[eru]

> He was about to try to resell them (along with huge bales of clothes), [...]

Regardless of what else is happening, reselling the clothes as is seems to be the best form of 'recycling' to me. Or rather 'reuse'.

> 4. Most of the garments travel around the world as waste - not exactly good for the environment.

As long as they travel by boat, the cost for that is minuscule. Both in terms of dollars and in terms of emissions.

(Yes, the ocean shipping industry burns a lot in absolute terms, but per kg of moved goods it is very, very efficient.)

[fifilura]

The point is that you can say the same thing about the ships they sail to Bangladesh for breaking up.

Sail them to Bangladesh, they are responsible for "recycling", problem solved.

The problem is that the place they end up looks like a huge dump where clothes end up to die. And with huge environmental problems. And health problems.

I am aware that shipping has less environmental impact, but was it really the intention that the clothes should have the same transportation impact when being "recycled" as when they were first manufactured? I'll let you come up with the numbers.

[eru]

> I am aware that shipping has less environmental impact, but was it really the intention that the clothes should have the same transportation impact when being "recycled" as when they were first manufactured?

The transportation impact is minuscule either way, so I don't think it matters which side is slightly bigger or smaller?

[fifilura]

Yeah. I guess you attacked the point that was easiest to refute. (Without adding any actual numbers though.)

For the sake of the discussion, it was a mistake to include it.