While many countries have some form of legislation to combat plastic pollution, in some countries using a plastic bag can even land you with a hefty chunk of jail time. That’s right, in Kenya, someone caught manufacturing or using plastic bags could face up to four years in prison. 

Although this measure might seem extreme to some, the fact is that across sub-saharan Africa alone, a soccer field’s worth of waste is burned or dumped every minute of the day. Amongst the many other health consequences of plastics, burning plastic can disrupt neurodevelopment and negatively impact reproductive and endocrine systems. 

But as countries battle to stop the rising tide of plastic waste, a few nations stand out for their innovative and proactive solutions. Today, we are featuring five countries across five continents who are leading the charge to end the era of plastics.

Rwanda

Rwanda became one of the first countries to take serious action on the plastic waste crisis, implementing a ban on single-use plastic bags and bottles in 2008. Violators caught carrying plastic bags can expect a $60 USD fine. As a result, the capital, Kigali, is considered the “cleanest city in Africa” and keeping the city spotless has become a central part of the city’s ethos. 

On the last Saturday of every month, Rwandan citizens aged 16-65 are required to participate in an act of community service. The program known as Umuganda, often involves community trash clean-ups amongst other social and environmental service efforts. By integrating the value of environmental conscientiousness into community efforts, Rwanda is paving the way for us all  to tackle plastic pollution.

France

Chances are when you head to the local supermarket, a large portion of the produce you buy will come wrapped in plastic. With products like oranges and mangoes already conveniently encased in peels, nature’s wrapping paper, the idea of using an added plastic casing is nonsensical. 

In France, produce like these and many others are now completely plastic-free thanks to a new law that came into effect in 2022, banning plastic packaging on 30 types of fruit and vegetables. Even the produce stickers placed directly on food items, which are usually made from plastic, must now be made of compostable material. 

Cheers to plastic-free produce!

Australia

As a federal system like the United States, the plastics policy landscape in Australia is somewhat similar, as individual states have significant power to take action on plastics. 

However, unlike the United States, all states and territories in Australia have some form of plastic ban, albeit with varying degrees of strength. 

The data surrounding plastic bans in Australia has shown promising results. In the state of Queensland, litter audits conducted in the year following the state implementation of a plastic bag ban found a 70% reduction in plastic bag litter.

A unique aspect of Australia’s plastic policy has been the proactive role of private companies. In 2018, two of the largest supermarket chains in Australia, Woolworths and Coles, self-imposed a ban on plastic bags in their stores. This decision resulted in a 80% decrease in plastic bag consumption across Australia. With the vast majority of Australians concerned about the plastic crisis in their country, it is no wonder that governments and private companies alike are getting behind the popular movement to end plastic pollution. 

Chile

Chile was the first Latin American country to ban single use plastics, with a 2022 law targeting all single-use products including plastics. Over three years, the country committed to gradually phasing out all single-use materials in the food and beverage industries, including plastic cups, stirrers, straws, and takeout containers. 

As the longest country in the world stretching along thousands of miles of coastline, and the second largest producer of plastic in Latin America behind Mexico, the country has a significant role to play in protecting our oceans and lands. With this law, Chile took a bold first step to eliminating a product responsible for an astounding 70% of litter on beaches worldwide. 

Having said that, Chile remains a significant plastic producer and exports to developing nation such as Peru, where waste management infrastructure may be limited, increasing the risk of marine pollution. This contradiction — promoting progressive environmental legislation at home while contributing to plastic circulation abroad — reflects the central challenge faced by many countries: balancing short-term economic gains through manufacturing and trade with long-term environmental sustainability.

Let’s hope Chile takes the next step in its war on plastics and stops producing it too!

Canada

In 2021, the Canadian Federal Government listed plastics as a Schedule 1 toxic substance under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. This decision gave the government further authority to regulate the substance, providing the legal basis for a plastics ban gradually phasing out the sale, use, and manufacture of plastic bags, straws, stirrers, cutlery, takeout containers, and ring carriers. 

While Canadians currently can find their streets and stores free of much plastic litter, a coalition representing plastics industry giants Imperial Oil, NOVA Chemicals Corporation, and Dow Chemical Canada filed a lawsuit debating the constitutionality of listing plastic as a toxic substance. Despite the numerous negative impacts of plastics on human health, the plastics lobby won the case, representing a significant blow to Canada’s forceful plastic regulations.

Since the Canadian government appealed the decision, the plastic ban is still in place for now, but the results of the appeal case could jeopardize the current plastic bans, bringing Canada back to square one in the plastic waste crisis. The Canadian case shows that the plastics lobby will not go down without a fight, but collective action with our environment and future in mind is forcing many countries to reevaluate their ties to the plastics industry.

