So basically if I buy the ugly shirt I get a discount on a good one?

And then the consumer throws it away later? So basically the same disposal, but with extra steps?

This article really needs more details on how they plan for this to actually work.

So if you're not aware, basically there are a bunch of scenarios where stores are incentivized to over-ship product and then destroy it rather than let it be sold at a loss or low profit. Books are an excellent example: If you've ever heard of a store ripping the covers off books and destroying them, it's because rather than discount them or give them away, they are destroying them and returning the covers (proof of destruction) to the publisher for a refund. Throwing books away is cheaper than shipping them back or elsewhere: They're worth more destroyed, largely because throwing them away is free.

If throwing them away wasn't free, a lot of other interesting options would be more viable... like not shipping excess in the first place, discounting extras to an extreme level (shelf space is worth selling you a book for a quarter at some point), or giving them to charities.

With clothing returns, or Amazon returns in general, the issue is similar: It costs them more to actually check over the product for resale then to just chuck it in the trash. Waste is cheap because waste doesn't require any labor costs.

Forcing a company not to throw away unsold merchandise simply raises the cost of getting rid of it above zero, so they have to seek better options.

In the case of books, the product with value is the content (the words), not the packaging (the pages of the book). Books are very recyclable, though. The question, really, is what about clothes? Well, it turns out textiles are recyclable as well. That’s what happens to most clothing that’s donated to Goodwill etc. - if they don’t sell, and let’s face it, who wants most threadworn, out of style clothing?— then they’re shredded & recycled.

> Throwing books away is cheaper than shipping them back or elsewhere

So basically it costs less resources to throw them away, and instead we are legislating that people spend extra resources under the guise of reducing resources by not throwing things away.

Sounds backwards to me.

It reminds me of those recycling ideas where you are meant to mail the item somewhere, using more energy to do that, than it would cost to make the item from scratch in the first place. Great plan that.

Or people who drive 20 minutes to recycle glass.

Instead please have a care for the environment and just throw stuff away!

> Forcing a company not to throw away unsold merchandise simply raises the cost of getting rid of it above zero, so they have to seek better options.

In other words things will cost more? So basically these new laws have as a consequence higher prices, and extra resource consumption?

Someone didn't think things though........

No, you're missing half the math: By making it more expensive to discard unprofitable items, companies have a lot more incentive to produce less waste in the first place. This is a correction for an existing insanely harmful business practice: That wasteful production is currently so cheap it makes sense to overproduce, overship, and then just destroy what they don't need later. The solution is for them to make less.

You've re-described the goal. The problem is that your goal doesn't match the reality.

They behave this way because it consumes less resources, by definition: if you spend less money, then you spend less resources (that's what money is for: to acquire resources).

> The solution is for them to make less.

Think about it - wouldn't they do this on their own? I mean it costs them money to make so much. If things are cheap, it's because they don't take much resources to make in the first place.

The regulation has a good goal, and a failed implementation - it actually going to result in more resource consumption, only those resources will be in shipping, handling, storage, etc.

> If things are cheap, it's because they don't take much resources to make in the first place.

Too cheap. And this raises the cost, not in materials but in overall lifecycle cost of producing an item. That's the point. The cost of overproduction is too low, by raising it, bad practices like "buy three and return two which we'll throw away" will no longer make financial sense. The excess shipping, storage, etc. won't happen because it won't be a viable business strategy.

I'm sorry, but you are wrong about this. The cost to produce something in dollars, is virtually identical to the cost in resource consumption.

If it's cheap to make it's because there's little environmental impact.

It's not a perfect one-to-one, but it's really close.

> practices like "buy three and return two which we'll throw away" will no longer make financial sense

But you are not changing consumer behavior! People will still buy things and return them, and those returned items are worthless, i.e. not sellable. The manufacturer can try to donate them, but no one will want them, or they will just store them forever in cheap warehouses that will burn down every once in a while, or suffer water damage.

Or perhaps you want there to be artificial shortages in stores, so there's just barely enough to buy because the store will be fearful of overbuying something they will have to keep on their shelf permanently?

Please, try to think of the results of your suggestions. You keep thinking only of your goals and not what will actually happen.