[golergka]

> Clothes need an environmental impact label.

They already have a price label. And I expect companies that produce it to pay market price for the robots, washing machines and electricity.

And if they don't, let's fix exactly that, not just patch up a problem a couple of steps down.

[HappyRobot]

That price label may not fully represent the actual economic cost of the good (if the environmental impact externalities are not factored in). Factories could pay market price for all materials and labor, but cheap out on waste disposal. If that waste flows downstream and causes adverse health effects, the cost to that economy is not reflected in the clothing production. Market price for cotton could be the farmers who over farm their land. This price would not include the damage done and impact it might have on farming food years later.

You're right that we need to be fixing the issues at the level they appear, but every level is being squeezed for the best cost. It's up to the retailers, consumers, and fashion companies to place a larger value on environmental impact and pay the proper price.

[barry-cotter]

golergka’s point is that if there are environmental problems in the production of clothes they should be fixed as part of the problem of side effects of production rather than specifically as production of clothes.

If there are negative externalities of production those externalities should be taxed, whether in the production of books, clothes or automobiles.

[nybble41]

If there are "negative externalities of production" then the producers should be sued by those harmed by their actions, not taxed.

Otherwise, the point is spot on—environment impact should be dealt with at the source and factored into the price.