Many of the clothes we donate to charity end up dumped in landfill(abc.net.au)
abc.net.au
Many of the clothes we donate to charity end up dumped in landfill
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-12/fast-fashion-turning-parts-ghana-into-toxic-landfill/100358702
220 comments
>why would anyone "donate" these is a different matter
This is a very big question though. WTF are people thinking? There's a difference between no longer wearing something because it no longer fits but is otherwise in good condition to not being used because it's completely ruined. What mental block exists in the original owner from just throwing away the ruined items vs just holding onto them to donate so someone else can throw it away? Do they actually feel like some good is coming from donating worthless items? I honestly just do understand this.
This is a very big question though. WTF are people thinking? There's a difference between no longer wearing something because it no longer fits but is otherwise in good condition to not being used because it's completely ruined. What mental block exists in the original owner from just throwing away the ruined items vs just holding onto them to donate so someone else can throw it away? Do they actually feel like some good is coming from donating worthless items? I honestly just do understand this.
To add to what others have said, I think that a lot of people have this idea that "trash = bad" so deeply internalized that they're heavily biased toward only putting things in the bin when there can be no doubt whatsoever that it is garbage.
You also see this when people put greasy paper take-out food containers in the recycling. No, it's not recyclable, and worse, it might further contaminate other things and render them non-recyclable as well. But, when I ask houseguests not to put them in our recycle bin, they seem to be honestly startled by the request. Oftentimes they assume it's because I'm a lax recycler and would rather throw things away than sully my pristine recycle bin with uneaten curry.
You also see this when people put greasy paper take-out food containers in the recycling. No, it's not recyclable, and worse, it might further contaminate other things and render them non-recyclable as well. But, when I ask houseguests not to put them in our recycle bin, they seem to be honestly startled by the request. Oftentimes they assume it's because I'm a lax recycler and would rather throw things away than sully my pristine recycle bin with uneaten curry.
Yep, I asked people to do the same recently at a party. They were entirely shocked. It's like realizing that your disposable cutlery and plates are actually waste and seeing it going into the actual trash makes them realize how wasteful it is. Recycle (or charity giving of clothes) is such a "guilt free" behaviour, feeling like you do something good for no efforts, so I'm not surprised people would do it even when it makes no sense.
Depressingly that was the point of recycling in the US
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil-misled-...
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil-misled-...
Penn & Teller said it in 2004: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0771119/
> You also see this when people put greasy paper take-out food containers in the recycling. No, it's not recyclable, and worse, it might further contaminate other things and render them non-recyclable as well. But, when I ask houseguests not to put them in our recycle bin, they seem to be honestly startled by the request. Oftentimes they assume it's because I'm a lax recycler and would rather throw things away than sully my pristine recycle bin with uneaten curry.
It happens here because recycling volume is unlimited, while regular trash has a fairly low limit.
However.
You do not have to sort the recycling. They do not reject it for being entirely take-out containers. And it's collected in open-top containers that result in a mass littering event every time trash day happens to be windy.
I suspect they're just picking out the metal and putting everything else in the landfill, anyway.
It happens here because recycling volume is unlimited, while regular trash has a fairly low limit.
However.
You do not have to sort the recycling. They do not reject it for being entirely take-out containers. And it's collected in open-top containers that result in a mass littering event every time trash day happens to be windy.
I suspect they're just picking out the metal and putting everything else in the landfill, anyway.
Plastic recycling is a sham.
We were paying China to take it, and they were putting it in a landfill (probably). China won't take our trash, I mean recycling anymore, so now we're putting it in landfills.
General rule of thumb is if you can get money for scrapping it, it's recyclable (aluminum, glass, steel, etc).
Companies use plastic because it's cheap and the government won't regulate it. I remember when sodas used to come in bottles, and food came in wax paper wrapping, and it tasted better.
From an npr article posted by someone else:
>Here's the basic problem: All used plastic can be turned into new things, but picking it up, sorting it out and melting it down is expensive. Plastic also degrades each time it is reused, meaning it can't be reused more than once or twice.
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil-misled-...
We were paying China to take it, and they were putting it in a landfill (probably). China won't take our trash, I mean recycling anymore, so now we're putting it in landfills.
General rule of thumb is if you can get money for scrapping it, it's recyclable (aluminum, glass, steel, etc).
Companies use plastic because it's cheap and the government won't regulate it. I remember when sodas used to come in bottles, and food came in wax paper wrapping, and it tasted better.
From an npr article posted by someone else:
>Here's the basic problem: All used plastic can be turned into new things, but picking it up, sorting it out and melting it down is expensive. Plastic also degrades each time it is reused, meaning it can't be reused more than once or twice.
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil-misled-...
Glass is mostly "recycled" by crushing, mostly to reduce the hazard of broken glass littering the street. In many states, buying a drink in a glass container carries a nominal extra fee to cover the "recycling." No one actually wants to buy your used glass containers for their own sake.
As recently as the early 90s there were still grocery stores that'd take back glass soda bottles to refill them, but the only places I know that still do anything like that are some fancy dairies (via the grocery stores that distribute their product).
In many countries still do this, especially with things like milk and beer bottles.
Yeah, and I remember beer in iron cans... and that's about as relevant to the majority of consumers.
Sure, it's just that not that long ago, it was economically feasible, so it's not like it's some kind of unattainable fantasy. A couple laws, and a 5-10% hike on the costs of drinks distributed in bottles (thanks to the added costs of handling & recycling glass), and we'd be back there. It's something we definitely could do.
But yes, right now the main glass recycler in our area just crushes everything up and turns it into fiber glass. Only an irrelevantly-small fraction of bottles are re-used. I expect we'll switch to some kind of plant-based plastics before we bring back glass recycling for drink containers, though I wouldn't wholly rule out the possibility of a shift back to glass.
But yes, right now the main glass recycler in our area just crushes everything up and turns it into fiber glass. Only an irrelevantly-small fraction of bottles are re-used. I expect we'll switch to some kind of plant-based plastics before we bring back glass recycling for drink containers, though I wouldn't wholly rule out the possibility of a shift back to glass.
Another challenge with bringing back reusable glass bottles is that that approach belonged to an era with more local brands and a smaller variety of products. There were a few brands of soft drink that were all being mixed and bottled at local distributors, and cities had their own breweries that mostly only distributed locally.
Now that we have enough different brands of soda and beer to cover three sides of a convenience store, all made and packaged at one location and then shipped across the continent, I don't know that glass can be considered a less wasteful option. It's not just about the actual piece of packaging, it's also about how much diesel fuel is being burned in shipping such heavy packaging over long distances.
Now that we have enough different brands of soda and beer to cover three sides of a convenience store, all made and packaged at one location and then shipped across the continent, I don't know that glass can be considered a less wasteful option. It's not just about the actual piece of packaging, it's also about how much diesel fuel is being burned in shipping such heavy packaging over long distances.
Reusable glass bottles also mean that you either bring the exact bottle to the exact retailer to get refilled with the exact product, or brands lose the ability to use the container for advertising and brand identity.
Even the frou-frou dairies that let you bring in their reusable bottles only want you to bring back their reusable bottles with their stenciled logos on them.
Even the frou-frou dairies that let you bring in their reusable bottles only want you to bring back their reusable bottles with their stenciled logos on them.
In the UK there is (still, in some places) milk delivery to the doorstep in 1 pint bottles. These are all a standard size, and they're all branded by the dairy. But interestingly the dairies are perfectly happy to use another company's bottles if they end up with them - branding be damned.
When I lived in a place with only one delivering dairy, this was quite rare. In Liverpool, I'd say that 10% of the bottles I get are 'foreign'.
When I lived in a place with only one delivering dairy, this was quite rare. In Liverpool, I'd say that 10% of the bottles I get are 'foreign'.
Which is something that could be solved by regulation mandating standard bottle shapes. Environment is more important than "brand identity".
Glass return schemes basically require standardized bottles. That's how it works in part in Germany: there's a small number of standard shapes of beer bottles, breweries get their share of bottles from return locations around them where possible. It breaks down with more and more breweries using custom bottles, which do need to be sorted out and returned separately, over large distances.
Cheaper is often because something was easier to make. Less materials and less energy.
That's certainly the case on a one plastic bottle to one glass bottle ratio, but I wonder just how energy efficient is making that bottle over the glass one? Twice? Ten times? A hundred? Then how many times will a glass bottle get reused on average? What sort of resources are used in the process of bringing them back and cleaning them?
This might be my bias as an Australian, tons of space but already having our natural wonder smashed by climate change, but I'm very uninterested in 'pro environment' moves that results in trading higher emissions for less land fill.
Although potentially an argument could be made that because ocean waste is less contained and more harmful than landfill, a 5-10% hike on plastic bottle drinks in low water polluting countries and using it to subsidise glass bottle drinks in high water polluting countries would be worthwhile.
That's certainly the case on a one plastic bottle to one glass bottle ratio, but I wonder just how energy efficient is making that bottle over the glass one? Twice? Ten times? A hundred? Then how many times will a glass bottle get reused on average? What sort of resources are used in the process of bringing them back and cleaning them?
This might be my bias as an Australian, tons of space but already having our natural wonder smashed by climate change, but I'm very uninterested in 'pro environment' moves that results in trading higher emissions for less land fill.
Although potentially an argument could be made that because ocean waste is less contained and more harmful than landfill, a 5-10% hike on plastic bottle drinks in low water polluting countries and using it to subsidise glass bottle drinks in high water polluting countries would be worthwhile.
I'd expect there are lots of factors with glass. Making a new plastic bottle every time might be cheaper on a resource-use than making a glass bottle and washing it for re-use (which uses energy, and water) some average number of times before it gets broken (5? 20? 50? No clue). But it might not.
However, other factors include: labor; transportation & waste costs (glass is heavier and breaks easier); and labor-geographic efficiency enabled by lower transport costs—for example, you might choose fewer bottling plants farther apart for cost efficiency, so you can reduce overhead and concentrate your labor costs in cheap locations, rather than every town having a small bottling plant, or stores having fill-n-cap stations directly in them, or whatever.
[EDIT] that is, with lower transportation costs of plastic you might be able to concentrate production in places with cheaper labor.
However, other factors include: labor; transportation & waste costs (glass is heavier and breaks easier); and labor-geographic efficiency enabled by lower transport costs—for example, you might choose fewer bottling plants farther apart for cost efficiency, so you can reduce overhead and concentrate your labor costs in cheap locations, rather than every town having a small bottling plant, or stores having fill-n-cap stations directly in them, or whatever.
[EDIT] that is, with lower transportation costs of plastic you might be able to concentrate production in places with cheaper labor.
Its a popular misconception that recycling and climate change are in opposition. Landfills are the biggest producers of greenhouse gasses after electricity generation, transport and agriculture.
The reduced carbon impact is one of the reasons to recycle, but your not the first person on HN that I've seen claim exactly the opposite.
(Of note, burning the trash and using the energy produced is also better for climate change than landfill).
The reduced carbon impact is one of the reasons to recycle, but your not the first person on HN that I've seen claim exactly the opposite.
(Of note, burning the trash and using the energy produced is also better for climate change than landfill).
Is it the plastic in landfills causing the greenhouse gases?
In the UK 70% of a typical green glass wine bottle will be recycled material and the limiting factor is the availability of the recycled material, the manufacturers would use more if they could get it, since it saves energy to do so.
And we generally don't offer deposits. When we did, the bottles were actually re-used directly.
When recycled, it is crushed, that creates something called "cullet" which can be used in the glassmaking process and is easier to transport. But I don't see the link to keeping broken glass of the street, that should be possible without crushing or recycling.
And we generally don't offer deposits. When we did, the bottles were actually re-used directly.
When recycled, it is crushed, that creates something called "cullet" which can be used in the glassmaking process and is easier to transport. But I don't see the link to keeping broken glass of the street, that should be possible without crushing or recycling.
If they are, then that's still better than the alternative.
Some nations just burn their trash, with energy recovery, and then extract any metals from the ashes. Again still notably better than landfilling in a modern, well designed landfill, which in turn is better than unregulated landfills which are better than open burning.
The media seem to love "shocking" people with stories about how recycling might not be 100% perfect. Is it still a useful thing that all sensibly run countries do a continually increasing amount of. Yes, even the US where it continues to be a weirdly political topic along with climate change and evolution for no obvious reason and so there's no real federal support for it.