What You Can Do at Home to Push Forward Bold Plastic Policy

As countries around the world push forward consequential plastics legislation, sound plastic policy is desperately needed in the United States. The good news is, we know what solutions work to stop the plastic waste crisis. Now, it’s up to us to urge Congress to put people over the plastics lobby.

This article is available for republishing on your website, newsletter, magazine, newspaper, or blog. The accompanying imagery is also cleared for use. Please ensure that the author’s name and their affiliation with EARTHDAY.ORG are credited. Kindly inform us if you republish so we can acknowledge, tag, or repost your content. You may notify us via email at davies@earthday.org or fielder@earthday.org. Want more articles? Follow us on substack.

The post 5 Countries on 5 Continents Doing Plastic Policy Right appeared first on Earth Day.

While generating an expected $1.84 trillion in 2025 (1.6% of global GDP), the fashion industry remains almost entirely unregulated, relying on a linear model of take-make-waste that exploits the world’s finite natural resources and its labor force.  

The production of 100 billion garments damages the Earth in myriad ways. It pollutes clean air and clean water systems with toxic chemicals, contributes to global GHG emissions, fills oceans with microfibers, degrades soil, creates industrial and post-consumer waste on a gargantuan scale, destroys forests, and threatens biodiversity.  

Contemporary labor practices in the industry are referred to as a “modern day slavery” characterized by poverty wages. Only an estimated 2% of garment workers make a liveable wage, leading to malnourishment, insufficient health care, inadequate housing, and other related problems.  

Furthering the impact, according to a study by the Cornell Chronicle, if current warming trends persist, the four most exploited garment-producing countries – Bangladesh, Cambodia, Pakistan, and Vietnam — could expect a 68.8% loss in industry earnings, followed by a 34.5% employment drop, threatening a larger economic crisis for these same garment workers.  

The industry is trapped in a cyclical loop where, without regulation, fashion production grows and the negative consequences enlarge. Voluntary sustainability efforts on the part of companies or consumers are ineffective.  

But now in the U.S., legislation is emerging in various states imposing long-overdue regulations and restrictions that have the power to reshape the future of fashion. These fashion act bills signal a shift, one that acknowledges the industry’s harm and holds the potential to disrupt the enduring cycle of exploitation.  

Let’s Talk Business  

There are currently four fashion act bills that propose action in New York, Massachusetts, Washington and, most recently, California. Each bill demands environmental due diligence — a process that requires companies to identify, cease, prevent, mitigate, account for, and remediate actual and potential adverse impacts to the environment in their operations. In practice, this means corporations face obligations to disclose supply chain data, report environmental harm, and set targets to reduce their ecological impact.  

Obligating supply-chain mapping requires companies to disclose the name, address, parent company, and product type of each Tier of the supply chain — which is depicted below. This creates transparency and traceability in the production process of each garment, so that your shirts can be traced from a piece of raw cotton all the way to the clothing rack at your local mall.  

Fast Fashion Supply Chain Tier (2025-26) 

In terms of supply chains, currently New York and Massachusetts require mapping 80% of Tier 1 suppliers within 12 months by volume, 75% of Tier 2 within 2 years by volume, 50% of Tier 3 within 4 years by volume or dollar value, and 50% of Tier 4 within 6 years by volume or dollar value,  Washington ask for 50% of a company’s total supply chain activity, and California asks for reporting of 80% of Tier 1 by 2027, 75% of Tier 2 by 2028, 50% of Tier 3 by 2030, and 50% of Tier 4 by 2032. Each percentage refers to the share of total production or sourcing activity those suppliers represent.  

Companies must also adhere to OECD guidelines integrating responsible business practices into their operations including: contract renewal, longer-term contacts, price premium, providing reasonable assistance to suppliers to meet environmental standards (such as carbon reduction targets), as well as developing pricing models that account for the cost of sustainable investments. 

Failure to comply with fashion act regulations would result in significant penalties. After receiving notice of non-compliance and a three-month correction period from the Attorney General, companies may face fines of up to $15,000 per violation per day in New York, $5,000 for a first offense and $10,000 for repeat offenses in Washington, and a civil penalty of 2% of a fashion seller’s annual revenues in California and Massachusetts. 

Companies resist these policies because global economies, shaped by the industrial revolution, have become economies of scale where increased production lowers average costs. This model maximizes profits and enables brands to offer lower consumer prices to stay competitive in a saturated market, normalizing overconsumption. It’s a consistent trade-off of ethical responsibility versus capital gain, and the winner has always been clear. Requiring companies to report and trace their environmental and human rights violations threatens to upend this system, which is why the fashion acts are essential.  

This is what the fashion acts will do.  

