We could require that ships they dock in EU harbours are owned by countries that are party to some international anti-ship breaking agreement.
But it's a lot of paperwork :)
But it's a lot of paperwork :)
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_Marine_Act_of_1920#...
Or kill all the logistics companies in the EU.
And I'm not sure how to effectively police that.
Instead, the parent post is proposing to use the state surveillance app aratus to go after and prosecute the f** out of people that sell ships to India.
I said it seems like a lot of work to try to stop someone in another country from doing something in their own country.
I prefer the more hands off approach where you let people in other countries decide what they want to do as long as they aren't hurting you. If India wants to ban ship breaking or impose harsh restrictions, they can do that themselves. I think it's arrogant and dehumanizing for Outsiders to try to control what happens in India.
Environmental issues are inevitably global, and countries should talk about them and find global agreements that are fair and enforced by everyone. We can't just hide behind "my backyard, my rules".
You know this.
They're regulating the behavior of their citizens in their domain to prevent them from doing actions that will lead to detrimental outcomes for their citizens.
I mean they do, see cookie banners/GDPR, Apple, etc, but still. I'm of the unsubstantiated opinion that all the laws make the EU a less desireable market. But that's a policy based on morals instead of economics / relentless capitalism.
Actually, it will. RoHS and the push for standardizing phone connectors ended up influencing the whole world and making it a better place for everyone.
The EU is a sizable market, and unlike the US with its constant elections and government shutdowns, it's politically relatively stable. No one, as said not even Apple, can ignore the demands of the European Union.
What's your evidence for that?
By default, we should assume that the engineers building phones and the consumers buying phones are the best placed to evaluate what connectors they want. And it would take considerable evidence to convince us that some unrelated third party bureaucrats know better.
Especially since even the best case benefits are so minuscule: it's already very easy to get charging cables that have multiple heads, for that people that own multiple phones with different connectors, but only want a single cable. (And everyone else can just buy one cable or the other.)
Living in a world where I don't have a host of different power bricks in my travel bag any more, where one single Anker dual-port charger is enough to bring with me on vacation and get my stuff charged, and where when I lose my cable I can just walk into any random store and buy one for cheap.
> it's already very easy to get charging cables that have multiple heads, for that people that own multiple phones with different connectors
These multi-head cables almost all don't pass through the D+/D- pins of USB which means no way to get more than 500 mA charging current from them.
Huh? I don't have to do that, either. I only have different cables, but the power brick is the same.
The EU said "hey guys, make up your mind on a standard" to the industry at large, which led to the consolidation to Mini-USB and, later on, Micro-USB, and as Apple hadn't even moved an inch towards standardization and USB-C was validated enough to be supporting literally everything, the EU said "okay, Apple doesn't want to listen, so we bring down the hammer".
And, again, I don't see much benefit in the forced conversion of the refuseniks. Their refusal only hurts _them_; I mostly have Android devices, and I don't care one what chargers other people want to use. And evidently, they had made up their mind. And who are we to second-guess their choices?
What's next? Forcing people for their own good to accept the Divine Authority of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
The EU parliament is elected every five years, and while most of the member countries elect during the EU parliament term and so it's election year somewhere in the EU every year, national elections usually have negligible impact on the European level (outside of dramatic swings like in Poland or Slovakia between dedicated notorious pro-EU and anti-EU parties).
In contrast, the US re-elects the whole House and 1/3rd of the Senate every two years which means that the House is basically only at peace to work for a year at a time (first half year is spent on getting the newbies up to speed, last half year is filled with campaigning), and if changing control over the Senate is even possible depends on if the states whose seats are up for reelection are considered swing states or not. The entire way the US Congress works is not incentivizing bipartisan legislation, and it's outright hostile to the idea that there could be more than two political parties.
And like I said, it's a lot of paperwork.
Maybe, one day, or maybe in small increments.