This Is Bat-Guano Insane, California

hotair.com

Should clothes be treated like toxic waste? 

California legislators and regulators think so. And as a consequence, they passed a law and are now implementing regulations that require any apparel manufacturer to fund a closed-loop recycling system, of course run through an NGO, to ensure that for everything they sell, there is a corresponding recycling of discarded apparel. 

Advertisement

In essence, SB 707 requires apparel and textile “producers” placing covered products on the California market to form a producer responsibility organization (PRO) to enhance the recycling and reuse of textiles, thus introducing the nation’s first EPR framework in the industry. The EPR will legally hold producers financially responsible for end-of-life management of the products they place in a certain market.

According to the bill, a “producer” includes:

  • Manufacturers, or the exclusive licensee (if the manufacturer is not in the state),
  • Product importers (if the manufacturer and exclusive licensee are not in the state),
  • Product distributor/retailers (if the manufacturer, exclusive licensee, and product importer are not in the state), and
  • Wholesalers (if none of the above are in the state).

    • These requirements apply to any entity placing covered products on the California market, regardless of whether the company has a physical presence in the state. This includes e-commerce and direct-to-consumer sales shipped into California. It should be noted that SB 707 excludes secondhand sellers and sellers with less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) in annual aggregate global turnover.

    The State will adopt regulations to implement SB 707 by July 1, 2028, with full rollout by July 1, 2030. Producers or the PRO must submit and annually update a list of brands of covered products that each producer sells, distributes, imports, or offers for sale in the state.

    The department will post a list of compliant producers on its website. Non-compliance will result in civil penalties (up to $50,000 per day), which will be deposited into the Textile Stewardship Recovery Penalty Account in the State Treasury.

    Advertisement

    This is, of course, insane for any number of reasons. No doubt it places a relatively light burden on luxury brands, which can absorb the cost without batting an eye, and I'm sure they have no problem with it at all. 

    In fact, it's a strategy that is well-known within public policy circles, called "fencing." Essentially, it creates a barrier to entry into a market, and government regulations work wonderfully to increase costs for smaller competitors. When I worked in politics, I saw industries do this all the time. 

    Licensing practices, for instance, are a great way to fence out new entrants into a marketplace by raising the costs of entry. One example: to become an Emergency Medical Technician in Minnesota (the guys in the ambulance), you need to complete an online course, complete 40 hours of on-site training, and obtain certification. And BOOM, you are an EMT. 

    To become a barber, you need 1500 hours of training at a school. 

    That's fencing. A lot of people can't afford the time or money to get that much training, obviously, creating an artificial shortage of hair stylists, and a steady revenue stream for the schools. 

    Undoubtedly, at least part of the reason this regulation could pass was to fence out the small guys, such as this guy who makes textiles from Buffalo hair. 

    Advertisement

    I'm not sure why you want buffalo hair socks, but apparently people buy them. 

    This is absolutely incredible. You’re watching in real time as a homegrown, family run, American Buffalo textile company needs to, under California environmental law, pay fees to a foreign NGO with ties to a European (German) for-profit company (Landbell) for the pleasure of selling his all natural, buffalo wool products in California in the name of “sustainability.”

    The thinking is this NGO collects old clothing and recycles it by repairing it and reusing it (or something). This is a preposterous program! Most modern textiles cannot be broken down mechanically without damaging the fiber quality, making them unusable in new apparel. So you spend all this money and manpower driving all over the state to collect these things and the best you can do it make a lower quality product like insulation, rags, stuffing. It’s not a closed loop system recycling socks back into socks! You’re just paying a bunch of administrators in California, a foreigner NGO, taking money out of the pockets of small American businesses or forcing them to leave the state. Most of the clothing the NGO collects will be incinerated or land filled anyways! 

    This program should be called “pay California and this foreigner NGO a bribe to sell your socks in our state.” It’s outrageous and the winners here are Walmart and target who now get to take over markets where an American buffalo producer used to be, selling us plastic socks from Chinese slaves. This horrendous law, or multi layered NGO facilitated bribery scheme, just hurt a small American business whose model promotes the most iconic species of wildlife in our country alongside education and natural fibers. 

    Advertisement

    Another reason this is stupid is that recycling textiles is stupid. They don't exactly recycle well, and a closed-loop manufacturing system where textiles get used again and again in products is a super stupid idea. 

    There are numerous challenges preventing optimum management of textiles at end of life. Namely:  

  • The collection of used textiles is not convenient for many Americans because they are not typically collected curbside. Drop off or take-back bins in retail stores or recycling centers are the main avenue for textile collection and often require consumers to make an extra trip.  
  • Sorting is still largely manual. People are needed to inspect apparel for condition, fiber content, and “re-sellability”. Although this provides employment opportunities, this manual sortation process is slow and requires a trained eye.
  • The technology which enables true or closed-loop circularity, or textiles being recycled back into textiles, is nascent in the US. Any mixed fiber apparel – most commonly polyester and cotton – makes recycling challenging from a material and economic standpoint. Most “recycling” happening in the US is actually downcycling, where apparel is shredded to be reused for insulation or rags and is unable to be re-captured and recycled again. This only extends the inevitability that the material will ultimately end up in landfill.

    • The State of California recently passed SB 707 (or “the bill”) which aims to channel textile producer funding to tackle the various challenges in textile recycling, including collection, infrastructure, and the development of necessary technology at scale. Moreover, the law seeks to encourage producers to create apparel designed for circularity.

    Advertisement

    I'm sure there are some do-gooder environmentalists who think that this idea will save the world or prevent landfills from filling up (we are NOT running out of landfill space, thank you very much), but let's face it: they are idiots and should be put in mental hospitals for their own good instead of giving them the keys to government. 

    But mainly this is about virtue signaling, paying off some big guys out there, funding a stupid NGO, and adding yet another layer of worthless bureaucrats. 

    It's California, after all, where the only consequence of doing something bat-guano insane in government is going up another rung on the ladder in government. 

    Editor’s Note: Every single day, here at HotAir, we will stand up and FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT against the radical Left and deliver the conservative reporting our readers deserve.

    Help us continue to tell the truth about the Trump administration and its successes. Join HotAir VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.