Key Findings

1. Proposed legislation would have Washington state oversee global clothing manufacturing to reduce the impacts of the industry on the environment. Many of the claims included in the legislation, however, are incorrect or misleading.
2. Citing the World Bank, the bill claims 40 percent of clothing in some countries is never used. The World Bank says this is false, calling it a “misquote”.
3. The legislation also claims clothing is discarded more quickly and the average number of times clothing is worn decreased by 36% between 2000 and 2015. However, one country – China – is responsible for this entire trend. Clothing use in the U.S. and Europe is virtually unchanged.
4. Contrary to the claims of the bill, clothing also accounts for a tiny amount of water use. In India, one pair of jeans amount to less than 1 percent of annual renewable freshwater per person. In Brazil, those jeans use just 0.04 percent of per capita renewable freshwater. 
5. The amount of greenhouse gas emissions is also small, just 2-8 percent of global GHGs to clothe people across the planet. 
6. The legislation would also risks imposing environmental colonialism  because it would attempt to override the decisions of democratically elected governments in India, Brazil and elsewhere, imposing our standards on them without their choice..
7. With the challenges of governing a global industry and overriding the decisions of people in other countries, and so many errors in the intent section,  the bill is likely to do more harm than good to workers and the planet.

Introduction

Are your jeans destroying the planet and leaving people without drinking water? That’s the premise of House Bill 1107, the “Washington fashion sustainability accountability act.” The bill would give the Washington State Department of Ecology oversight to monitor and address the production of global clothing, footwear, and textiles. The legislation notes that “the fashion industry has many negative environmental impacts, including high levels of water use, runoff pollution from the use of agrochemicals and dyes, carbon emissions, industry waste, and hazardous work environments.” 

However, some of the claims used to justify the legislation are contradicted by the same sources cited in the legislation. Other claims are exaggerated or meaningless. Additionally, the law would not solve the impacts cited in the bill. It is also questionable whether Department of Ecology staff are capable of accurately collecting the information required in the legislation.

Perhaps most importantly are the overtones of environmental colonialism. Why does the Washington State Legislature believe it can – or should – override the decisions of democratically elected governments in countries like Brazil and India on how to balance the need for jobs, environmental protection, and economic growth in their countries? The fact that this legislation can’t accurately describe the impacts from clothing is a clear indication the state should focus on solving Washington state’s many environmental challenges before trying to intervene elsewhere to impact the lives of people without their input.

READ THE FULL LEGISLATIVE MEMO HERE