← Back to context

Comment by wolvoleo

12 hours ago

That can be penalised too.

We really have to get away from the idea that curtailing intentional industrial waste production is futile. Perhaps in American style capitalism it is because the system is rigged and the biggest money bag always wins. But we don't want this here at all.

We have to get forward as humanity and treat our planet with respect. Otherwise we won't have one worth living on. Making money isn't the only thing that counts.

13 comments

wolvoleo

Reply
graemep  12 hours ago

I agree we should, but that does not mean that a particular regulation is the right way to do it. Its very hard to close loopholes and exploitation of exemptions.

  • ChrisLTD  12 hours ago

    You have to start somewhere, no? We have laws against stealing and murder and folks don’t usually go around saying they should be removed from the books because some people still steal and commit murder.

    • graemep  11 hours ago

      Yes, but those laws are pretty effective. They do deter murderers and thieves, and take them out of society so they cannot repeat their offences.

      Ill thought out regulations can make things worse - I am convinced this is the case for the UK's Online Safety Act, for example. That (and the proposed ban on social media for under 16s) is also promoted on "we must do something" grounds.

      I am very much in favour of some proposed changes under the law - e.g. improving repairability and reusability of some product categories.

      I have doubts that some discouragement of destruction of new products fixes the big underlying problem with clothing: the production of cheap junk not designed to last. Under these regulations (at least as summarised in the article), they offer it to charity, charity rejects it, then they are free to destroy it.

      3 replies →

  • dgellow  11 hours ago

    1. Come up with a regulation idea

    2. do a bunch of studies to validate it

    3. go through a pretty complicated, comprehensive, pretty long review process to debate and make it work within the existing regulatory system

    4. eventually implement it

    5. measure its impact

    6. adapt or revoke according to the results

    We are at the 4th step. Why would you assume your concerns haven’t been already taken in account in all the previous steps? It’s all public, you can look for the reasoning and justification

    • eastbound  9 hours ago

      Because we say this every time. Paper straws, anyone?

      Leading a country through neutral scientific studies is the idea of “modernism”, a pipe dream from the 1960 implemented, for example, by Disney in EPCOT. We don’t live in modernist countries - perhaps post-modernist for some, but secular for 2/3rd of the world.

      In Europe, our leaders have been unable to explain why we all know someone who was raped, bombed or killed with a machete in our close social circles. Countless crimes are being done by leaders who say “It is proven by science that these side-effects won’t happen.”

      All your scientific studies mean nothing at the moment that legislators want to twist them to reach a solution.

      1 reply →

  • amelius  11 hours ago

    We need judges that don't just look at the letter of the law. We can already use computers for that.