Tailored Laws 

As the first fashion bill to be introduced, New York’s Fashion Environmental Accountability Act (S4558A/A4631A), serves as a model for other states. The Act mandates greenhouse gas emissions reporting, with establishments of quantitative baseline and reduction targets. Tier 2 dyeing, finishing, printing, and garment washing suppliers must also sample and report wastewater chemical concentrations and water usage. Reporting must also include the fashion seller’s annual volume of material produced including a breakdown by material type. 

As the model, the New York Fashion Act has set the standard for Massachusetts, Washington and California’s bills as these require the same conduct. The Acts diverge in the way they integrate with existing state policies, along with slight variation in requirements. 

Here’s how:  

Massachusetts’ An Act to Establish Environmental Accountability in the Fashion Industry (H420) mirrors the New York Fashion Act, having received input from its architect, Maxine Bédat, during the development of the legislation. This collaboration underscores the power of collective action in creating policy movements across states.   

Washington’s Washington Fashion Sustainability Act (SB5965/HB2068) emphasizes transparency by requiring companies to publish environmental due diligence online, enforcing public disclosure and incentivizing a clean manufacturing process. Other bills that support fashion regulation include establishing a producer responsibility for textiles. An Extended Producer Responsibility taxes brands for the collection, sorting and recycling of their waste through payment to a registered private collection agency to support recycling or waste management programs and cover the costs of end-of-life management. 

Washington has also proposed, Washington Transparency in Supply Chains, a bill that mandates brands that gross more than $100 million to report efforts to address human trafficking and forced labor in their supply chains.  

California’s Fashion Environmental Accountability Act of 2025 (AB405) builds on the state’s strong environmental framework, which includes the “Safer Clothes and Textile Act” and the “Responsible Textile Recovery Act of 2024”. The newly proposed bill incorporates greenhouse gas emission reporting on Scopes 1,2, and 3, however the act applies only to corporations with over $1 billion in revenue, unlike other states which set the threshold at $100 million.  

California also has imposed legislation set for garment workers, such as “The Garment Worker Protection Act of 2022” which served as a model for the Federal FABRIC Act, holding garment factories and corporations liable for labor violations, while banning companies from producing “at a piece rate”, which effectively prevents wage theft.  

These Fashion Acts represent immense progress, signaling a chance for revolution — they are mandating reporting and implementing restrictions on an industry which relies on exploiting marginalized communities and using the environment for profit. When passed, these bills may be the starting point for a transformation of global development.  

Your Turn to Act…  

These bills are currently in their most critical stages where the voices of the public are vital.  As headlines become echoes of the crises, words, actions, and contributions have strength and can influence the passage of these bills.   

Legislation only gains momentum through the support of the public. “There can be 5,000-6,000 bills filed every session, so it’s less about people thinking it’s a good idea, and more about it rising to the top of people’s attention levels. A lot of it is about starting a conversation and making people more aware of it,” says Kira Arnot, Chief Staff Leader to Representative David Rogers, sponsor of the Massachusetts Fashion Act.  

Reach out to your state representatives or senators and ask them to cosponsor fashion act bills — or encourage them to create one. You can also submit testimonies in support of these bills and sign petitions, such as EARTHDAY.ORG’s petition addressing the U.S. Administration. 

One of the most effective ways to contribute to these movements is through lobbying,  which entails advocating directly with lawmakers to influence their vote. Lobby days allow communities to get in front of legislators, have meetings with them, and one on one use their voice to express what they want to see change.    

Pullquote: “There’s been so much media out there about how nothing matters. In this instance it really, really does. Showing up and getting on that bus or signing that petition, does have real consequences and makes an impact. There are things that we can do, and we must do,” Bédat tells Earth Day. 

Upcoming lobby days include New York’s on May 6th where the community is encouraged to come and show their demand for the passage of the act.  

If passed, the fashion acts could become the most powerful tool to reign in an industry long left unregulated …but the future of fashion relies on you. Want more action? Sign the Fashion Industry Must Change petition.

This article is available for republishing on your website, newsletter, magazine, newspaper, or blog. The accompanying imagery is also cleared for use. Please ensure that the author’s name and their affiliation with EARTHDAY.ORG are credited. Kindly inform us if you republish so we can acknowledge, tag, or repost your content. You may notify us via email at davies@earthday.org or fielder@earthday.org. Want more articles? Follow us on substack.

The post Tailoring a Better Fashion Industry appeared first on Earth Day.

Vermont just passed a trailblazing climate policy, calling out the fossil fuel industry and laying the foundation for more states to follow in their footsteps.

The Vermont Superfund Act is inspired by the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Superfund program, and they share more than just a name. The EPA’s program provides the agency with the authority and funds to clean up hazardous waste sites. It was created in 1980 in response to national attention and outrage concerning the environmental and human health threats of contaminated sites. These sites include processing facilities, mining sites, and processing plants where hazardous waste was dumped, left out, or mismanaged. One of the most significant aspects of this superfund program is that it forces the parties responsible for pollution to fund the restoration and clean up of their toxic waste sites.  

Similarly, the recently passed Vermont Superfund Act aims to ensure companies responsible for intensifying the impacts of climate change are also the ones responsible for contributing to adaptive efforts and resilient infrastructure. This is a polluter-pays principle, which ensures the financial burden caused by environmental degradation falls on those who created it, rather than those living with it, ie. taxpayers. 

In July 2023, when Vermont endured record-breaking rainfall, cities like Montpelier saw both the most rainfall in a calendar day with 5.28 inches pouring down and their wettest month ever with the 12.06 inches they received breaking the previous record from 1989 by a whole 2 inches.  

FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell stated “It takes just 6 inches of water for someone to be wiped off their feet, and in that water, we see a lot of debris. We see downed power lines. We see things that can cause additional damage.” 

This intense precipitation culminated in flooding that devastated many homes, roads, and businesses throughout Vermont. The state reported 4,087 homes and 839 businesses damaged by the flooding and storm in total cost the Northeast about 2.2 billion dollars. The worst hit cities in Vermont saw their lively downtown districts turned into watery ghost towns, with only an occasional canoe paddling through the streets. 

The warming temperature and increased precipitation is threatening other aspects of Vermonters’ way of life and identity as well. The Green Mountain state’s 1.6 billion dollar ski industry is suffering from the changing climate and even facing extinction. Despite the snowfall this past year reporting 15 inches above the 10-year average, snowstorms were often followed by warm weather and rain that melted the snow and ruined the conditions for the ski slopes. The Vermont Climate Assessment predicts that Vermont’s ski season could be shortened by 2 weeks to a month, and even with snowmaking, the downhill skiing sector will only remain viable until 2050. 

Taking Action

 The Vermont Superfund Act will require agencies involved in the fossil fuel industry between the years 2000-2019 to pay for the cost of recovering from and preparing for these extreme weather events. 

The “agencies” the bill targets are identified as any individual, corporation, municipality, or other legal organization that holds an interest in a fossil fuel business during the previously mentioned 19-year time period that is contributing to the greenhouse gas related costs in Vermont. 

The amount the Superfund Act will require each agency to pay will be determined by their share of the fossil fuel extraction or refinement that is impacting Vermont’s climate. Using the EPA’s Emissions Factors for Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Vermont will be able to determine the fossil fuels and therefore greenhouse gas emissions attributable to each agency. Approximately 8,000 facilities are already required to use this system to annually report their emissions to the EPA. 

The bill will also rely on Attribution Science, which has enabled researchers for the last 20 years to model the degree to which human behavior has contributed to severe weather. Andrew Parish, the vice president of a non profit conducting attribution science research, Climate Central, claims “We’re able to say very clearly, ‘We would not be experiencing these intense global temperatures without human-caused climate change and the history of carbon pollution,’” 

Those in Favor and Those Opposed

The bill passed with a super, veto-proof majority through the Vermont legislature and was heavily supported by nonprofit and conservation agencies. The Republican Governor of Vermont, Phil Scott, let the bill become a law without his signature. While he acknowledged the need to mitigate the environmental devastation being felt in the state, he advised caution in how to go about it: “Taking on ‘Big Oil’,” he said, “should not be taken lightly.” Scott fears the bill will undergo thorough examination from a wealthy defense eager to find any holes or weak spots. This could not only kill the Vermont Superfund act, but stunt the process of other similar bills being considered in other states. 

These worries are substantiated by the American Petroleum Institute’s unsurprisingly heavy opposition to the Superfund Act. The lobbying group wrote a letter to the Vermont legislature, stating their opinion that the bill unfairly blames fossil fuel companies for activities that go back decades and create energy the economy depends on. By maintaining that these climate issues are the result of “society at large,” they hope to strengthen their argument that the legislation is possibly unconstitutional and once again blame consumers. 

Won the Battle But Not the War

Despite these threats, the Vermont attorney general stated “The science linking climate change to severe weather damage is robust enough to withstand scrutiny,” affirming her readiness to defend the law and echoing confidence in attribution science. All eyes will be watching this process; it is vital this law be deemed constitutional by the courts, otherwise all the momentum and accomplishment of passing this Superfund Act will have been for nothing. 

Many other states such as Massachusetts, New York, and Maryland are looking to pass similar legislation. If Vermont’s Superfund Act can be established and workable, it has the power to create change that will reach far beyond the Green Mountains. Vermont is in a position now to help establish a legal sense of accountability for those exacerbating the already detrimental impacts of climate change, by forcing harmful corporations to put their money where their actions have been.

The post Vermont’s Superfund Act Leads by Example appeared first on Earth Day.