Some nations just burn their trash, with energy recovery, and then extract any metals from the ashes. Again still notably better than landfilling in a modern, well designed landfill, which in turn is better than unregulated landfills which are better than open burning.
The media seem to love "shocking" people with stories about how recycling might not be 100% perfect. Is it still a useful thing that all sensibly run countries do a continually increasing amount of. Yes, even the US where it continues to be a weirdly political topic along with climate change and evolution for no obvious reason and so there's no real federal support for it.
Recycling education is awful in America. I made it about 33 years without hearing that take out containers, etc. can’t be recycled.
It also recently came out that much of the recyclable recycling was and/or is not being recycled anyway, so I doubt any education would have made a difference. I assume all the recycling efforts are simply for political purposes at this point.
It recently got coverage in popular media -- but those familiar with sanitation operations and secondhand materials markets know that recycling has been subject to market demands for those materials for its entire existence. Recycling has never operated outside of the realm of economics.
The reasons changes to recycling programs are slow are:
1. People don't pay attention anyway
2. If the price of plastics go way up 5 years from now, you'll never retrain people to recycle again
3. Recycled metals are still valuable
The reasons changes to recycling programs are slow are:
1. People don't pay attention anyway
2. If the price of plastics go way up 5 years from now, you'll never retrain people to recycle again
3. Recycled metals are still valuable
the problem is the recycling triangle that's imprinted on the containers, the one's showing the material code on it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recycling_codes. Somewhere along the line the recycle triangle had become synonymous with recyclable, but what didn't get communicated is that only certain codes paired with that triangle are actually recyclable.
So they use the recycling logo to indicate the material, NOT that it's recyclable. I wonder which genius came up with this idea...
I think that's a doomed plan. It varies from city to city, and even over time based on what they can contract to unload.
They try to relay changes, but the messaging is incredibly spotty. At one point they were saying "plastic containers where the mouth is wider than the base" or something like that, rather than even trying to use the plastic codes.
They try to relay changes, but the messaging is incredibly spotty. At one point they were saying "plastic containers where the mouth is wider than the base" or something like that, rather than even trying to use the plastic codes.
Some can, if you wash them. Puts a damper in the easy disposal that folks are accustomed to, though.
Plainly dirty, obviously goes in the trash.
But where then is the line for what's otherwise clearly marked with the recycling symbol? ...especially when there's lingering suspicion the recycling bin contents are ultimately ending up in the landfill with the rest of it all?
But where then is the line for what's otherwise clearly marked with the recycling symbol? ...especially when there's lingering suspicion the recycling bin contents are ultimately ending up in the landfill with the rest of it all?
[deleted]
If something ever seems like a popular but illogical set of actions by people, the best way to understand it is to look at the incentives that drive it (thanks Freakonomics).
In this case I'd wager two things. As a kid I had family who worked a receiving center for Goodwill. Fairly affluent part of our town near the beach. I remember two distinct things being odd to me then. The items people would bring would sometimes be questionable as to how they'd be useful to the needy, either from wear or function. The other part was most people wanted and received a receipt for their donation. Cue Mitch Hedburg receipt for a donut routine. I was told then when I asked this was an approximate value of their donation and it was used for tax purposes. So one is probably tax write offs.
Throwing things away costs money. When my wife and I moved recently we cleaned house. A second trash can was around 150 a year with limited volume. Trips to the landfill are charged by weight differential. Charity donation is free with the added bonus of someone coming to pick it up if the donation is big enough. We both commented at the time that if we were a little less moral we could easily pack the rubbish in with the donations and save a ton of money. So second is probably convenience with some working the system added in.
In this case I'd wager two things. As a kid I had family who worked a receiving center for Goodwill. Fairly affluent part of our town near the beach. I remember two distinct things being odd to me then. The items people would bring would sometimes be questionable as to how they'd be useful to the needy, either from wear or function. The other part was most people wanted and received a receipt for their donation. Cue Mitch Hedburg receipt for a donut routine. I was told then when I asked this was an approximate value of their donation and it was used for tax purposes. So one is probably tax write offs.
Throwing things away costs money. When my wife and I moved recently we cleaned house. A second trash can was around 150 a year with limited volume. Trips to the landfill are charged by weight differential. Charity donation is free with the added bonus of someone coming to pick it up if the donation is big enough. We both commented at the time that if we were a little less moral we could easily pack the rubbish in with the donations and save a ton of money. So second is probably convenience with some working the system added in.
I wouldn't be surprised if there's something there, but I do have a hard time lining those theories up with my past interactions around the subject.
For example, a long time ago a roommate of mine wanted to get rid of some furniture, so he had a thrift store send a van to pick it up. It had all been pretty severely damaged by his dog. Having previously worked at a thrift store, I was pretty confident that they wouldn't want any of it, and mentioned as much to him, but he was sure they would be able to find a use for it, and so we schlepped it out to the curb.
After the van had left without taking much of any of it, and we were carrying it all around to the alley for the garbage trucks to pick up (which is free in our city, even for furniture), the thing he expressed remorse about wasn't the donation receipt. It was that he thought it was wasteful to throw all this furniture in the trash just because his dog had been chewing on it.
I still have similar conversations with my partner about this. Her bias is, she wants to hold on to even the slightest glimmer of hope that someone might find a use for an item. I lean toward not wanting to make the staff of the thrift store throw out my trash for me. I think it might just be hard to see if that way if you haven't been there. Neither of us cares about donation receipts, which we don't bother to collect, and still live in the same city that will take anything that will physically fit inside a garbage truck for no extra charge.
Tangentially, if you haven't seen one swallow a full-size sofa, put it on your bucket list. It's a fascinating spectacle.
For example, a long time ago a roommate of mine wanted to get rid of some furniture, so he had a thrift store send a van to pick it up. It had all been pretty severely damaged by his dog. Having previously worked at a thrift store, I was pretty confident that they wouldn't want any of it, and mentioned as much to him, but he was sure they would be able to find a use for it, and so we schlepped it out to the curb.
After the van had left without taking much of any of it, and we were carrying it all around to the alley for the garbage trucks to pick up (which is free in our city, even for furniture), the thing he expressed remorse about wasn't the donation receipt. It was that he thought it was wasteful to throw all this furniture in the trash just because his dog had been chewing on it.
I still have similar conversations with my partner about this. Her bias is, she wants to hold on to even the slightest glimmer of hope that someone might find a use for an item. I lean toward not wanting to make the staff of the thrift store throw out my trash for me. I think it might just be hard to see if that way if you haven't been there. Neither of us cares about donation receipts, which we don't bother to collect, and still live in the same city that will take anything that will physically fit inside a garbage truck for no extra charge.
Tangentially, if you haven't seen one swallow a full-size sofa, put it on your bucket list. It's a fascinating spectacle.
> Her bias is, she wants to hold on to even the slightest glimmer of hope that someone might find a use for an item.
I have this same problem. It's actually taken me a lot of effort over the years to get away from this mindset. Not that I try to be wasteful, it's more of just forcing myself to be realistic about the likelihood of me being able to repurpose a thing. Sure a thing might be useful to someone but unless I'm really interested in the effort required to find them and facilitate the transaction, that thing is just going to sit around. I have finite space available so unless I really want something or really want to make a donation happen it's going in the trash.
I have this same problem. It's actually taken me a lot of effort over the years to get away from this mindset. Not that I try to be wasteful, it's more of just forcing myself to be realistic about the likelihood of me being able to repurpose a thing. Sure a thing might be useful to someone but unless I'm really interested in the effort required to find them and facilitate the transaction, that thing is just going to sit around. I have finite space available so unless I really want something or really want to make a donation happen it's going in the trash.
I'm finding that I get a lot more utility out of framing it thus: the trash isn't created when I put it in the bin, the trash is created when I buy it in the first place. Once that happens, it's going to get pitched. Could be today, could be in 30 years, but someday it will happen.
Where that pays extra dividends is in limiting the accumulation of clutter. I used to buy electronic gizmos I didn't, strictly speaking, need, at a fairly regular pace. But I was storing up a bunch of crap I'd eventually have to throw away the next time I declutter. And I had a lot of clutter. Reminding myself that every consumer product is future trash helps limit the accumulation of clutter, which, in turn, limits how often I have to feel bad about throwing it away.
Where that pays extra dividends is in limiting the accumulation of clutter. I used to buy electronic gizmos I didn't, strictly speaking, need, at a fairly regular pace. But I was storing up a bunch of crap I'd eventually have to throw away the next time I declutter. And I had a lot of clutter. Reminding myself that every consumer product is future trash helps limit the accumulation of clutter, which, in turn, limits how often I have to feel bad about throwing it away.
That's a good way to frame things which is something I now do a better job with. My clutter problems were/are mostly from old me not thinking in that way.
The big question here is how to minimize transaction costs.
You often have an item which in good condition would be worth e.g. $55, but it's damaged. If you ask someone how much they need to repair it, they say $50. So in a frictionless plane you would make $5.
But in order to pay them, you would have to fill out tax paperwork, and they would have to fill out tax paperwork, and you would have to pay payroll tax, and they would have to pay income tax, and in the end you would pay $60 and they would receive $30. So instead you throw the item away.
Whereas what you should do instead is to just give it to them. They were willing to fix the item for what in practice was $30. If you gave it to them, they would do the labor they valued at $30, or at $25 because they can omit the labor of doing the tax paperwork, and then they have a $55 item instead of the item going into a landfill.
There are also people who might be willing to use the item as-is without repairing it, if it was free.
So the real problem here is that these organizations aren't allowing people to pick through what they're throwing out. Which wouldn't make them any money, but it would be better for the world.
You often have an item which in good condition would be worth e.g. $55, but it's damaged. If you ask someone how much they need to repair it, they say $50. So in a frictionless plane you would make $5.
But in order to pay them, you would have to fill out tax paperwork, and they would have to fill out tax paperwork, and you would have to pay payroll tax, and they would have to pay income tax, and in the end you would pay $60 and they would receive $30. So instead you throw the item away.
Whereas what you should do instead is to just give it to them. They were willing to fix the item for what in practice was $30. If you gave it to them, they would do the labor they valued at $30, or at $25 because they can omit the labor of doing the tax paperwork, and then they have a $55 item instead of the item going into a landfill.
There are also people who might be willing to use the item as-is without repairing it, if it was free.
So the real problem here is that these organizations aren't allowing people to pick through what they're throwing out. Which wouldn't make them any money, but it would be better for the world.
I can get on board with this, too. Hoarders are kind of the far end of that spectrum and I can see the same closer to home tendencies in my partner as well. She struggles to dispose of clearly broken beyond repair or reuse items.
Difference in perspective down to cultural bias. Living too long in rural southern US has jaded me into looking for selfish intent behind any altruistic curtains.
Difference in perspective down to cultural bias. Living too long in rural southern US has jaded me into looking for selfish intent behind any altruistic curtains.
>I was told then when I asked this was an approximate value of their donation and it was used for tax purposes. So one is probably tax write offs.
Anything preventing them from just making up that figure?
Anything preventing them from just making up that figure?
Hilariously there is a motivation to provide low value receipts for estate executors.
"That old bookcase? It was only worth a dollar so I sent it to Goodwill after his death, it wasn't in the will and nobody wanted it".
Now maybe an antique dealer could sell it for $400, meaning maybe the seller might have gotten $100, and now the estate executor is in trouble. But he died and there's three days to get all the stuff out of the apartment and nobody has set up an estate-paid-for storage unit (how long can you afford to store something only worth $100 anyway? If estate/probate process takes a year...) or prepared a deal with an antique dealer to immediately accept (and who's going to drive it over there, I don't have time?) and if its not disposed of in three days the building mgr will hire a very expensive per hour cleaning crew to toss it in the trash (at some expense) and deliver a hefty bill to the estate. And Goodwill gave him a receipt for a dollar so its documented at least. The Goodwill receipt at least proves the executor didn't steal from the estate by hiding the bookcase in her basement and selling it later on ebay for $400. As if she's young enough to know what ebay is.
"That old bookcase? It was only worth a dollar so I sent it to Goodwill after his death, it wasn't in the will and nobody wanted it".
