)

    Isn’t this a general problem? What will be so special about clothing produced on July 16th?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments