There should be a law against it. It's blatant corruption. The fact that lawmakers and supreme judges have the power to make their own corruption legal, doesn't make it any less corrupt. The Nazis made their crimes legal, and they were tried anyway.

Plenty of soldiers and veterans hate what he does. The current leadership doesn't because Trump purged them and promoted loyalists.

But ultimately, it's the people of the US who have to do this. You're absolutely right that nobody else is going to do it for them.

You should consider it's much easier rich people to deal with the fallout from climate change (or living in a failed/failing state for that matter) than for poor people. Plus they often have interests in the things that are causing the issue(s) in the first place. Additionally, the children argument is probably the most powerful, but they would probably expect their children to be rich too. All in all I'm doubtful the arguments you are providing have any effect.

I think there is a level of working class poor where it hardly makes a difference what goes on to the world around your life as you are working paycheck to paycheck with much of your available time regardless. How worse it could get doesn’t look appreciably different than how bad it can get already.

A little higher up the economic pole is who stands to lose the most. Those are the people who will see actual quality of life reductions and not be able to afford to return to old norms.

Ill doers are illdeemers.

Considering the actual physical id cards have an nfc chip which is used as the second factor for the digital id, this seems unlikely.

Where the accused have rights too?

Where the journalists have very little rights, and people posting their bad (wrong) ideas (think) even less so.

Not according to the wpfi world press freedom index where it is ranked 20th.

Where speaking truth isn’t a right or a defense

They would destroy clothing because it is not sold. This already happens to second hand clothing that is shipped to Africa. Part of it is sold, part of it is dumped. This is well documented.

If part of it is sold, isn't it better than if it had all been destroyed? It's literally what that law is for.

Define what you mean by "better". Putting them on a giant CO2-burning ship to transport around the world to find every last person who wants a $1 shirt is much more harmful to the environment than just throwing it into a hole in the ground and making another one.

Given how absurdly efficient shipping stuff in container ships is, I don't believe its actually worse. Specially if the company can just save money by being slightly more conservative in terms of how much they manufacture in the first place.

Sure, let's conveniently not count the horrifically-polluting trucks in <3rd world country with zero environmental regulations> to distribute them across the interior.

You're acting like companies enjoy flushing money down the toilet by making extra stuff. They are already making what they believe are the optimal number of products they believe they can sell. You think EU bureaucrats know their business better than they do?

The point is to change what companies believe is the optimal number of products. Right now companies produce what they expect to sell, with errors in both directions being valued equally. In the future they will have to produce only what they are certain they can sell.

And other cloths they could buy don't use trucks?

The point is increasing the cost of over-production. Its not about the EU knowing better, but imposing a higher price for waste. Not sure how you are confused about that.

The additional shipments aren't going to drastically go up over a few more companies throwing second hand clothing on ships. Large crate ships are relatively efficient for what they tow.

As basic napkin math, if there's 1000 cargo ships moving in and out of the EU in a year, and this law adds 10 more. That's 1% increase. It's a bigger 1%, but I wouldn't be surprised if the emissions are less than the 9% of discarded clothes talked about in the article.

I'm going to speculate that it won't "add" ships at all

As you say, ships are moving in and out of the EU each year - the question is, how many have "back loads" - if some percentage of the ships leave Europe empty to return to Asia for more manufactured goods, then it seems very likely that they can have the containers of unwanted clothes as part of the trip.

Oh cool, so I can fly commercial all I want at zero marginal CO2 emissions just because they don't have to build an extra plane just for me? I can burn that jet fuel and not feel bad because they were going to burn that gallon of fuel anyway?

Some of these arguments are so silly that I'm starting to understand why the EU thinks regulations are a free lunch to improve the environment with no costs whatsoever.

>Oh cool, so I can fly commercial all I want at zero marginal CO2 emissions just because they don't have to build an extra plane just for me?

If they would have flown the plane there anyway with an empty seat, your added CO2 is negligible yes.

The analogy doesn't hold.

Airlines adjust capacity to demand — empty seats represent foregone revenue and future flights get cancelled or downsized.

Cargo ships don't work that way. A container ship returns to Asia whether it's carrying 1000 containers or 5000. The marginal emissions of an additional backload container are genuinely close to zero, not as a rhetorical trick but as a structural feature of how bulk shipping economics work.

Plus Python and Perl predate Java.

If you assume the primary goal is self enrichment and the rest is just side effects and distractions, things immediately start making more sense.

Yes, but then we have the blanket tarriffs. Which it seems even the most diehard are coming around to say was really, really stupid. Who's genuinely making a profit off this decision?

That definitely tells me there's ego at play here more than anything else. Even money.

That's the unheard of part of this year. Even the most blatantly corrupt politicians know not to actively throw money into a furnace.

They shorted the market and trump told people before he announced it. He even bragged about it: this guy made millions the last few days

That may also just be Firefox's way of telling you it has updated and needs to be restarted.

From what I've read it was the company's own board that asked for the ceo (Wing) to be removed.