Now maybe an antique dealer could sell it for $400, meaning maybe the seller might have gotten $100, and now the estate executor is in trouble. But he died and there's three days to get all the stuff out of the apartment and nobody has set up an estate-paid-for storage unit (how long can you afford to store something only worth $100 anyway? If estate/probate process takes a year...) or prepared a deal with an antique dealer to immediately accept (and who's going to drive it over there, I don't have time?) and if its not disposed of in three days the building mgr will hire a very expensive per hour cleaning crew to toss it in the trash (at some expense) and deliver a hefty bill to the estate. And Goodwill gave him a receipt for a dollar so its documented at least. The Goodwill receipt at least proves the executor didn't steal from the estate by hiding the bookcase in her basement and selling it later on ebay for $400. As if she's young enough to know what ebay is.
An eventual audit that if they hit the anti lottery could cost them more than they could possibly save. Remember that you don't get to just deduct a donation from your taxes you deduct it from your income which lowers your taxes. For example if you ultimately pay about 30% of your income in federal taxes and you lower your income by 1000 you ultimately have reduced your taxes by $300.
Donations 5000 and up require the person you donated to to fill out a tax form for that donation so making up the numbers would require a confederate in the donating org to be willing to risk prison to enrich you.
https://www.amazinggoodwill.com/donating/IRS-guidelines
Also remember that the bottom half of the country pays little federal income tax (because they don't make much of the income in America) and the top 10-20% has MUCH better legal tax avoidance strategies.
It's likely that some portion of middle income individuals could avoid a small dollar figure in taxes by inflating or even fabricating a string of small donations and presumably out of hundreds of millions of people a few do but you would have to make up a LOT of bullshit donations to make much of a difference but before you could actually save much money you would end up sticking out like a sore thumb. Yes Mr IRS auditor I totally donated over 1000 in goods to goodwill on 10 separate occasions over 2021 and I totally deserve the corresponding $3000 deduction!
On net its probably a small issue. At this point we have people making 6 figures + who just don't file tax returns and haven't been addressed.
Donations 5000 and up require the person you donated to to fill out a tax form for that donation so making up the numbers would require a confederate in the donating org to be willing to risk prison to enrich you.
https://www.amazinggoodwill.com/donating/IRS-guidelines
Also remember that the bottom half of the country pays little federal income tax (because they don't make much of the income in America) and the top 10-20% has MUCH better legal tax avoidance strategies.
It's likely that some portion of middle income individuals could avoid a small dollar figure in taxes by inflating or even fabricating a string of small donations and presumably out of hundreds of millions of people a few do but you would have to make up a LOT of bullshit donations to make much of a difference but before you could actually save much money you would end up sticking out like a sore thumb. Yes Mr IRS auditor I totally donated over 1000 in goods to goodwill on 10 separate occasions over 2021 and I totally deserve the corresponding $3000 deduction!
On net its probably a small issue. At this point we have people making 6 figures + who just don't file tax returns and haven't been addressed.
Bill Clinton famously donated used underwear, tax write-off claim of $2-6 each.
> This is a very big question though. WTF are people thinking?
From what I've seen, there's a segment of people who feel the urge to donate, but have this elitist attitude towards less fortunate people who need assistance that can be summed up as, "they should take what they are given with a smile." Like, they have this notion that accepting any charity should involve some degree of humiliation. Almost like they feel like a person must not really be in need if they aren't willing to, for example, accept expired food.
It's a really fucking toxic attitude and I suspect being on the receiving end of such behavior can be a cause for a lot of people who need assistance to not seek it out.
My mother works at a women's shelter and this comes up when it comes to donations around Christmas time. People claim they want to donate, but when it comes to donating things women actually need, they will sometimes get all huffy. The women who come to the shelter came there with basically nothing and potential donators sometimes raise a stink about giving women nice toiletry baskets, as though they are entitled to no "luxuries" by virtue of being poor, homeless, and without a support system.
From what I've seen, there's a segment of people who feel the urge to donate, but have this elitist attitude towards less fortunate people who need assistance that can be summed up as, "they should take what they are given with a smile." Like, they have this notion that accepting any charity should involve some degree of humiliation. Almost like they feel like a person must not really be in need if they aren't willing to, for example, accept expired food.
It's a really fucking toxic attitude and I suspect being on the receiving end of such behavior can be a cause for a lot of people who need assistance to not seek it out.
My mother works at a women's shelter and this comes up when it comes to donations around Christmas time. People claim they want to donate, but when it comes to donating things women actually need, they will sometimes get all huffy. The women who come to the shelter came there with basically nothing and potential donators sometimes raise a stink about giving women nice toiletry baskets, as though they are entitled to no "luxuries" by virtue of being poor, homeless, and without a support system.
>>Do they actually feel like some good is coming from donating worthless items?
Unfortunately, I believe people are encouraged to donate everything no matter the state, because importers like us pay per kg, so a charity that we buy from will get money for those dirty destroyed shoes, even though they do actually go to landfill on the other end. In a way charities don't really care what's in the bags, the heavier the better. That's why recently it's actually a bit more popular to import from Cash4Clothes charities, as they at the very least have a cursory glance through the goods, so you rarely get actual pure rubbish in there. It has other downsides though.
Unfortunately, I believe people are encouraged to donate everything no matter the state, because importers like us pay per kg, so a charity that we buy from will get money for those dirty destroyed shoes, even though they do actually go to landfill on the other end. In a way charities don't really care what's in the bags, the heavier the better. That's why recently it's actually a bit more popular to import from Cash4Clothes charities, as they at the very least have a cursory glance through the goods, so you rarely get actual pure rubbish in there. It has other downsides though.
> This is a very big question though. WTF are people thinking? There's a difference between no longer wearing something because it no longer fits but is otherwise in good condition to not being used because it's completely ruined. What mental block exists in the original owner from just throwing away the ruined items vs just holding onto them to donate so someone else can throw it away? Do they actually feel like some good is coming from donating worthless items? I honestly just do understand this.
It's still "good," just not good enough for them, and they don't want the item "to go to waste." Basically, they can imagine someone using it, but it's an unrealistic fantasy.
I think that also applies to freebie crap no one wants.
It's still "good," just not good enough for them, and they don't want the item "to go to waste." Basically, they can imagine someone using it, but it's an unrealistic fantasy.
I think that also applies to freebie crap no one wants.
For myself, I tend to be in the "let the professionals decide what to scrap" camp.
If the alternative is that I throw it in the garbage, what is the net loss by letting the workers who do this all day long decide what should be thrown in the garbage? As the OP says, they have various uses for items, so it makes sense to let them handle the sorting through of junk to decide what is ultimately landfill material. Sure, I could educate myself better about the details on what happens once I hand it over, so that time isn't being wasted, but I am, of course, lazy.
If the alternative is that I throw it in the garbage, what is the net loss by letting the workers who do this all day long decide what should be thrown in the garbage? As the OP says, they have various uses for items, so it makes sense to let them handle the sorting through of junk to decide what is ultimately landfill material. Sure, I could educate myself better about the details on what happens once I hand it over, so that time isn't being wasted, but I am, of course, lazy.
> If the alternative is that I throw it in the garbage, what is the net loss by letting the workers who do this all day long decide what should be thrown in the garbage?
Because a lot of the organizations that take donated items are charities, and disposing of your garbage costs them money that they then cannot use to do good.
https://www.npr.org/2021/05/06/993821945/goodwill-doesnt-wan...
It's the same thing with recycling. If you "hopefully" put unrecyclable stuff in with it, all you're doing is making recycling less economically viable and increasing the chance that the batch is ruined. The sorters only have the capacity to imperfectly remove the most obviously unrecyclable trash (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83sYHe3jdGA), not to ponder if your yogurt container is made of the right kind of plastic or determining if every wrapper is food-stained or not. The contents of your entire recycling bin flies past their eyes in a literal second or two.
Because a lot of the organizations that take donated items are charities, and disposing of your garbage costs them money that they then cannot use to do good.
https://www.npr.org/2021/05/06/993821945/goodwill-doesnt-wan...
It's the same thing with recycling. If you "hopefully" put unrecyclable stuff in with it, all you're doing is making recycling less economically viable and increasing the chance that the batch is ruined. The sorters only have the capacity to imperfectly remove the most obviously unrecyclable trash (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83sYHe3jdGA), not to ponder if your yogurt container is made of the right kind of plastic or determining if every wrapper is food-stained or not. The contents of your entire recycling bin flies past their eyes in a literal second or two.
The increased cost aspect is interesting, and is something I've recently learned about. Fortunately our local goodwill is very active in pre-screening items when you drop off so I don't feel a huge need to get into the weeds with it.
For recycling, it sounds more and more like our current systems just aren't well designed. If there is so much incidental complexity downstream that can actually ruin the recycleability of other items, we as consumers should aggressively under-recycle. But then that makes recycling that much less impactful as well. I don't know what the right answer is here other than we need to improve the sorting/processing to avoid consumers needing to understand the intricacies.
For recycling, it sounds more and more like our current systems just aren't well designed. If there is so much incidental complexity downstream that can actually ruin the recycleability of other items, we as consumers should aggressively under-recycle. But then that makes recycling that much less impactful as well. I don't know what the right answer is here other than we need to improve the sorting/processing to avoid consumers needing to understand the intricacies.
> The increased cost aspect is interesting, and is something I've recently learned about. Fortunately our local goodwill is very active in pre-screening items when you drop off so I don't feel a huge need to get into the weeds with it.
So they're paying some dude to pre-screen instead of paying a larger trash bill. It's still a cost to them. If people were a little more conscientious, those costs could be eliminated.
> But then that makes recycling that much less impactful as well. I don't know what the right answer is here other than we need to improve the sorting/processing to avoid consumers needing to understand the intricacies.
Those intricacies are not hard to learn, and the improvements you seek are probably a lot harder than you or I realize.
So they're paying some dude to pre-screen instead of paying a larger trash bill. It's still a cost to them. If people were a little more conscientious, those costs could be eliminated.
> But then that makes recycling that much less impactful as well. I don't know what the right answer is here other than we need to improve the sorting/processing to avoid consumers needing to understand the intricacies.
Those intricacies are not hard to learn, and the improvements you seek are probably a lot harder than you or I realize.
If people were (universally) a little more conscientious a lot of costs could be eliminated...
Personally, I would happily pay more for someone to come and take away my maybe-garbage and maybe-recycling, and sort through it. If the issue is purely economic - that there's a very real cost that's not accounted for - let's just make it explicit.
FWIW I think the reason why it's not that way already for recycling is to encourage people to recycle when they can. But it's clear that, at this point, the processing issue is more important than that. Then those who recycle because they want to feel good about it, can pay for the privilege. And same for donations.
FWIW I think the reason why it's not that way already for recycling is to encourage people to recycle when they can. But it's clear that, at this point, the processing issue is more important than that. Then those who recycle because they want to feel good about it, can pay for the privilege. And same for donations.
You are making it harder for recycling to be profitable/worthwhile. Sorting the material and disposing the trash is one of the biggest costs associated with recycling. If the inputs to the processes get too saturated with waste, the recycling process stops being a net positive to society. As an example posted elsewhere in this thread, a soiled food container is not only non-recyclable, it will contaminate the other material next to it also making those materials non-recyclable.
Basically, if you think you are being a good steward of the earth by throwing your trash into the recycling bin, you are wrong, you are making the problem worse.
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/environm...
Basically, if you think you are being a good steward of the earth by throwing your trash into the recycling bin, you are wrong, you are making the problem worse.
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/environm...
I should note that I'm only addressing donating items to e.g. Goodwill.
I am more careful with recycling, but only because I have slightly more knowledge about what to recycle since there is a somewhat helpful graphic on our city's recycling bin.
I am more careful with recycling, but only because I have slightly more knowledge about what to recycle since there is a somewhat helpful graphic on our city's recycling bin.
> WTF are people thinking?
I can understand people just dumping everything in the bin because sorting it properly is an overwhelming task.
I recently signed up for Ridwell [1] and pay them to properly dispose of (sort and redistribute) all kinds of waste I could get rid of for “free”. The problem is figuring out where to take everything and then actually getting there in my car. As far as I can tell there isn’t one single drop off point in my area for plastic film, food containers, clothing, electronics, and styrofoam. At some point just putting everything in a bin for $10.00/mo makes a lot more sense.
Muddy boots are an extreme but I have things like ripped shirts that might be repairable or useful as rags or some thing I just can’t think of.
[1]: https://www.ridwell.com/
I can understand people just dumping everything in the bin because sorting it properly is an overwhelming task.
I recently signed up for Ridwell [1] and pay them to properly dispose of (sort and redistribute) all kinds of waste I could get rid of for “free”. The problem is figuring out where to take everything and then actually getting there in my car. As far as I can tell there isn’t one single drop off point in my area for plastic film, food containers, clothing, electronics, and styrofoam. At some point just putting everything in a bin for $10.00/mo makes a lot more sense.
Muddy boots are an extreme but I have things like ripped shirts that might be repairable or useful as rags or some thing I just can’t think of.
[1]: https://www.ridwell.com/
I've seen videos about recycling where they call it "wishcycling" and point to things like lamps and umbrellas tossed in their city's curbside recycling bin. I think the wish is that someone will find a use for it and it will avoid a landfill. In actuality, it can be a waste of someone else's time and money.
I suspect on a large scale over time, post death donations exceed annual donations by quite a bit.
So, old uncle X dies, state fund stops paying his nursing home room in 3 days, after everything of value or mentioned in the will is picked over or set aside, its all gotta go somewhere and somewhere is three relatives with trailers driving to goodwill.
There's simply not the time to determine his 1970s suit is currently resellable as retro kool, his 1970s neckties are 50:50 resellable, and his 1970s fancy dress shoes are simply trash. You've got less than two seconds per item, times up, now help load up the bookcase its all gotta go and the sooner we're done the quicker this depressing job is over. Toward the end, people are like "box of old plates? I don't have time for this toss it on the Goodwill trailer".
Think of his neckties from the 70s, someone doing a 70s school play or costume party or maybe some kind of art exhibit might pay good money for perfect condition, and badly stained goes in the trash, now what about the one in between that's not perfect but better than most people's daily wear? People LARP on the internet about being experts on everything especially apparently clothing resales but we're kinda in a hurry here and my MiL is not an expert on that topic so she's seemingly randomly tossing stuff on piles for trash or recycle or goodwill, I mean she's trying but we as a culture do not license "cleaning up the estate of deceased relatives" so she's just gonna toss stuff semi-randomly.
WRT to hoarding, consider that red necktie thats a little worn and has a tiny stain on it. He wouldn't throw that tie out, because he was married to my long deceased aunt while wearing it 60 years ago, it meant a lot to him ... but not to anyone else and now he's gone. Or that hideous endtable, I mean, sure a 1960s collector might want it if its in perfect condition, but he never threw it out because it worked perfectly well even if nobody post 1980 would consider buying such a thing.
Oddly enough things are simpler with terminal patients. He handed his bible to his sister when he said goodbye so when its time for estate cleanup nobody has to wonder where the family bible is, its been at his sisters house a month ago. I suppose a surprise death might be more work. But, the cancer finally got him so just ship everything in the room that isn't food, to goodwill.
So, old uncle X dies, state fund stops paying his nursing home room in 3 days, after everything of value or mentioned in the will is picked over or set aside, its all gotta go somewhere and somewhere is three relatives with trailers driving to goodwill.
There's simply not the time to determine his 1970s suit is currently resellable as retro kool, his 1970s neckties are 50:50 resellable, and his 1970s fancy dress shoes are simply trash. You've got less than two seconds per item, times up, now help load up the bookcase its all gotta go and the sooner we're done the quicker this depressing job is over. Toward the end, people are like "box of old plates? I don't have time for this toss it on the Goodwill trailer".
Think of his neckties from the 70s, someone doing a 70s school play or costume party or maybe some kind of art exhibit might pay good money for perfect condition, and badly stained goes in the trash, now what about the one in between that's not perfect but better than most people's daily wear? People LARP on the internet about being experts on everything especially apparently clothing resales but we're kinda in a hurry here and my MiL is not an expert on that topic so she's seemingly randomly tossing stuff on piles for trash or recycle or goodwill, I mean she's trying but we as a culture do not license "cleaning up the estate of deceased relatives" so she's just gonna toss stuff semi-randomly.
WRT to hoarding, consider that red necktie thats a little worn and has a tiny stain on it. He wouldn't throw that tie out, because he was married to my long deceased aunt while wearing it 60 years ago, it meant a lot to him ... but not to anyone else and now he's gone. Or that hideous endtable, I mean, sure a 1960s collector might want it if its in perfect condition, but he never threw it out because it worked perfectly well even if nobody post 1980 would consider buying such a thing.
Oddly enough things are simpler with terminal patients. He handed his bible to his sister when he said goodbye so when its time for estate cleanup nobody has to wonder where the family bible is, its been at his sisters house a month ago. I suppose a surprise death might be more work. But, the cancer finally got him so just ship everything in the room that isn't food, to goodwill.
I often donate my running shoes to the street.
After 700km they're no longer good for running. But they're perfectly fine for walking around and as general footwear. Better shape than a lot of what I've seen folks living in the streets wear.
Someone always takes them within 3 hours of putting them out.
After 700km they're no longer good for running. But they're perfectly fine for walking around and as general footwear. Better shape than a lot of what I've seen folks living in the streets wear.
Someone always takes them within 3 hours of putting them out.
> This is a very big question though. WTF are people thinking?
I obviously can't speak for elsewhere but donated goods are a tax deduction in the USA. Now, I do not donate junk but I also do 1-2 donation runs a year. The person who accepts my donations always asks, "Do you want a donation form?" without ever inspecting any of the items I am handing them for viability. Certain items are rejected because they simply cannot accept them but I have never once in my decades of donating seen someone inspect the items to ensure they are in "good" quality. I've always assumed that people are gaming their tax write-offs by donating their junk.
I obviously can't speak for elsewhere but donated goods are a tax deduction in the USA. Now, I do not donate junk but I also do 1-2 donation runs a year. The person who accepts my donations always asks, "Do you want a donation form?" without ever inspecting any of the items I am handing them for viability. Certain items are rejected because they simply cannot accept them but I have never once in my decades of donating seen someone inspect the items to ensure they are in "good" quality. I've always assumed that people are gaming their tax write-offs by donating their junk.
Clothes only get worse while being used (or cleaned). Thus, all clothes I donate are basically in a condition that I considered "fit-to-wear" just one usage ago. Is it a stretch that someone would be happy to get for free what worked for me just until now?
That being said, after reading articles like this some years ago, I started to throw everything that is actually damaged to the trash (even if it is only a small hole). Maybe I am overdoing it - but I totally understand the mindset of "worst case they will have to trash it in my place".
That being said, after reading articles like this some years ago, I started to throw everything that is actually damaged to the trash (even if it is only a small hole). Maybe I am overdoing it - but I totally understand the mindset of "worst case they will have to trash it in my place".
Those damaged clothes can be repaired, used as fabric in new clothes, cut into rags or shredded into filling. Throwing them in the trash is the most wasteful thing you can do. All the energy involved in making that fabric is lost.
I’m sure I’m guilty of doing this, but it’s mostly mental laziness. When I’m sorting stuff for donation I’m mostly thinking “keep” versus “donate.” The third category of “throw away” is there and their is a pile, but it’s not one of the two defaults, so unless I notice the article is quite bad I don’t toss it there.
This has also meant I’ve kept clothes that really should have been tossed as well…
This has also meant I’ve kept clothes that really should have been tossed as well…
It's also 'this is broken and should go to cloth recycling, but I do not have access to any cloth recycling facility, whereas the donation centers do'.
I assume a fair amount of donations haven't been sorted through at all by the donators. They likely just already have large bags of clothes that no one wears anymore for any given reason and don't take the time to determine what is and isn't donatable. I know that's what's been done by my family when a family member dies. There's maybe a couple separate pieces that get saved for sentimental reasons (I have my grandpa's wedding tuxedo jacket for example) but everything else pretty much gets dumped into bags and sent off.
This is highly location-dependent, but in some areas, charities will come to collect used items (say a big bag of clothes) free of charge, whereas throwing that same bag out in the trash is costly. So sneaking in a couple of shitty items basically saves money.
Trash collection is -- no pun intended -- a mess.
Trash collection is -- no pun intended -- a mess.
With all the different types of plastic and how easy it apparently is to contaminate a batch I feel like sorting has to basically be perfect at the collection facility. At that point can't we just put everything in the trash and assume it will be sorted? Expecting individuals to do this perfectly across the entire population seems like it would never work.
Separating donate from trash clearly makes sense. And maybe compost from trash? Maybe? But is there ever a "clean" batch of recycling? Does a truck ever get through a full route without running in to that one household that tossed their produce bags in the recycle or didn't completely rinse the yogurt tub? Is that tub even recyclable? Isn't recycling just the subset of trash that doesn't have to be landfilled or incinerated?
Separating donate from trash clearly makes sense. And maybe compost from trash? Maybe? But is there ever a "clean" batch of recycling? Does a truck ever get through a full route without running in to that one household that tossed their produce bags in the recycle or didn't completely rinse the yogurt tub? Is that tub even recyclable? Isn't recycling just the subset of trash that doesn't have to be landfilled or incinerated?
I wonder about the exact same things.
Adding to that, is a matter of cost. Lawmakers apparently place very little value on my time. Sorting trash costs time. Taking it to a recycling center costs time (and requires transportation, which I don't have). Disposing of paper/cardboard means I have to walk ~500 meters to a special rubbish bin with an opening the size of a letter box. Which means I have to spend time ripping up cardboard boxes. It's ridiculous and I feel like it's a giant waste of my time.
I can buy crap online for cheap, with free shipping, without ever leaving the house. But disposing of the packaging is a hassle. Trash collection seems stuck in the middle ages, but with more rules which seem pretty pointless.
Adding to that, is a matter of cost. Lawmakers apparently place very little value on my time. Sorting trash costs time. Taking it to a recycling center costs time (and requires transportation, which I don't have). Disposing of paper/cardboard means I have to walk ~500 meters to a special rubbish bin with an opening the size of a letter box. Which means I have to spend time ripping up cardboard boxes. It's ridiculous and I feel like it's a giant waste of my time.
I can buy crap online for cheap, with free shipping, without ever leaving the house. But disposing of the packaging is a hassle. Trash collection seems stuck in the middle ages, but with more rules which seem pretty pointless.
Clean the garage. Trash bin is full. The bias toward good will or trash bin can be come compromised.
It's cognitive bias. It might be junk, but it's their junk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_ownership_effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_ownership_effect
I mean, it seems like you're directing a lot of ire at what the above commentator says is an extremely small (less than 1%) share of donated items.
Clearly having this sort of "mental block" is not an extremely common thing.
Clearly having this sort of "mental block" is not an extremely common thing.
My ire was not directed at the original post at all, but towards the people that were specifically called out in that post. I took one part of that post and expanded on it. The natural progression of conversations.
Really interesting having just come back from a project in Kenya (and a vacation in Uganda) and one of the really striking things was how many older American/EU clothes were on the street (e.g. sweaters from smaller colleges, shirts referencing mid-sized sporting events for american football). I asked a few of the people I was working with about it and they were quite negative, along with cheap Chinese imports, it has really hurt the domestic textile market to the point where it's basically been wiped out of existence because they can't compete with these imports.
https://www.businessoffashion.com/articles/global-markets/af...
https://www.businessoffashion.com/articles/global-markets/af...
I couldn't help thinking of this:
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/12/11/250200378/we-f...
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/12/11/250200378/we-f...
That is true of the European textile industry as well, although Italy still makes clothes. Made by Chinese that moved there.
I'm disappointed by the shuttering of textile industries in east Europe. It's not just the manufacturing of finished garments; the raw fabrics that used to come out of there were above and beyond what I can find today even in fancy stores. It's like fabric manufacture centralized behind the scenes until everyone has access to the same thin, cost-optimized material and just puts their brand name on it.
Not sure about that. I knew a few people working in textile, and most of if was made in Eastern Europe because the delays were shorter. They were high-end brands though.
Do you mean that if people there only had access to more expensive clothing they would be better off?
Many African countries actually prevent import of second hand clothing. They can produce clothing locally for quite cheap with local labor (that is cheap), but having literally FREE clothing showing up actually decimates your local industry.
That's why you have anti-dumping laws in the western world.
That's why you have anti-dumping laws in the western world.
But can they even compete with first hand clothing made in south/Southeast Asia?
I haven’t seen anything “Made in Africa” in North America.
I haven’t seen anything “Made in Africa” in North America.
The idea is that "Made in Africa" clothes costs less locally in Africa than clothes made in Asia and shipped to Africa. Giving out free clothes in Africa puts "Made in Africa" out of that business.
What costs less for you in America may not be the same as what costs less in Africa, because of transport costs.
What costs less for you in America may not be the same as what costs less in Africa, because of transport costs.
What's the transport cost on a t-shirt in a container? 7 cents?
My guess is that these countries have protectionist duties, which just makes goods more expensive for locals. Textiles aren't a very strategic industry. (Yes, everyone needs them, but it's not hard to find a selling country).
My guess is that these countries have protectionist duties, which just makes goods more expensive for locals. Textiles aren't a very strategic industry. (Yes, everyone needs them, but it's not hard to find a selling country).
There could be protectionist duties. These are sometimes justified due to the cost of loosing jobs. A trade-off.
I'm just not sure of relevance of the cost of asian versus african shirts in the U.S. It's not just shipping containers, but the rest of the transport network, how many trucks are available, the retail networks, and the middle-men to facilitate the trade, the different labor and cost of living, currency exchange rates, regulatory stability, etc.
Seems like there are a lot of confounding variables and it would be difficult to draw on what t-shirts currently cost in the U.S.
I'm just not sure of relevance of the cost of asian versus african shirts in the U.S. It's not just shipping containers, but the rest of the transport network, how many trucks are available, the retail networks, and the middle-men to facilitate the trade, the different labor and cost of living, currency exchange rates, regulatory stability, etc.
Seems like there are a lot of confounding variables and it would be difficult to draw on what t-shirts currently cost in the U.S.
The reason why you have anti-dumping is for the government to protect jobs at a certain sector (and hence buy votes), at the expense of consumers.
Fair price locally can generate more work for local people, wealth and redistribution.
Overall, more expensive clothing could also help reducing waste. Cheap fast-fashion fails to significantly improve my life (and, from post, negatively impacts lives).
How does banning the import of secondhand clothing reduce waste?
Unless you can prevent westerners from getting rid of clothes in the first place this really seems like paying people to dig and refill holes. Work for the sake of work.
Unless you can prevent westerners from getting rid of clothes in the first place this really seems like paying people to dig and refill holes. Work for the sake of work.
I didn't mention banning import of secondhand clothing, so I leave it to you.
One way to prevent "westerner" from getting rid of clothes is by having them buying quality products at a fair price, including waste treatment. Now how that would be implemented, no idea. We all know any change will have side effects as we are in a complex economy and that doesn't mean we cannot try. Just to keep the discussion open on reducing waste, some random ideas: tax fast-fashion, ban disposable clothes, prevent waste export (non-wearable clothes qualify as waste).
One way to prevent "westerner" from getting rid of clothes is by having them buying quality products at a fair price, including waste treatment. Now how that would be implemented, no idea. We all know any change will have side effects as we are in a complex economy and that doesn't mean we cannot try. Just to keep the discussion open on reducing waste, some random ideas: tax fast-fashion, ban disposable clothes, prevent waste export (non-wearable clothes qualify as waste).
Ok, but this is literally a thread about how cheap second hand clothes coming from western countries affect the local industries of African nations so I don't really know what you're on about
> Unless you can prevent westerners from getting rid of clothes in the first place
I tried to reply on this.
It sounds like you are oversimplifying this to cheap second hand clothes. This is also about pure waste and landfills. How people are profiting from clothes donated to charities, hurting local businesses, keeping local population in poverty and creating an environmental disaster.
I tried to reply on this.
It sounds like you are oversimplifying this to cheap second hand clothes. This is also about pure waste and landfills. How people are profiting from clothes donated to charities, hurting local businesses, keeping local population in poverty and creating an environmental disaster.
Yes, because it builds local industry, and textiles is often a key industry in industrialization. It is "easy" automation, builds local tooling and machining demands, and still requires significant further labor to finish which is cheap in that area.
It certainly isn't the only way, but textile production often one of the first industries to get build in industrialization.
It certainly isn't the only way, but textile production often one of the first industries to get build in industrialization.
Give a man a fish you feed him for a day, Teach a man to fish you feed him for a lifetime...
What is more humane. Having them depend on the charity and free goods of others, or building their economy to be self sustaining
What is more humane. Having them depend on the charity and free goods of others, or building their economy to be self sustaining
Why should they do meaningless work?
Um not to be crass but like most of the work everyone does on this form is probably close meaningless and often times redundant. I don't mean it in a derogatory way.
And the adjective you should have used is redundant work. Clearly the work has meaning if it keeps people employed and building skills.
And the adjective you should have used is redundant work. Clearly the work has meaning if it keeps people employed and building skills.
But you are advocating against sending free clothes with the goal of creating a scarcity so that people work to produce clothing, which they’ll essentially buy back. This is macabre.
They are advocating not crashing a local industry. How would you fair if your own industry or other local businesses was suddenly destroyed because China decided to give your work away for free in massive overabundance? With zero guarantees that they wont randomly stop supplying on an irregular schedule.
I don't know if that's fair. It could be said that you are advocating for putting people in Africa out of work, messing with local economies, and people's livelihoods.
It seems these trade-offs are involved whenever talking about free trade versus tariffs, helping one group and hurting another.
It seems these trade-offs are involved whenever talking about free trade versus tariffs, helping one group and hurting another.
Yea that's true, I am making a strawman too.
Whatever we do, it's bizarre to plan "poor people's economies". Whether it's creating internal economies, or sending some aid and wishing an external economy will materialize (but not compete with ours!), the truth is that we are at the same helping and exploiting the third world.
Whatever we do, it's bizarre to plan "poor people's economies". Whether it's creating internal economies, or sending some aid and wishing an external economy will materialize (but not compete with ours!), the truth is that we are at the same helping and exploiting the third world.
Because doing "meaningless" work is a necessary step toward meaningful work.
Learning & internalizing showing up to work on time, following directions, doing what's needed (even if unpleasant), completing tasks, etc is vital to becoming entrusted with the worthwhile.
Whether individual or national, inability to produce basics prevents realizing future potential. Sure, truckloads of clothing is free - so no need to produce it ... but then nobody knows how to make clothing worth selling/exporting, and remain dependent on truckloads of free donated clothing. Apply same to most other skills & industries, and the country becomes, and stays, an economic basket case.
Learning & internalizing showing up to work on time, following directions, doing what's needed (even if unpleasant), completing tasks, etc is vital to becoming entrusted with the worthwhile.
Whether individual or national, inability to produce basics prevents realizing future potential. Sure, truckloads of clothing is free - so no need to produce it ... but then nobody knows how to make clothing worth selling/exporting, and remain dependent on truckloads of free donated clothing. Apply same to most other skills & industries, and the country becomes, and stays, an economic basket case.
because I do not believe it is meaningless??
Why do you think learning a skill, providing value, and learning how to function in an economy are "meaningless"...
Why do you think learning a skill, providing value, and learning how to function in an economy are "meaningless"...
Why don't we let people decide for themselves whether they want the cheaper clothing or they want to pay more? Who are you to decide how poor people should spend their money to clothe themselves?
I mean, it’s a pretty common media story that these cheap imports are hated by the local textile shops. Weird you claim
It like it’s your discovery.
Sample size of just me, but I’ve done some volunteering before and the amount of clothes that people donate is huge. But the chance of people in need actually wearing what was donated was small.
The guidance that my group was given was essentially, if it couldn’t be worn to a job interview or a religious service (think men’s chinos and a button up shirt, women nicer pants/skirt and good quality blouse), then throw it away. So I am not surprised.
The guidance that my group was given was essentially, if it couldn’t be worn to a job interview or a religious service (think men’s chinos and a button up shirt, women nicer pants/skirt and good quality blouse), then throw it away. So I am not surprised.
I think the disconnect here is between the expectations of the donors of who the end users are, and their needs. I would have expected that donated clothes would end up with the homeless, who at least here (NYC) have a need for layers. I would not have expected donated clothes to have resale value, and to merely be functional. The idea that donated clothes should be job interview quality is new to me, and I guess probably none of my current wardrobe would qualify.
Right.
I think you’re correct in very different market expectations. People effected by homelessness would be more interested in layers for protection from weather and I guess wouldn’t care much for how something looks so long as it’s clean/functional.
But the vast majority of people shopping at thrift stores or accepting donations and similar aren’t homeless, they’re just people without much money. They probably have plenty of old tshirts and jeans but might not easily have the money for a pair of khakis and an oxford shirt to wear to an interview for a new job as a retail clerk or cashier, or maybe receptionist at a business.
I would assume that the latter are, thankfully, more common than the former. In most cities.
I think you’re correct in very different market expectations. People effected by homelessness would be more interested in layers for protection from weather and I guess wouldn’t care much for how something looks so long as it’s clean/functional.
But the vast majority of people shopping at thrift stores or accepting donations and similar aren’t homeless, they’re just people without much money. They probably have plenty of old tshirts and jeans but might not easily have the money for a pair of khakis and an oxford shirt to wear to an interview for a new job as a retail clerk or cashier, or maybe receptionist at a business.
I would assume that the latter are, thankfully, more common than the former. In most cities.
In Central America there's quite an industry here that resells donated clothes, used clothes and lightly used return products from stores from the U.S.
Clothes are sorted by brand/quality/size and some of them are job interview or even tv interview quality (after some minor size adjustments).
Earlier this year a group of our senators made a photo op while buying and wearing clothes from those stores. This was obviously a PR move, but quite popular with some voters.
Clothes are sorted by brand/quality/size and some of them are job interview or even tv interview quality (after some minor size adjustments).
Earlier this year a group of our senators made a photo op while buying and wearing clothes from those stores. This was obviously a PR move, but quite popular with some voters.
> The number of garments produced annually has doubled since 2000 and exceeded 100 billion for the first time in 2014: nearly 14 items of clothing for every person on earth
That may not be as outrageous as it seems. The world population may not have doubled since 2000, but the number of people out of deep poverty may have, so of course they'll buy clothing.
That still doesn't excuse fast fashion, which is so wasteful.
That may not be as outrageous as it seems. The world population may not have doubled since 2000, but the number of people out of deep poverty may have, so of course they'll buy clothing.
That still doesn't excuse fast fashion, which is so wasteful.
That's not outrageous. The only part that might be is that some people have 1-2 sets of clothes for years while others have 50+ every few months.
But tbf at least they're donated en masse.
But tbf at least they're donated en masse.
Here's an interesting breakdown:
https://sharecloth.com/blog/reports/apparel-overproduction
Seems like 30% of production doesn't find a buyer. Still staggering numbers for how many items the average consumer buys.
Seems like 30% of production doesn't find a buyer. Still staggering numbers for how many items the average consumer buys.
The article pretty much demonstrates that donation doesn't solve the wate problem.
It is articles like this that remind me that we so desperately need a carbon tax.
Making a t-shirt in China, shipping to the US, wearing it for a few times, and then shipping it to Africa should not be economically viable.
Making a t-shirt in China, shipping to the US, wearing it for a few times, and then shipping it to Africa should not be economically viable.
I agree that we need a carbon tax. However, mega ships are super carbon efficient. You driving to the store to buy the shirt burned added more carbon than the amount of carbon to ship it from Asia. Our personal vehicles are not efficient. Large, relatively slow moving transport (train, container ship) is. We are a major contributor to all the consumption driven pollution in Asia.
On the other hand commercial shipping produces more hydrocarbon pollution than personal transport. Apparently the pollution from one large container ship produces as much pollution as 50MM cars!
That's a factoid that has been going around, but lost some information as you stated it. Large container ships produce tremendous amounts of NOx and SOx pollution compared to passenger cars, true, but CO2 is a different story. Still a lot probably but not anywhere near as much as 50MM cars per ship. Unfortunately I think some hear that factoid and take away from it that cars don't actually contribute to climate change that much, which is not true.
> cars don't actually contribute to climate change that much, which is not true
I couldn't find some ready numbers, so I tried some estimations.
26% of all energy goes into transportation[1]. Automobiles are about 60% from that, so about 15% of total energy is spent moving automobiles[2].
1 https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/browser/index.php?tbl=T...
2 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/society/201...
This does not include land use and agriculture emissions.
Looking at it another way, US has close to 300 million vehicles, and the average automobile emits 4.8 tonnes [3] of CO2 a year. It comes down to 1.5 gigatons of CO2 each year. Total US emissions are about 5 gigatons. This would make it a 30% part of CO2 emissions. It's higher than the number above because that was based on European values of 60% of all transportation emissions coming from automobiles. The US automobiles are bigger and consume more.
3. https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/greenhouse-gas-emissions-t...
I think it's safe to say it's somewhere in the ballpark of 15-30% of all CO2 emissions are from automobiles.
I don't consider the manufacturing of the automobiles, because people will need moving regardless. It's either a battery powered car, plane, train etc. Those all need manufacturing and maintaining.
I couldn't find some ready numbers, so I tried some estimations.
26% of all energy goes into transportation[1]. Automobiles are about 60% from that, so about 15% of total energy is spent moving automobiles[2].
1 https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/browser/index.php?tbl=T...
2 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/society/201...
This does not include land use and agriculture emissions.
Looking at it another way, US has close to 300 million vehicles, and the average automobile emits 4.8 tonnes [3] of CO2 a year. It comes down to 1.5 gigatons of CO2 each year. Total US emissions are about 5 gigatons. This would make it a 30% part of CO2 emissions. It's higher than the number above because that was based on European values of 60% of all transportation emissions coming from automobiles. The US automobiles are bigger and consume more.
3. https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/greenhouse-gas-emissions-t...
I think it's safe to say it's somewhere in the ballpark of 15-30% of all CO2 emissions are from automobiles.
I don't consider the manufacturing of the automobiles, because people will need moving regardless. It's either a battery powered car, plane, train etc. Those all need manufacturing and maintaining.
SOx is dropping a lot as they move away to increasingly désulfurized fuels.
To max 0.5% sulfur in fuel from max 3.5% in maritime fuel:
https://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/HotTopics/Pages/Sulphur-2...
To max 0.5% sulfur in fuel from max 3.5% in maritime fuel:
https://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/HotTopics/Pages/Sulphur-2...
>take away from it that cars don't actually contribute to climate change that much, which is not true.
The time during pandemic lockdown where traffic levels plummeted and how quickly the air cleared pretty much proves that personal auto traffic is huge contributor to bad air quality.
The time during pandemic lockdown where traffic levels plummeted and how quickly the air cleared pretty much proves that personal auto traffic is huge contributor to bad air quality.
Climate change != local climate != local emissions (gases, particulate matter, noise).
The thing that people noticed during the 'rona was almost exclusively the latter... especially the noise and particulates. I could hear birds outside when the windows were open, the street-facing windows accumulated a lot less dust.
The thing that people noticed during the 'rona was almost exclusively the latter... especially the noise and particulates. I could hear birds outside when the windows were open, the street-facing windows accumulated a lot less dust.
Local pollutions just don't stay local. They eventually become part of the entire global climate. Global climate is the sum of all of the local climates. There's no walls protecting CityA from CityB's pollution. Look at the effect of wild fires on parts of the globe without fires.
This is just a sad way to look at things. Changes have to start somewhere. They can start small, and then grow larger. People like you saying "too small, not effective" just need to sit down and be quiet, thank you very much.
This is just a sad way to look at things. Changes have to start somewhere. They can start small, and then grow larger. People like you saying "too small, not effective" just need to sit down and be quiet, thank you very much.
edit to add: particulate emissions (diesel soot, tire and brake wear) stay local and don't ever become global.
The focus on "individual action" is a talking point that BP invented in the 70s (see https://mashable.com/feature/carbon-footprint-pr-campaign-sh...). I won't stop anyone from reducing their footprint, but we have tried this shit for decades now and it clearly hasn't worked a single bit.
We need to hold the big emitters of greenhouse gases accountable, they haven't been for about half a century. Remember the "ozone hole" and the CFC ban? That one worked, because the companies bringing CFCs into circulation were tackled instead of pushing the blame to consumers.
The focus on "individual action" is a talking point that BP invented in the 70s (see https://mashable.com/feature/carbon-footprint-pr-campaign-sh...). I won't stop anyone from reducing their footprint, but we have tried this shit for decades now and it clearly hasn't worked a single bit.
We need to hold the big emitters of greenhouse gases accountable, they haven't been for about half a century. Remember the "ozone hole" and the CFC ban? That one worked, because the companies bringing CFCs into circulation were tackled instead of pushing the blame to consumers.
Particulate emissions from large fires very much do. I live approximately 2500 kilometers from the forest fires in Russia, and air pollution in the last two or three weeks has been intense.
Agreed. The pollution is different but it’s dirty pollution non the less. So I think it’s misleading to have people believe container ships are a “free ride”.
Or you know, just don't make it in the first place.
If all low quality fast fashion were $20 instead of $7 across the board people would still gorge themselves on it.
They're not buying stuff for the need to have clothes, they're buying things for the experiences of buying it and the novelty of something new.
If all low quality fast fashion were $20 instead of $7 across the board people would still gorge themselves on it.
They're not buying stuff for the need to have clothes, they're buying things for the experiences of buying it and the novelty of something new.
Fast fashion is probably one of the most price elastic goods in existence. And your suggestion to "just don't make it" is patently silly. Are you advocating for a ban on clothes or are you advocating for all manufacturers to willingly stop production and avoid profits? Either of these is detached from reality. A carbon tax is what's needed.
I'm being facetious I understand no one will ever stop making cheap fragile clothes out of synthetic fibers and people will never stop buying them.
I just don't think paying money to someone who can't even solve the problem that is being caused is going to solve anything.
I just don't think paying money to someone who can't even solve the problem that is being caused is going to solve anything.
Supply and demand: if it was more expensive, less people would buy it. The reason fast fashion is popular is because it's cheap as hell, which can give a lot of people "buying things for the experiences of buying it and the novelty of something new". If clothing was as expensive as some decades ago, this experience would only be affordable to rich people as was in the past
And who is going to police this?
All the trinkets and gadgets that we produce all fall in the same category.
>Nest, Echo, Homepod...
Just get up and turn off the damn lights yourself.
>Drones
How many people bought one or two, flew it around for a while and crashed it. Very few are making videos or doing something interesting with them.
>Starbucks
Do we really need separate stores, trucks shipping product all over for someone to have the convenience of a cup of coffee?
>TV/Netflix
If we want to talk about the utility of something, this one is amazing. How much money, time and energy has been spent so that someone can watch a 30 minute show on demand. And we have to keep spending money and energy because the novelty of the old stuff has worn off.
>Nest, Echo, Homepod...
Just get up and turn off the damn lights yourself.
>Drones
How many people bought one or two, flew it around for a while and crashed it. Very few are making videos or doing something interesting with them.
>Starbucks
Do we really need separate stores, trucks shipping product all over for someone to have the convenience of a cup of coffee?
>TV/Netflix
If we want to talk about the utility of something, this one is amazing. How much money, time and energy has been spent so that someone can watch a 30 minute show on demand. And we have to keep spending money and energy because the novelty of the old stuff has worn off.
Yet the net result of all this "waste" is to employ billions, to incentivize productivity to the point of surplus bringing much of civilization into a luxurious life - rather than scrimping bare sustenance. Remove the smart speakers, entertainment UAEs, luxury drinks, screen time, etc and the economic ripple effects will stop funding essentials that near all currently enjoy.
We've driven world abject poverty from >90% to <10% in half a century. End the products you mention (and the like), and those buying them won't themselves have customers enough to fund their own work. End Starbucks etc, and coffee farms worldwide will crash.
Money is the ultimate arbiter of value. Many deride whatever as "trinkets and gadgets" etc, but they're not putting up the sustenance calories to support life otherwise.
We've driven world abject poverty from >90% to <10% in half a century. End the products you mention (and the like), and those buying them won't themselves have customers enough to fund their own work. End Starbucks etc, and coffee farms worldwide will crash.
Money is the ultimate arbiter of value. Many deride whatever as "trinkets and gadgets" etc, but they're not putting up the sustenance calories to support life otherwise.
Yet here we are, having achieved what so many claim to want yet fret when achieved: capitalism has increased productivity so high, and costs so low, that we can literally "clothe Africa for free". Why the imperative to take from the productive, when they will freely give generously from their surplus?
[deleted]
[commerce] should not be economically viable.
Declaring that the cornerstones of modern, industrialized life should not be economically viable is basically calling "game over" and giving up. We can do much better. Climate defeatism should be replaced by climate entrepreneurism. If you don't like something, make something better!
Declaring that the cornerstones of modern, industrialized life should not be economically viable is basically calling "game over" and giving up. We can do much better. Climate defeatism should be replaced by climate entrepreneurism. If you don't like something, make something better!
It's only possible to compete as a "climate entrepreneur" if negative externality costs are imposed on existing business (carbon tax or cap & trade).
It isn't that all convenience should be banned. All these items should include the actual environmental cost to produce the product.
We've been selling timber from somebody else's forest for too long. It is time to charge for the trees.
We've been selling timber from somebody else's forest for too long. It is time to charge for the trees.
Interesting article.
On discussing buying clothes sight unseen the article mentioned:
Id be curious to know what other factors impact price/demand. Eg. Brands, materials, styles/designs, etc.
On discussing buying clothes sight unseen the article mentioned:
It’s only once a bale has been opened that the quality of the clothing is discovered. If it’s in good condition, profits can tally quickly to as much as $14,000. But if the clothes are torn or stained, or long out of fashion, their importer may as well have put a torch to their money.
Id be curious to know what other factors impact price/demand. Eg. Brands, materials, styles/designs, etc.
I find the general concept of a business model where you buy unknown items and hope they end up covering your costs pretty interesting. I think jade works in a very similar way - the mine produces boulders of unknown quality, and middlemen buy them on the theory that there's probably good jade in some of them.
> general concept of a business model where you buy unknown items and hope they end up covering your costs
Seed stage VC?
Seed stage VC?
It's delegation or specialization, more or less.
The people in the mine don't have time or space or desire to process the boulders, but they can source them. Etc.
Vertical integration would increase the amount of total margin accruing to any one business, but at the cost of turning a focused business into a sprawling one, and increasing the time and risk between aquiring the materials and selling them.
The people in the mine don't have time or space or desire to process the boulders, but they can source them. Etc.
Vertical integration would increase the amount of total margin accruing to any one business, but at the cost of turning a focused business into a sprawling one, and increasing the time and risk between aquiring the materials and selling them.
It's like the shows where people bid on abandoned storage units.
> Human nature is quite the same no matter where you go.
This shouldn't come as a surprise though - people in developing countries are still people, and although they may have a lower standard of living by some index, that doesn't mean they're desperate or don't care about their appearance.
This shouldn't come as a surprise though - people in developing countries are still people, and although they may have a lower standard of living by some index, that doesn't mean they're desperate or don't care about their appearance.
My local charity/recycling bin for clothes/garment explicitly asks for permanently stained or ripped clothes as these can be used as cloth in factories.
I’d be pretty pissed if they just ship it out to the third world and rip off some local business man.
I could have thrown it out locally. No need to ship trash to Africa.
I’d be pretty pissed if they just ship it out to the third world and rip off some local business man.
I could have thrown it out locally. No need to ship trash to Africa.
10 years ago or so I saw plastic wapped bundles of shredded cottonwear in the shelves at a mechanic shop I frequented at the time so some of it clearly has taken that path.
Rags were and still are a useful item in industrial shops as they are stronger than paper towels, don't fall apart, and handle sharp metal edges and rough surfaces.
In the old days a "ragman" would come by your shop and buy/sell scrap fabric for rag use. When I was a kid in the 80's I distinctly remember a man pulling up in an old truck and my father buying a few boxes of rags for his machine shop, rummaging through a few boxes looking for the ones with the larger sheets and heavier material.
At home I have a bag in my basement full of old clothing I use for whatever. I even wash them if they're not covered in something which could foul the washing machine (e.g. automotive grease/oil/fuel).
In the old days a "ragman" would come by your shop and buy/sell scrap fabric for rag use. When I was a kid in the 80's I distinctly remember a man pulling up in an old truck and my father buying a few boxes of rags for his machine shop, rummaging through a few boxes looking for the ones with the larger sheets and heavier material.
At home I have a bag in my basement full of old clothing I use for whatever. I even wash them if they're not covered in something which could foul the washing machine (e.g. automotive grease/oil/fuel).
Until the late 19th century, paper was more frequently made from rags than wood pulp. The switch to wood pulp was because paper demand outstripped rag supply. Perhaps it's time for a return to increased rag content in paper.
Only if you can get pure natural fibers like cotton. Having synthetic material woven in ruins the fabric for most reuse.
We have 25kg boxes of old bathtowls in our factory for cleaning in our factory (heavy industry).
https://www.texaid.ch/en/products-and-services/sorting.html
https://www.texaid.ch/en/products-and-services/sorting.html
I've found that old clothes can often make excellent rags for when I'm working on vehicles or staining a wood project.
This is common knowledge in developing countries (and, I suspect, used to be in developed ones a few decades ago). Growing up, the usual lifecycle of a garment was wear -> rag -> trash.
Yeah; from time to time we reuse old t-shirts or bed sheets and turn them into handkerchiefs. We do use a lot of handkerchiefs with a small child :). But also other things, eg my wife took a pair of old jeans and cut off all but the waist+pockets -> an extra pair of pockets while lab'ing at work.
Many of the charities that collect clothing are 501c3 scams.
I sometimes wonder what charities are not scams?
The clothes at Goodwill are not washed.
(I used to recommend donating to Goodwill, but their prices are getting to high. Goodwill provides 1 year of employment to felons, which is great. They pay a unlivable salary though. The only people making a living salary are managers, and regional managers, and of course key members of the nonprofit. My Goodwill, in Marin County, had three managers in a row quietly fired fired theft.)
I sometimes wonder what charities are not scams?
The clothes at Goodwill are not washed.
(I used to recommend donating to Goodwill, but their prices are getting to high. Goodwill provides 1 year of employment to felons, which is great. They pay a unlivable salary though. The only people making a living salary are managers, and regional managers, and of course key members of the nonprofit. My Goodwill, in Marin County, had three managers in a row quietly fired fired theft.)
As a small business, I personally partnered with a nomad trader and a local-to-me Catholic charity, to ship clothing from the US West Coast to a popular port city in Chile. The emphasis was on getting the clothing to real people who need it; jean clothing preferred. I got plenty of clothes (six tons over ten months perhaps) and did an OK job on the paperwork, saving money at all stages. The clothing was shipped succesfully.
The trader in Chile was hurt financially by black market operators who used similar clothing operations as a front to launder money, and those operations sank the prices of the actual clothing to near zero. The CEO of the Catholic charity was later removed and is now into really different subjects I won't mention now and I do not support. I put a lot of time into this effort for many solid reasons, not for profit, and made almost no money by US standards, and it ended. Meanwhile the housing costs in my area have increased dramatically, and I am impacted by that. YMMV
The trader in Chile was hurt financially by black market operators who used similar clothing operations as a front to launder money, and those operations sank the prices of the actual clothing to near zero. The CEO of the Catholic charity was later removed and is now into really different subjects I won't mention now and I do not support. I put a lot of time into this effort for many solid reasons, not for profit, and made almost no money by US standards, and it ended. Meanwhile the housing costs in my area have increased dramatically, and I am impacted by that. YMMV
After wearing my t-shirts to the point of being thread-bare or irrevocably stained (3-10 years), they become excellent lint-free rags for the electronics workbench & garage/workshop.
The front and back panels of the t-shirt can be easily segmented into the desired size of rag (credit card sized for electronics, hand sized for the garage).
The front and back panels of the t-shirt can be easily segmented into the desired size of rag (credit card sized for electronics, hand sized for the garage).
They're also excellent for window cleaning. Just wash the window with a wet old clothing rag and dry it with a dry one afterwards. It works so well. Much faster than any cleaning products and it leaves no residue.
They are also perfect for gun cleaning! Cut small squares for cleaning barrels, and keep bigger pieces for wiping down parts. I do this with my old nasty shirts.
A comparison with the CO2 emissions, to get a sense of the scale of the problem.
An average garbage truck has a volume of about 20 cubic meters. Textiles are pretty fluffy, their density is about one tenth the density of water [1], so we have about 2 tons of textiles in a garbage truck. If all gets burned, you end up with about 6 tons of CO2 in the atmosphere.
[1] https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-03/documents/co...
>> Globally, that’s the equivalent of one garbage truck of textiles being burned or going into landfill every second.
An average garbage truck has a volume of about 20 cubic meters. Textiles are pretty fluffy, their density is about one tenth the density of water [1], so we have about 2 tons of textiles in a garbage truck. If all gets burned, you end up with about 6 tons of CO2 in the atmosphere.
[1] https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-03/documents/co...
I'd be curious to know if it is helpful or hurtful for me (as someone who can afford to buy "new" cloths) to shop at secondhand clothing stores.
Am I preventing clothes from getting shipped out to Africa, or preventing someone of less means from finding something to wear? Or a bit of both?
Am I preventing clothes from getting shipped out to Africa, or preventing someone of less means from finding something to wear? Or a bit of both?
Yes there is a waste prevention piece, but the key thing on a personal level is preventing the purchase of the new item of clothing for some purpose that you were looking for.
The moment the money exchanges hands for the new product, that is additonal commerce which functionally “locks in” the emissions and the associated incentive structure. It’s less about buying used, as it is about reducing the buying of new.
The moment the money exchanges hands for the new product, that is additonal commerce which functionally “locks in” the emissions and the associated incentive structure. It’s less about buying used, as it is about reducing the buying of new.
Buy it, a lot of those stores receive more donation than they can sell. So by buying it, you help turnover the inventory and allow them to put more on the shelves. I doubt that results in higher prices, supply >>>>> demand
Usually the way those shops work around me is they’ll drop the prices every week until it’s sold. Somebody will buy it at some price.
When buying clothes, never consider Goodwill or thrift shops as an outlet when you're done with them. Only consider wearing them, repairing them as necessary, as our ancestors did for the rest of your life.
Buy only clothes that will last forever. Thrift shops receive so much more "donations" (read: garbage while the person throwing their stuff away feels good about dropping their garbage on the less fortunate).
There are needy people who can use help clothing themselves. It does not help them to flood Africa with our waste, which buying cheap clothes contributes to.
Also, watch the documentary The True Cost, available free online: https://thoughtmaybe.com/the-true-cost
Buy only clothes that will last forever. Thrift shops receive so much more "donations" (read: garbage while the person throwing their stuff away feels good about dropping their garbage on the less fortunate).
There are needy people who can use help clothing themselves. It does not help them to flood Africa with our waste, which buying cheap clothes contributes to.
Also, watch the documentary The True Cost, available free online: https://thoughtmaybe.com/the-true-cost
Planned Obsolescence & Perceived Obsolescence
I can't escape the conclusion that we are the paperclip maximizers, where paperclips = $, all else is expendable..
I can't escape the conclusion that we are the paperclip maximizers, where paperclips = $, all else is expendable..
Check out "Secondhand: Travels in the New Global Garage Sale" by Adam Minter.
It turns out that what happens to your clothes depends on the condition when you donate and if they have synthetic fibers. There is still a large second hand market for natural fibers.
https://www.npr.org/2019/12/04/784702588/the-best-thing-you-...
It turns out that what happens to your clothes depends on the condition when you donate and if they have synthetic fibers. There is still a large second hand market for natural fibers.
https://www.npr.org/2019/12/04/784702588/the-best-thing-you-...
We’re buying 60 per cent more clothes now than we did 15 years ago.
This is something I find baffling. I have a clothes closet and a chest of drawers. They comfortably hold more than enough for me to go a week or two without doing laundry. When I've worn too many holes in something for me to patch and use as outdoor work wear it goes in the garbage.
That people have such an addiction to buying new clothes they have to throw away or donate intact clothes is utterly perverse.
This is something I find baffling. I have a clothes closet and a chest of drawers. They comfortably hold more than enough for me to go a week or two without doing laundry. When I've worn too many holes in something for me to patch and use as outdoor work wear it goes in the garbage.
That people have such an addiction to buying new clothes they have to throw away or donate intact clothes is utterly perverse.
From the article, "A major survey in the UK six years ago found one in three young women considered garments “old” if they had been worn just twice."
I'm like you, but I think there's a pretty big disconnect between us and the average person into fashion.
I'm like you, but I think there's a pretty big disconnect between us and the average person into fashion.
You can manipulate surveys to generate any requested outrage. Generally you can assume any mention of a survey is propaganda and can be ignored.
Its pretty trivial to imagine how this desired result was produced:
"Would you be angry if you paid a falsely advertised full 'new' price for a garment actually worn by others at least three or more times?"
I know I'd be pretty annoyed if I paid full "new" price for shoes and they arrived and someone else has been wearing the tread off of them for the last six months, LOL.
Its pretty trivial to imagine how this desired result was produced:
"Would you be angry if you paid a falsely advertised full 'new' price for a garment actually worn by others at least three or more times?"
I know I'd be pretty annoyed if I paid full "new" price for shoes and they arrived and someone else has been wearing the tread off of them for the last six months, LOL.
In high school at one point when discussing the amount of agricultural space goes to cotton, the teacher asked how many pairs of trousers we each had. I had two. I hated going shopping, and two was enough for me to wear one pair while the others were in the wash.
A bit on the low end, maybe. I have a few more now, but still mostly cycle 2-3.
Several of my class mates claimed to have 40+. I couldn't even imagine that. More than a dozen was the norm.
Totally baffling to me as well. It just feels like added stress.
A bit on the low end, maybe. I have a few more now, but still mostly cycle 2-3.
Several of my class mates claimed to have 40+. I couldn't even imagine that. More than a dozen was the norm.
Totally baffling to me as well. It just feels like added stress.
This is true of young children as well. They will notice if someone (another child or adult) cycles through a small set of clothes and comment on it, which can easily be construed as peer pressure.
With young kids though, a lot of the time it's down to the parents. I know most of my son's clothes are a result of his mum wanting to buy him things. Only a tiny proportion are things he wanted.
If you count all the specialized trousers (a lot of which aren't cotton) for various types of activities, the number in my house definitely gets up there even if I discount things like sweatpants and old trousers I use as work pants.
Most of my unnecessary bulk though is logoware from tradeshows and the like which I don't go out of my way to accumulate but still adds up over time as I (normally) do a lot of that type of thing.
Most of my unnecessary bulk though is logoware from tradeshows and the like which I don't go out of my way to accumulate but still adds up over time as I (normally) do a lot of that type of thing.
Specialized clothes if you engage in activities that'd benefit from it, I can understand. But for most in my class these were all jeans, only differentiated in appearance, if that.
Retail therapy. More people than ever are disconnected and deeply unhappy and advertising increases the social pressure by telling people they will be happier if they buy "this" or "that".
I don't own very many clothes at all. I don't understand fashion and I find it frustrating to find things that fit and are comfortable, so I keep the rare things I find acceptable around for a long time.
But let's get something straight: I rarely look good.
But let's get something straight: I rarely look good.
I just settled on a uniform I was happy with: jeans and a plaid button-down every day. No mismatching and no decisions.
bserge(1)
Any tips on extending the life of our clothes? I love new t-shirts, but they seem to wear down quickly. Maybe there is a way to wash them and get the sweat smell out without wearing down the shirt. I always use cold water, and only wash/dry when necessary. I heard washer agitation is a problem.
Washing clothes do wear them a lot, so if you can avoid washing clothes too often that'll help. Socks, undergarments, and (most often) t-shirts I don't do this with, but everything else like shirts or pants, do hang them nicely across the back of a chair so that they can air properly. Avoid wrinkles when hanging them.
I'm about to buy new bed sheets etc, and the advice I've read is as follows:
* satin is nice and soft, but wears faster than plain weave (aka percale when above 200 thread count), so don't use satin for bed sheet, but for the duvet cover and potentially the pillowcase. Percale may have a more hotel'y feeling of "crispyness".
* use percale/plain for the bed sheet since that'll wear evenly
* look for extra long cotton fibers since that'll last longer. It's classified in ranges, such as "long staple" or "extra long staple", but often not typed out. Instead some opt for saying "combed cotton" meaning they removed shorter fibers through "combing"
* "egyptian cotton" says nothing, it'll include all cotton made in egypt, which is not by default good. "Supima" cotton is actually a trademarked name for Pima cotton fibers upholding some level of quality that's supposedly good.
Four types of cotton: Gossypium [Hirsutum, Barbadense, Arboreum, Herbaceum]. Most grown is Hirsutum. Barbadense == Pima, and certified Pima at some minimum fiber length etc == Supima trademark.
Many hotels don't own their sheets, they rent as a service including washing. I've read many use a small amount of synthetic fibers in the mix.
Ideal thread count range is about 300-600, lower doesn't necessarily give the percale feel, and higher is just marketing blaha which doesn't really notice either.
He. Turned out to be quite the post. Let's stop there. Guess you can tell I'm nerding down on the topic.
I'm about to buy new bed sheets etc, and the advice I've read is as follows:
* satin is nice and soft, but wears faster than plain weave (aka percale when above 200 thread count), so don't use satin for bed sheet, but for the duvet cover and potentially the pillowcase. Percale may have a more hotel'y feeling of "crispyness".
* use percale/plain for the bed sheet since that'll wear evenly
* look for extra long cotton fibers since that'll last longer. It's classified in ranges, such as "long staple" or "extra long staple", but often not typed out. Instead some opt for saying "combed cotton" meaning they removed shorter fibers through "combing"
* "egyptian cotton" says nothing, it'll include all cotton made in egypt, which is not by default good. "Supima" cotton is actually a trademarked name for Pima cotton fibers upholding some level of quality that's supposedly good.
Four types of cotton: Gossypium [Hirsutum, Barbadense, Arboreum, Herbaceum]. Most grown is Hirsutum. Barbadense == Pima, and certified Pima at some minimum fiber length etc == Supima trademark.
Many hotels don't own their sheets, they rent as a service including washing. I've read many use a small amount of synthetic fibers in the mix.
Ideal thread count range is about 300-600, lower doesn't necessarily give the percale feel, and higher is just marketing blaha which doesn't really notice either.
He. Turned out to be quite the post. Let's stop there. Guess you can tell I'm nerding down on the topic.
Unless my clothes as super dirty, I’ll wash in cold water with a fraction of the recommended amount of detergent.
And ++ to air drying. Hot temperatures + tumbling creates a ton of wear.
And ++ to air drying. Hot temperatures + tumbling creates a ton of wear.
While the price my be a bit high (watch for their sales for styles being discontinued, especially around Black Friday) - but I got really tired of replacing sheets that fell apart and just bought Frette ones as as splurge and got a second set awhile ago. I've gotten really tired of buying cheap throwaway things and have instead invested in some of the nicer, higher quality brands and so far I haven't been disappointed.
Look for Oeko-Tex certifications too. My wife is in textiles and is impressed with their processes. A lot of "organic" sheets are not carefully sourced and are not actually organic.
While we're at it, linen is more sturdy than cotton, and may actually be more comfortable in hot climates.
How quickly do they seem to wear down?
I'm wearing a 15yo t-shirt as I speak and it's in great shape. I have several in closet that are 20yo. I don't take any particular care other than always washing on cold and using low temperature drier.
My polo shirts depending on material do seem to wear down, on the collar in particular. They seem to be from different material than most t shirts.
I'm wearing a 15yo t-shirt as I speak and it's in great shape. I have several in closet that are 20yo. I don't take any particular care other than always washing on cold and using low temperature drier.
My polo shirts depending on material do seem to wear down, on the collar in particular. They seem to be from different material than most t shirts.
That could be a bit of survivorship bias too. I too have cloths that are 20+ years old. But other stuff from the same era is long gone too.
For me it is one of two things the stitching just comes undone and ends up tearing the fabric. Or the fabric is just threadbare.
I do have to agree though with the quality. It has really dipped in the past 10 or so years I would say. Especially in things I used to consider durable, like jeans. I recently bought a shirt about 3 years ago, elbows blown out stitching coming undone. Not low end cost stuff either...
For me it is one of two things the stitching just comes undone and ends up tearing the fabric. Or the fabric is just threadbare.
I do have to agree though with the quality. It has really dipped in the past 10 or so years I would say. Especially in things I used to consider durable, like jeans. I recently bought a shirt about 3 years ago, elbows blown out stitching coming undone. Not low end cost stuff either...
Kids these days are buying jeans with holes in them already. They don't even have a decency to get them worn down personally...
Think holes in jeans has been a thing for awhile :) Pretty sure we we had them when I was a kid and that was a decent time back...
There is a difference though for making holes. If I just whip out a pair of scissors and go to town that hole will get larger and larger until the garment is unusable. I usually get the same if I get them naturally. But holes that are put in at the factory they seem to put some thought into it and they last a decent amount of time and do not grow as badly. Have not dug to much into it because I prefer it without so I have not looked into how to DIY.
There is a difference though for making holes. If I just whip out a pair of scissors and go to town that hole will get larger and larger until the garment is unusable. I usually get the same if I get them naturally. But holes that are put in at the factory they seem to put some thought into it and they last a decent amount of time and do not grow as badly. Have not dug to much into it because I prefer it without so I have not looked into how to DIY.
All my uniqlo t-shirts are falling aparts within 3 years. Other brands aren't much better..
A few simple things:
- Air-dry clothes when possible instead of the dryer. - Only wash clothes when they're actually dirty. - Using cold water in the washing machine may help as well.
- Air-dry clothes when possible instead of the dryer. - Only wash clothes when they're actually dirty. - Using cold water in the washing machine may help as well.
Have you tried washing on cold and using cold water detergent?
https://www.maids.com/blog/pros-and-cons-of-washing-your-clo...
https://www.maids.com/blog/pros-and-cons-of-washing-your-clo...
Silly one that I discovered: my t-shirts all developed a hole in the center of the stomach area first, before any other damage. It appears to be from rubbing between the seat belt of the car and the zipper/button area of my pants. So I've started pulling the shirt out of that spot after I put the seat belt on. Too early to tell how much of a difference it's made.
I have the same issue and I only ride cars very very rarely. I'm still wondering about the reason.
> Any tips on extending the life of our clothes? I love new t-shirts, but they seem to wear down quickly.
Buy better quality. I know it's hard since most clothing is "fast fashion" crap that is designed to be worn three, four, five times tops. Thin material, thin yarn, it simply breaks down physically.
Buy better quality. I know it's hard since most clothing is "fast fashion" crap that is designed to be worn three, four, five times tops. Thin material, thin yarn, it simply breaks down physically.
In the US, a substantial number of clothing donation bins are actually owned by for-profit companies.
Off topic. I thought it was a nice website with great mixing of video and text.
I'm surprised they just dump them into a land fill. It seems to me they could be used in something else. The clothing could be shredded and used in blanket filling or house insulation.
especially since synthetic fibers will probably end as microplastics. I have no source for this, just my opinion.
There's an impressive system called Looop that takes old clothes and "decompiles" them to create new fabric: https://www2.hm.com/en_gb/life/culture/inside-h-m/meet-the-m...
When I worked in a mill, we bought pallet-sized bundles of cotton rags. Most of them appeared to be ripped up flannel shirts.
These kinds of donation initiatives drive me mad. If they didn't exist, I'd throw these clothes my partner insists on donating in the trash. Why would I send garbage to someone else as a donation??! The fact the donation receivers just ship them to a foreign landill proves my point. I'll keep it local :).
I can longer fit into my old clothes - the problem of the expanding waistline - which is why I take them to the charity store. We Aussies truly are a consuming society: too much food, too many clothes, too many electronic gadgets, too easy a lifestyle.
Maybe we can look into burning them as fuel as a European country was doing (Sweden?)
Denmark I think (and the company was H&M?)
And how many clothes that we don’t donate to charity avoid the landfill?
Unless you’re going out of your way to buy more clothes specifically so you can give more to charity, the giving to charity part is not the problem.
Unless you’re going out of your way to buy more clothes specifically so you can give more to charity, the giving to charity part is not the problem.
There's a lot of thrift markets selling these kinds of clothes for a very low price. These markets are scattered worldwide, mainly in third-world countries, making many people afford branded clothes.
Isn't putting petroleum-based products into a landfill a type of carbon capture?
And by commutative many of the clothes we by at target end up in a landfill
It would be interesting to have a map of trash flow.
Out of sight, out of mind.
Out of sight, out of mind.
It's not just whites that buy and discard clothes in the western world. Why does the title racialize the problem? A better title would have been "Charity clothes from the West fuel ..."
It is not the title issue, the title comes from the local language expression:
>They call them "obroni wawu" — dead white man's clothes.
>They call them "obroni wawu" — dead white man's clothes.
An editor still chose a controversial title, to "maximize engagement". Whatever these people call it doesn't justify the title of that feature piece.
I think this constant race baiting and divisiveness western media chose to engage into will help no one on the long run, only further resentment and race strife.
I think this constant race baiting and divisiveness western media chose to engage into will help no one on the long run, only further resentment and race strife.
Because controversial headlines generate clicks which allow for ads to be served to monetize the traffic. It's just a loop of bullshit. lol.
The article claims to translate the Akan term for these clothes:
> In Ghana, they call them “obroni wawu” — dead white man’s clothes.
However, a language blogger [1] suggests that "obroni" can refer to any foreigner from "beyond the horizon" - so presumably the term encompasses dead East Asian man's clothes too.
[1] http://languagehat.com/spruik-kayayei-obroni-wawu/
> In Ghana, they call them “obroni wawu” — dead white man’s clothes.
However, a language blogger [1] suggests that "obroni" can refer to any foreigner from "beyond the horizon" - so presumably the term encompasses dead East Asian man's clothes too.
[1] http://languagehat.com/spruik-kayayei-obroni-wawu/
It's the local people's term for the clothing, which is explained in the article:
> They call them “obroni wawu” — dead white man’s clothes.
> They call them “obroni wawu” — dead white man’s clothes.
It was chosen because of the name given to the clothes by the locals.
western countries that dump their trash in poor nations are primarily white.
Not all western countries define their societies along racial lines. It's mainly US society who engages in that behavior.
> Not all western countries define their societies along racial
Yes, those other western countries are 90-99% white so whiteness is overtly implied since any other race is an anomaly. You probably haven't been asked the notorious 6-worded question, "but where are you really from?" that seems to only happen to people of color in western European countries.
> mainly US society who engages in that behavior.
Yes, racism is literally written into the constitution of the US with many compromises for slaveholding states at the time of its founding.
Yes, those other western countries are 90-99% white so whiteness is overtly implied since any other race is an anomaly. You probably haven't been asked the notorious 6-worded question, "but where are you really from?" that seems to only happen to people of color in western European countries.
> mainly US society who engages in that behavior.
Yes, racism is literally written into the constitution of the US with many compromises for slaveholding states at the time of its founding.
> Yes, those other western countries are 90-99% white so whiteness
I've only heard that word "whiteness" in the mouth of 2 kind of people, neonazis and their racist counter part on the left.
I've only heard that word "whiteness" in the mouth of 2 kind of people, neonazis and their racist counter part on the left.
Nice drone footage
In a capitalist world, If I had a clothes store, I would do the same... to reduce the supply.
This racist stuff has been done before by the Australian's in Korle Lagoon, last time e-waste -
https://africasacountry.com/2019/03/six-myths-about-electron...
Leave the basement for a while and talk to garment factory workers in a developing country, then go down the road and talk to the hookers.
You'll see no difference. The hookers are very practised at seeming happy to keep clients happy.
But perhaps after going home you can think logically and see how teens doing fast fashion are better human beings than hippies eating local foods.
Sure, recycling clothing, which is the case in this story makes my point worse. But that's how it all is. Complex.
Rough guide, if people are doing it, it's the best they have on offer.
https://africasacountry.com/2019/03/six-myths-about-electron...
Leave the basement for a while and talk to garment factory workers in a developing country, then go down the road and talk to the hookers.
You'll see no difference. The hookers are very practised at seeming happy to keep clients happy.
But perhaps after going home you can think logically and see how teens doing fast fashion are better human beings than hippies eating local foods.
Sure, recycling clothing, which is the case in this story makes my point worse. But that's how it all is. Complex.
Rough guide, if people are doing it, it's the best they have on offer.
Does social media have a part in this? People have to keep up with “influencer” trends?
So basically we buy clothes from say.....charities in UK or elsewhere, import them to Poland, sort them in our own warehouse, price everything individually, sell in our own shops. Then goods which are damaged/stained/faulty are cut into pieces and sold as cleaning rags(also done in house). Then things which literally cannot be cut into rags are sold further to a company that shreds them for textile filling for car seats etc. And finally, if you have something so utterly destroyed that it's literally useless - say a pair of shoes that have been through mud and disentegrated(why would anyone "donate" these is a different matter), those have to go to the landfill. But I'd estimate that's less than 1% of our entire output.